[zeruch]

Possibly. In most cases, the satire has become so arid, and reality such a cataclysmically stupid bit of incoherent lunacy, that "satire" is now just a corpse of bones that all the most bleak and nihilistic forms of humor sit upon like a throne...or clown-ass shitposters.

It's impossible to tell anymore, and that makes me weirdly happy and angry at the same time.

[barfbagginus]

People who think that it is impossible to tell what is satire anymore simply lack communication skills and the empathy to connect with others and find out.

I could tell you I'm being 100% serious. And rather than wondering how that might be, and asking me to explain, you'd still be wondering if I was pulling your leg.

That is a skills issue.

I'm being 100% genuine and truthful. I really think that's some people are joined so closely with their need for computers that we should give them specific protections and rights, to give them access to the systems they need to be happy and healthy. That is the only valid robot rights issue at the time.

And keep in mind the people I'm arguing with think we should give AI their own legal rights, the way corporations have. That's what I'm arguing against. It only makes sense to give rights when genuine human suffering will happen otherwise.

[bavell]

I don't understand why people look at me funny when I tell them I'm a squid person. Must be a skills issue.

[barfbagginus]

If you told me you were a squid person or cat person or a woman with a penis, or a robot, guess what. I have the skill to not be an asshole to you about it.

Some people lack that skill. So it's clearly a skills issue.

Specifically it's a lack of inclusivity and empathy skills.

[zeruch]

Satire and pedantry actually aren't that much of a flex.

[barfbagginus]

I'll cop to being pedantic. It still doesn't make me satirical. You can want me to be satirical. But I'm still being 100% authentic.

And I'm not flexing. I just shared my stance on robot rights.

The people who are flexing are people who think AIS deserve full human rights, even though AIS don't feel pain or have human needs.

My argument is that people who depend on cybernetics at a deep and profound level should have access to the cybernetics they need to have quality of life.

That's not a flex. That's just human rights in the context of technology.

[golergka]

You're in a cult.

[barfbagginus]

People who depend on technology for quality of life should have the right to safe and accessible technology. That's my cult.

If you think people who need technology should instead be given dangerous and inaccessible technology, we have a problem. Because then you're in an opposite cult.