Not even then: people are fallible, partners can cheat, and admitting that creates a compromising predicament for the person least likely to admit it. It’s in everyone’s interest of health to simply take all sensible precautions regardless. Only reason not to is when you want to conceive.
And? The word enshittification is not a great contribution to society.
immiserated and precaratized
dafuq?
Whereas the people who choose when and how to use AI — the centaurs
que?
The Reverse-Centaur’s Guide
A bit contrived?
Thanks for bringing us this extraterrestrial perspective, OP. Extraterrestrial voices matter! 🫡
Mangosteen? The rind hardens like leather & makes a nice container/ornament.
Maybe diospyros virginiana?
Cling to semantics if you need to, but the spirit of what I said was true.
Is it? Doesn’t seem a valid argument.
Hitler embraced the construction of the autobahn. Therefore, the autobahn is evil.
operates the same way (guilt by association fallacy). I agree bluesky “was always going to shit” for entirely different reasons like repeating the same mistakes of twitter.
Maybe you could offer a more logical argument for your conclusion instead of dragging the discussion into irrationality?
and they’re taking it out on the trees.
What did the trees do to deserve that?
Are you referring to yourself by claiming your ignorance somehow matches legal expertise? Cool ad hominem, by the way: fallacies (including strawman of the transformative use argument), blame-shifting when you can’t back claims with credible evidence, & self-indulgent vanity are the hallmarks of trolls. Way to out yourself, buddy. 😄
Don’t need to: their lawyers understood the law & lawyered successfully so far.
Precedent means we can cite it, so yes, this helps a bit. The rest you wrote is a fair bit of assumption or unnecessary: evidence to back your points would help. Otherwise, it just looks like inconclusive defeatism.
Moby Dick
You could also try understanding the law
§107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
with particular attention to factors 1 (especially transformation) & 4.
If that’s not for you, though, then you should definitely try that with a copyright work (Disney?) & report back on how that went.
I wouldn’t be so confident without a legal argument to support your opinion.
The people.
Words can get someone involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Words can be used to take away rights. Words can affect national policy. Words were what Adolf Hitler used to send people to the concentration camps, and they’re what Donald Trump is using to do the same thing today. Words are extraordinarily dangerous.
Nah, none of those. All instances of harm require unnecessary action taken by choice. Words can be disregarded. Acting on words is the actor’s choice.
When we legitimise words that dehumanise the mentally ill
They’re not doing that. Moreover, using such words alone doesn’t do what you claim. There are a number of steps between a word you find offensive & adverse action: that argument is a slippery slope. Unless the words incite imminent action, people have an unbounded amount of time to think & arrive to a decision before taking action. Any amount of discussion can occur during that time to influence & inform decisions. Rather than an overgeneralized attack on using a word, a more focused & coherent argument to support human rights could be raised.
Over relying on offense & emotion to steer their judgement discounts people’s capacity to reason & infantilizes them, which is condescending. Offense & emotion are not reliable guides of judgement. Speculation that it would promote better outcomes is not a valid argument. That such an approach would work better than reason is poorly supported. We could at least as plausibly appeal to reason rather than to offended emotion with the bonus of not irrationally overgeneralizing.
People can interpret context to draw distinctions & you’re overgeneralizing. The overgeneralization underpinning your offended opinion isn’t a valid argument. Neither is the speculation offered to support it. Telling people their words mean something they do not, disrespecting their moral agency & ability think, & insulting their intelligence to discern meaning is unpersuasive. Promoting a rational argument more specifically supporting the outcomes you favor would be more persuasive.
Follow your own link: it’s back (in archive mode).
Because you can’t: worthless opinion discarded.
Are you making something not about yourself about yourself? That…checks out.
Ironically, it might support the author’s point. Now I’ve got to reexamine how much this explains other social media interactions.
That’s going to get someone hurt. These words have just as much destructive potential, so we need to treat them the same way.
Offense isn’t harm: no one is getting hurt. You’re overstating the harm of expression by appealing to clinical language & understating the need for resilience & enough judgement to discern that in context, the word has a looser meaning. It’s a bit overdramatic.
Moreover, conventional language doesn’t operate the way you suggest: there’s no such rule about psychiatrists & “off limits”. No one is obligated to share your opinion on this: it’s not fact.
The right choice.
That shit’s awfully condescending & paternalistic.
For deficient plans: AI gets shit wrong so often, we should probably encourage idiots to concoct their “foolproof” plans on it.
Nah: thought isn’t action. Liberty means respecting others’ freedom to have “unsafe” thoughts. Someone else could pose the same questions to audit security weaknesses & prepare safety plans.
Moreover, all of this was already possible with a search engine & notes. Information alarmists can get fucked.