and i wondered: if women in the past were hunting and thus using their skill like men do and yada yada, not gender roles like today and stuff, does that mean that there was no patriarchy back then?

But you asked exactly that - and I gave you examples of women that “were hunting and thus using their skill” and there was no patriarchy in some of those systems - even into the present.

Also - let’s be real - most men nowadays who talk about “men hunting” are fat slobs who couldn’t hunt a chicken with a limp ;)

There are tribal people that live in matriarchy. If that answers your question. Also, the amazons are not just a myth.

I think you went off on a tangent. This is not what I was complaining about. Also, I do not have a problem with “gender stuff” - I just have a problem with a lack of objectivity.

The theory proposes that hunting was a major driver of human evolution and that men carried this activity out to the exclusion of women. It holds that human ancestors had a division of labor, rooted in biological differences between males and females, in which males evolved to hunt and provide and females tended to children and domestic duties. It assumes that males are physically superior to females and that pregnancy and child-rearing reduce or eliminate a female’s ability to hunt.

Oh boy, what a load of bullshit to start an article that may very well have a solid point. I lost all interest in reading at this paragraph.

“It holds” - as if there was only one theory - and everyone who believes that men were mostly hunters and women mostly gatherers would be guilty of the assumptions mentioned thereafter.

I, for one, only ever heard that due to men mostly hunting (because women were busy with children), men evolved to have a better perception of moving images e.g. small movements of prey in hiding, and women evolved to have a better perception of details of inanimate objects (e.g. finding things to forage). And that explanation - while not necessarily correct - made sense, and is in no way the sexist bullshit that the article insinuates.

The author of that article is not doing feminism a favor by basically alleging “all who believe men evolved to hunt and women to gather are chauvinists”.

I meant that thanks to abstract art we’re willing to forgive “image glitches” in art by deep learning models.

Generative AI is much better at art than coding.

Mostly because humans invented this convenient thing called abstract art - and since then tolerates pretty much everything that looks “strange” as art. Must have been a deep learning advocate with a time machine who came up with abstract art.

Clearest difference I can see is:

• people who act more in the interest of society and less in the interest of those in power get arrested
• people who help those in power tighten the leash on society (fuckerberg, muskrat, etc) get courted and don’t ever face consequences

In other words: A high profile person in tech being threatened with arrest / being arrested by western countries is a pretty good sign that they were not cooperating with our totalitarian overlords & providing us with ways to preserve our privacy.

thanks, now I’ll be policing my own speech for this :D

Removed by mod

For the purpose of protecting important data, the distinction really doesn’t matter. And the good old xkcd comic has a point - for many people, all relevant data is in the user’s accessible storage area anyways. Hence me running almost all internet applications and steam in a jail.

Okay, fair point, let me rephrase: if someone knows what kernel (admin) level execution means, and installs a game that requires this on a computer where they keep important data, they are a dumbass mtherfcker :) Generally speaking though: most people shouldn’t be allowed to use technology - humans are unbelievably stupid for the most part.

we just need one pvp game with kernel level anti cheat

Leaving aside that security patches should be done, if you install that kind of game on a system where you have any data worth protecting, you’re a dumb ass mtherfcker. Sorry, but seriously, that’s just how it is.

Spent a night there with “Suntrek” company (probably no longer exists) mid 90s and watched the movie open air. The best part was to see devil’s tower in the movie, then turn your head to the right & look at the real thing.

what a pathetic weird dumbass

Didn’t read the second paragraph as part of the quote, to be honest - too much space between paragraphs. Or it got lost the moment someone took offense that I said this wasn’t the best quote to link to the title. I still stand by this. Would have avoided this whole discussion here had the post replaced the word racism with anti-semitism

The referenced OP quote Dahl makes rationalizing the Holocaust, a specifically ethnic genocide, doesn’t strike you as racist?

That context is not part of the quote though. As a matter of fact, unless you started mentioning it, and specifically with a jewish perspective on this author in this very thread, I wasn’t aware that he was also rationalizing the holocaust.

How are you defining racism if not as prejudice against a specific race?

I am bewildered how you and some others keep misquoting me this badly. I thought we had already agreed on the bottom line? I’ll sign out of this discussion here, there was nothing to be gained beyond a fruitful exchange, and that is no longer to be gained.

I was not arguing the point that the author had racist opinions / convictions. I was saying I expected there to certainly be a quote that was more fitting to the post title. Especially since as you confirm there are plenty of quotes. Anyways, I came to the post to inform myself - I have heard the name, but the works of this author are not among those books I have read.

Well - the discussion originated from my comment that the OP quoted something anti-semitic in a post whose title is about racism. I just thought it’s maybe not the most fitting example. But yeah, it doesn’t matter too much.

In no way am I trying to dismiss the article by saying “I’m not weighing in on that”. Nevertheless, my core point remains unrelated: antisemitism should not be used interchangeably with racism. And by saying that, in no way am I trying to condone either.

You specifically brought up Jewish genetic diversity in your previous comment:

Yes, because it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in biophysics to see that there are slavic jews, caucasian jews and arab jews at the very least.