#$@%* DUDES BE #$@%* SLEEPIN’

i actually don't think it's a bad faith nonequivalent argument to point out that artists are perfectly capable of holding a moral stance about what they will produce and sell when it comes to AI, but not when it comes to gambling or sweatshop labor. i can't really imagine why being righteously opposed to AI is just natural regardless of whatever hypothetical financial benefits could be gained from it, but expecting a similar stance towards extractive business practices or exploitative labor conditions is some sort of unbelievably high bar to meet. Why? Can anyone explain to me why other than pure, naked self interest from artists that AI is a more legitimate moral concern than those other two things?

ngl kinda hate that "this has been discussed extensively you're just 21" tweet cos it was directed at a trans woman who was getting dogpiled for saying that the "dangerous man in a dress" horror trope is shitty

she was born in 2005, the right wing culture war against trans people has been going on for half her life, if she independently arrives at a correct take then how is that something worth mocking?? you got flowers sprouting through concrete, water them dumbass

Where's that tweet about how American chants are "let's go [team name] and some other country (Irish?) fans are "I've made up a song about the other team's drinking problem to the tune of London Bridge Is Falling Down one two three"?

first one looks like the dogs gonna n64 mario jump into a painting

instead of “this person made good art so they can’t be a bad person” try looking at it like this: “this person made art so they can’t be a good person”