| ▲ | lagniappe 4 days ago |
| Why do people so badly want everything to be about race? |
|
| ▲ | thrance 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Racial profiling is now legal: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court... |
|
| ▲ | DrillShopper 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nobody wants it to be, but wanting something to not be about racism doesn't make it not about racism. Jim Crow "ended" (it's what we tell ourselves) in the south in 1965 with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965. Our last two presidents were adults when that happened, and it's not like racism was solved when those laws were passed. The US still has a lot of work to do here - it's absurd to me to hear US Conservatives talking about how slavery ended in the 1860s so we should end protections for African Americans because it's been "so long". It hasn't, and they know that. |
|
| ▲ | MangoToupe 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What do you mean specifically? |
|
| ▲ | lupusreal 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Fragility. |
|
| ▲ | const_cast 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| ... Because most things involve race? Like, clanker is the equivalent of a racial slur but for robots. The reason it works and is funny is because we already know what racial slurs are and have a contexr for it. If racial slurs didn't exist, neither would clanker. You have to actually think about the world we live in and why things are the way they are. Its a easy to say "just cuz lol", but we're engineers. Nothing happens "just cuz". No, there's a reason. |
|
| ▲ | flykespice 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Perhaps because it's a fictional slur that is cleary a play on the n-word, a real racist slur? |
| |
| ▲ | progbits 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What's the connection between those two words? You know, aside the -er ending like in say teacher. | | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | flykespice 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | dpassens 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'd consider equating people and robots rather more degrading to people than calling non-people "slurs". | |
| ▲ | wedn3sday 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | No reason to be uncivil. It's a bit of a stretch to say that "clanker" is related to race in any way. Lots of slurs have nothing to do with race, you're projecting your own bias and prejudices as some sort of universal linguistic truth. In highschool band the percussionists called the wind section "honkers," were they making some vailed n-word allusion? No, it was silly and the wind section were all blowhards so we made fun of them with a little in-group slur. | | |
| ▲ | LocalH 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Anyone who says "clanker" is analogous to any actual racial slur is revealing their belief that AI, in its current state, can be deserving of the same rights that humans have. Which is demonstrably false, given the current state of AI. Now, true AGI? There's a debate to be had there regarding rights etc. But you better be able to prove that a so-called AGI is truly sentient before you push for that. This isn't Data. There is nothing even remotely close to sentience present in any LLM. I don't even know if AGI is going to be achievable within 100 years. But as far as I'm concerned, AI "slurs" are just blowback against the invasion of AI into everyday life, as is increasingly common. There will be a point where the hard discussion of "does true artificial general intelligence deserve rights" will happen. That time is not now, except as a thought experiment. | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | LocalH 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's closer to "cracker" than the n-word | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
