Worked through my obsessions a bit and let go of them. In the following weeks I asked three women out and got shot down each time instead of thinking about doing so for a month and being a creep.

Unironically, good on you. That’s character progress and it takes a lot of courage and self-confidence to accept rejection in a mature way and keep trying regardless. For what it’s worth I as an Internet stranger think we should help more people do the same sort of things.

Her name is [kept to myself because I’m a gentleman who doesn’t kiss and tell]. I hope I, in turn, am not someone’s most alarming thing but it’s possible :P

I’d say it’s sometimes ok, sometimes necessary for brevity, and sometimes accurate. Accurate = “All people need oxygen, water, and calories to survive.” Brevity = “Generally speaking, people enjoy good food and good company so those situations work well for forming relationships.”

Consequences of generalizations have a lot to do with how tolerable they are. If I say, “most people like pizza” there’s not much harm if several million people don’t. If I say, “all or most people of this gender/ethnicity/religion/whatever have X problem” that’s a lot more problematic because it can easily lead to a consequence of harmful prejudice. When it comes to matters of ethics, beliefs, accusations etc. it becomes very important to handle cases individually as much as humanly possible.

I have a lot to say when reading a headline like this, but it boils down to: I really hope advances like this and EV’s topple the fossil fuel industry that’s hurting our planet.

Given the recent solar eclipse, I’m reminded of the people who stared directly at the sun and found it to be dangerously bright.

I can think of two fairly active potential homes for that content: Showerthoughts, which is for random trains of thought that you think others might relate to. Lemmy Be Wholesome is for content that you feel elevates people’s moods, is supportive, shares good vibes and so on.

It isn’t too much to ask. According to Dr. K of HealthyGamerGG (Harvard Psychiatrist/Instructor), research shows that the release of non-consensual porn makes the unwilling subjects suicidal over half the time. Non-consensual porn = deepfakes, revenge porn, etc. It’s seriously harmful, and there are other effects like depression, shame, PTSD, anxiety, and so on. There is functionally unlimited porn out there that is made with consent, and if someone doesn’t want to be publicly sexually explicit then that’s their choice.

I’m not against AI porn in general (I consider it the modern version of dirty drawings/cartoons), but when it comes to specific likenesses as with deepfakes then there’s clear proof of harm and that’s enough for me to oppose it. I don’t believe there’s some inherent right to see specific people naked against their will.

Interesting fact: Einstein cheated on his wife with, and eventually married, his first cousin. “Their mothers were sisters, thus making them maternal first cousins. The couple were also paternal second cousins (i.e. their fathers were first cousins).”

Another interesting fact: as many as 80% of all marriages historically were between first or second cousins. About 10% of all marriages in the world today still are, and up to 50% in some areas.

Now if you don’t mind, I have a banjo to tune.

There’s this really entertaining forensic psychiatrist named Eric Bender who does multiple analyses videos of pop culture “insane” characters using real scientific/medical knowledge.

• Here he talks about Ledger’s Joker in Dark Knight. Summary = the Joker is psychopathic (violent, doesn’t care about others, others are pawns for his “game”), but not psychotic (experiencing a break from reality, hearing voices, etc). Ledger’s Joker would not qualify for an insanity defense because he knows what he’s doing is “wrong” and experiences the real world as opposed to hallucinations. He’s not mentally healthy or normal though and possibly doesn’t understand how to interact with the world.
• Here he talks about Phoenix’s Joker from “Joker”. Summary = much the same as Ledger, but still interesting to watch. He discusses risk factors (abuse, neglect, genetics) that can be an extremely rare “Pathway to Violence” that could apply to the Joker in this movie.
• Here he talks about various Arkham Asylum inmates, including (briefly) various versions of the Joker. Summary = much the same, but also talks about Anti-Social Personality Disorder. Also, the fact Joker avoids capture means he knows what he’s doing is “wrong” or at least illegal.

So the movie versions of Joker aren’t insane in the sense that they’re lost in hallucinations and unable to discern reality from make-believe. The Joker likely wouldn’t be sent to an asylum in the real world. The Jokers of the movies are psychopathic, evil, uncaring, manipulative, etc. For the most part, to them the world is a game and it’s all about the Joker being the main character with everyone else being pawns to be used for evil amusement.

You may just have a bad hairdresser. I put up with “ok” haircuts for months when I moved into a new area, then one month I decided to try a 2nd shop instead. I brought the same pictures to both places but the 2nd place was immediately better and fixed the problems. She even remarked that my issue was something the 1st shop should have recognized immediately because it was a) obvious and b) not hard to remedy. Don’t be afraid to visit another place if you have one available.

To people who aren’t sure if this should be illegal or what the big deal is: according to Harvard clinical psychiatrist and instructor Dr. Alok Kanojia (aka Dr. K from HealthyGamerGG), once non-consensual pornography (which deepfakes are classified as) is made public over half of people involved will have the urge to kill themselves. There’s also extreme risk of feeling depressed, angry, anxiety, etc. The analogy given is it’s like watching video the next day of yourself undergoing sex without consent as if you’d been drugged.

I’ll admit I used to look at celeb deepfakes, but once I saw that video I stopped immediately and avoid it as much as I possibly can. I believe porn can be done correctly with participant protection and respect. Regarding deepfakes/revenge porn though that statistic about suicidal ideation puts it outside of healthy or ethical. Obviously I can’t make that decision for others or purge the internet, but the fact that there’s such regular and extreme harm for the (what I now know are) victims of non-consensual porn makes it personally immoral. Not because of religion or society but because I want my entertainment to be at minimum consensual and hopefully fun and exciting, not killing people or ruining their happiness.

I get that people say this is the new normal, but it’s already resulted in trauma and will almost certainly continue to do so. Maybe even get worse as the deepfakes get more realistic.

Usually one of the first steps is dehumanization - make your targets “less than human” in the eyes of the population. Nazis famously did it by comparing Jews to rats. You’ll notice in a lot of recent Israeli press releases and media Palestinians are referred to as “inhuman animals” or some variation of that. By creating that disconnect between your targets and “normal, healthy” humans you reduce empathy and make harsher treatment seem acceptable.

Another step is to make your audience disgusted or angry. Studies show there’s a link between those two emotions and harsher judgments (although degree/method is still very much an area of research). To invoke disgust you may use words like “filthy, wretched, diseased, mindless” etc. Using the Nazi example again, they made cartoons that showed Jews as dirty, greasy and generally disgusting. To make people angry convince them your targets are “immoral, violent, bloodthirsty” and so on. Nazis leaned heavily into blaming Jews for society’s ills and calling them thieves. Both effects can be made greater if your audience is conditioned to be sensitive to anger/disgust, i.e. being raised to believe in strict definitions of purity and so on. For Nazis it was the idea that Aryans were racially superior. For Zionism it often involves teaching people they are “God’s chosen” with other races not having the same rights (like rights to dwell in territory claimed by Israel) because of religion.

So if you can make your victims seem less than human and enrage or disgust your audience you convince people to do horrible things. They won’t feel like they are doing it to valuable humans and often think it’s a form of justice or necessary cleansing. Using the above psychological “levers” can shift perceptions so large populations view some other group as different to relatable, valid people.

The defining characteristic is usually direct oversight/power. Can the person reward/punish/fire you? If so then there are ethical concerns involved in a relationship (although a relationship may not be strictly forbidden). Is the person an authority figure like a police officer? Same deal.

Relationships are complex enough that judgments should be, and to the best of my knowledge often are, made on a case-by-case basis. E.g. of course police officers can still have relationships, but they can’t say “Date me if you don’t want a ticket”. For bosses working every day with employees it’s also tricky. In the professional circles I know of it’s considered risky for a boss to be sleeping with an employee but not forbidden. What is outright illegal is pressuring an employee into a relationship of any kind. Sexual/romantic relationships can still happen, but consent has to be clearly stated and unforced.

From the American Medical Association (and many other countries have similar guidelines): "In general, physicians should not treat themselves or members of their own families. However, it may be acceptable to do so in limited circumstances:

• In emergency settings or isolated settings where there is no other qualified physician available. In such situations, physicians should not hesitate to treat themselves or family members until another physician becomes available.
• For short-term, minor problems."

That’s brutal because it’s so fitting. Well played.

I guess I’ll adjust my life goals to “hot cyberpunk partner in technological dystopia”, because that sounds like some Bladerunner/Cyberpunk 2077 stuff.

I had not read anything like that but a quick search pulled up this story from last September by Wired that supports your post: FBI Agents Are Using Face Recognition Without Proper Training. “Yet only 5 percent of the 200 agents with access to the technology have taken the bureau’s three-day training course on how to use it, a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) this month reveals.” So it sounds like you’re right, and also that they are probably inadequately trained even if they complete all 3 days on how to identify people with legal ramifications.