It won’t make anything better. You can’t throw a shitty AI chatbot at a shitty touch UI and expect the shitty touch UI to magically transform into something not shitty for use inside of a vehicle.

Maybe this is going to come across as just pedantry, but I really feel like some people are missing some pretty important things here. The thread started with this question:

Honestly, how is it any better to send young men there? I’m not wild about sending pregnant women and children there obviously, but…are we indicating that men don’t matter?

I thought it was wild to leap to “men don’t matter” on a post about pregnant women and children being sent to a concentration camp. That pivot felt misguided at best, and misogynistic at worst. I replied with a reminder that pregnant women and children are a more vulnerable group than men, as an alternative, *non-malicious explanation for why the article calls those groups out specifically. I was just trying to push back on the misguided notion of “media reports on group A, therefore they don’t care about group B.”

Neither would I, and I haven’t said anything of the sort.

You’re either misunderstanding me or I’m not being clear enough, but I didn’t say any of that lol. I’m gonna go step by step here and try to be really clear, but if I’m misunderstanding anything please let me know.

All people should be spared inhuman behaviour.

Yeah, I agree with you, and I don’t think I’ve suggested anything to the contrary. I’ve just said that certain vulnerable groups sometimes require more protection than men. Because they’re more vulnerable than men.

I’m sorry but “i don’t like equality” feels like nonsense to me.

It feels like nonsense to me too, probably because I didn’t say that either. But what it seems like you’re suggesting is to ignore the circumstantial differences between groups, even when one group is more vulnerable than another, in the name of treating everyone the same, i.e, “equality”. But I take issue with that, because that sort of thinking leads to inequal outcomes. As in, if a vulnerable group is treated exactly the same as their less-vulnerable counterparts, the vulnerable group will experience more negative outcomes on average, thus experiencing inequality.

Men should have every potection afforded to others.

In general, yeah, absolutely, except in cases where a particular protection only applies to a group that excludes men. The same logic applies to every group. Maybe this is just semantics at this point, but I don’t see the point of affording a protection to a group that it doesn’t apply to. All that is sort of beside the point though, because at no point have I suggested that any one group have protections taken away, just that some vulnerable groups require more protection than others in order to experience equality.

we should protect all people to the best of our ability.

One hundred percent agree. In my view, we do that by trying to figure out what everyone needs as a baseline, identifying the more vulnerable groups by figuring out who that baseline doesn’t satisfy, and then figuring out what extra things those vulnerable groups need. That’s all I’m advocating for - protecting vulnerable groups by figuring out what extra protections they need, not taking protections away from less vulnerable groups.

Ah, and there’s the air of superiority. Beautiful irony.

No, but you are fighting over trivial nonsense

Or, and hear me out here, instead of escalating to a “immature schoolyard shouting match” for whatever reason, you could look at a person’s pfp, have your feelings about it, and then move on to something that actually matters

But I am gathering that there are a lot of people who really enjoy schoolyard shouting matches and invite them because it makes them feel superior to fight others over trivial nonsense.

The irony of you saying this is not lost on me

Nope, just clarifying since you seemed to be confused. Anything else I can help with, let me know partner

Good thing my joke comment on a joke thread on a meme post didn’t imply anything of the sort then

Sure, just like it’s fully fair for people to clown on someone for judging them based on something as unserious as a social media profile picture.

Sure, but there are some protections that apply to pregnant women and children that don’t apply to men. Ignoring that in the name of “equality” or dismissing that as “loopholes in morality” seems off base to me.

Counterpoint: sometimes it’s just a funny picture I like, and sometimes it’s some anime titties I like. Assuming it’s always going to be a meaningful representation of the user is unrealistic.

No u

That’s fair, but I get the feeling that the researchers came up with their conclusion before performing their study, and then interpreted their findings to fit that pre-supposed conclusion. The only thing this study can fairly claim is that some homophobic men may harbor homosexual desires. They’ve failed to demonstrate any causal linkage between those two attributes, but they’re heavily suggesting one exists. Maybe their abstract grossly oversimplifies things, but it seems to extrapolate their findings far beyond any reasonable conclusion in my opinion, and that makes me question their methods and motives more than I normally would. The publication date also raises flags, as the common pervasive sentiment about homosexuality was very different in 1996 than it is today. All of those things combined indicate to me that this study should be carefully considered with plenty of grains of salt at hand.

But to get back on topic a little bit - my original intent was to refute the notion that if someone has a problem with the methodology of a scientific study, then they must perform their own study and present evidence to support a contrary claim. The examples I listed are things it would be reasonable to expect a layman with solid critical thinking skills to point out as potential flaws in this particular study, potential areas to look further into, to confirm whether or not the study is scientifically sound.

No, what you said was “if you disagree with the science, perhaps you should do your own study”.

“Disagree with the science” is a disingenuous oversimplification bordering on nonsensical. People are calling into question the methods of the study, and the conclusions reached by the scientists interpreting the data. All of which can be accomplished with good critical thinking, and all of which is part of the scientific process. We’re not “disagreeing with the science”. We don’t need to repeat this experiment or run our own to be able to point out that it looks like there are flaws in this study - we just need to have good critical thinking skills.

If you disagree with the facts, it is your responsibility to disprove them.

What facts? Are you implying that the content of a scientific study becomes “fact” simply because a scientist publishes it? Because that’s wrong, and any published scientist will tell you as much.

Nah, nope, nuh-uh, that’s not how science works. A person’s concerns about the methodology or conclusions of a particular study are not invalid just because they haven’t run their own experiments.

It’s pretty easy for even a layperson to question this particular study, for a few reasons:

• The sample sizes are very small
• Some men can get erections/aroused if the wind blows the wrong way, or even for no reason at all - putting porn in front of someone and expecting them not to become aroused is a dubious assumption at best
• Using some external test to determine someone’s sexuality, instead of using the person’s self-identification, goes against the last 30 years of progress we’ve made in gender and sexuality studies
• The conclusion of the study may indicate some level of homophobic or anti-homosexual bias

Don’t gatekeep good critical thinking. Good critical thinking is the only thing you ever need to question any scientific study.

This is a meme post about em dashes, dawg

I think it’s nice actually that we can recognize that pregnant women and children are more vulnerable groups of people that sometimes require more protection than men. I say that as a man.

Again, we’re talking about a hypothetical situation

I’m laying down actually