Dear hearing aid providers: stop only advertising your hearing aids for old people – from a deaf 19 year old who’s used hearing aids since she was 7
Note: you don’t have to use hearing aids, or have any form of hearing loss to be able to reblog this
Deaf people using hearing aids should be as normalized as people with vision loss wearing glasses.
(Side-note – I used to see stuff along the lines of “it’s
ok/not-ok to reblog this in-joke if you’re not part of the minority group making
it” statements, and I can understand that, but lately I feel as though there
are more “[group x] deserves acknowledgment and civil rights! PS – it’s ok to
reblog this if you’re not a member of [group x],” and I can’t figure out if it’s
a subtle way of nudging allies to reblog, or if there actually are people who
worry that agreeing with a statement by a member of [group x] is appropriating
their struggle, or something.)
Okay so like. Apparently twitter started some meme about calling Millie Bobby Brown homophobic because of some fake tweet someone made about her… even though she’s like. Fourteen.
And it got so bad that a lot of people didn’t realize people were kidding (jokes or not though it’s still fucking nasty) and the poor girl deactivated her account
“I know it’s bad but it’s so funny”
Y’all ruined some child’s reputation and chased her off of Twitter for the sake of some shit joke that isn’t even that funny. This is so incomprehensibly immoral and disgusting that I’m really struggling to find why anyone would do this.
MBB is a NICE person who is vocally supportive of the LGBT community and again a child. Have y’all gotten to a point where you’ll just give someone a life ruining label (again a lot of people were not aware that people were being facetious) and not even think twice about the consequences because y’all are just blind sheep in desperate need of attention.
This is the kind of internet culture I hate, the complete lack of empathy for good people while also preaching about social justice. Literally why are SJ bloggers getting all over this? Y’all preach nonstop about protecting children and now here y’all are traumatizing some poor girl and calling her a homophobe for the sake of an unfunny meme that’s been around since she was TWELVE
Steve Rogers: Fellas, let me handle this. We’ll have two hockey pucks and make ‘em cry, a yard bird with the works, three orders of frog sticks with plenty of sea dust, eve with a lid on for me, and Atlantas all around.
(and as for the concern that covering trans healthcare is too expensive for a “small” company like Dark Horse: Barry Deutsch offered a rebuttal with evidence here: https://twitter.com/barrydeutsch/status/1005941450264068096, but beyond that, what Jay is alleging is more than just coverage but that it is part of a systemic culture from management that is hostile to queer and trans people (& to criticism) )
Androids are my special interest so i’ve been following discussion about them and development of them for almost ten years and I’m stupid passionate about it. If anyone is wondering where we are at in our ethical discussion of robot development, this is whats going on.
Most of the discussion seems to be between these 5 fields:
Robot makers of all kinds (from animatronics all the way to industrial robotics) Psychologists Sociologists Lawyers/Lawmakers Ethicists
The general consensus has been:
All: Humanity clearly wants these robots and are getting blisteringly close to being able to build them to Chobits level, but not Blade Runner level, so while we have some free time between those phases lets talk about potential outcomes.
Psychologists: hem hem. we are concerned about what happens to the way we develop relationships. Humans imprint on things hardcore and because of this we are concerned.
Sociologists: I mean… yeah thats a concern, but its not nearly as concerning as what introducing an entire class of humanoid beings without rights to a society where real living people dont have rights
Lawyers: speaking of rights, what happens if you kill one. Like. do we call it “kill” or is it “break?” can you kill something that’s technically not alive??? what if you rape it?? Can you rape a robot? I feel lawsuits coming and its making me itchy.
Robot Makers: Everyone calm down. They’re just objects, they’re toys. Its chill.. See, we’ll make something like it and see what hap–they broke it. they fuckin destroyed it. They destroyed it in a creepy way too….We are now also concerned.
Psychologists: Maybe we should be less concerned about people falling in love with robots and more concerned about what all this might do to their understanding of the disposability of concent and personhood.
Sociologists: YEAH MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE, PSYCHOLOGIST.
Ethicist: While you were all talking I’ve been thinking about what Lawyer said about raping a robot. While technically it wouldn’t be “rape” by our laws, would the robot perceive it that way? Do robots have concepts of justice?
Robot Makers: They don’t if we don’t program it into them. See I’ll just make this prototype and–wow. it can comprehend fairness and concern. I only taught it the difference between a safe and unsafe situation under the circumstances of it rolling off a table or not. huh. uh. ok…thats. hm.
Lawyers: If it can be concerned for its well being, does that give it personhood? Becuase if its got personhood, its gotta have rights. And if it needs rights, we gotta make laws.
Ethicist: The question is not whether we think it has personhood, but more whether IT considers ITSELF to have personhood. Because historically, people have decided other groups of people dont have personhood regardless of the opinon of individuals within that group and it was bad. Like… real bad.
Sociologist: Does anyone remember what i said 20 years ago about being concerned about introducing an entire class of humanoid beings without rights to a society where real living people don’t have rights? Can we be concerned about that now?
All, chagrined: Yes.
Sociologist: Cool, lets move on. Ethicist brought up an interesting point about personhood and Lawyer brought up an interesting threat about personhood and Robot Maker is having an existential crisis about what it means to become God. So let’s condense our viewpoints and overview potential consequences:
1. we agree that society frames the use and consequences of all products/entities developed in it.
2. personhood is self-defined, and thanks to Robot Maker we now know that adding components to a robot that seem benign can have the added effect of them developing aspects of personhood.
Robot Maker, interrupting: And I think that the more complex the android, the more immediate and complex their understanding of personhood would develop–
Sociologist: Yes, we get that. This is a review. Anyway, 3. When they develop that personhood, they should be eligible for rights??
Lawyer: Get back to us on that, we’re trying to figure out whether this is going to make us a lot of money or just be a giant red-tape headache and you know how much we hate those. But also, if we give them rights they might not kill us all later, so we’re taking that into consideration.
Sociologist: Noted. 4. when they develop personhood, denying them rights is unethical????
Ethicist: Technically yes, but that’s dependant on the definition of personhood within our legal systems ethics. You see Kant believes–
Sociologist:
Psychologist:
Robot Maker: while you guys were talking I made a robot that has opinions, can understand the nuances of humor, can teach itself to walk, and also doesn’t like humans much apparently so can you tALK FASTER PLEASE
And that’s where we’re at now. That was 35-ish years of intracommunity discussion condensed.
Mooncustafer 