Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)OK
Posts
2
Comments
657
Joined
2 yr. ago

True Gaming @kbin.social

I need game suggestions for "non gamer" SO with some unusual preferences

Stable Diffusion @lemmy.ml

Stable diffusion SDXL0.9 is amazingly consistent, and consistently amazing

  • Hm. I was thinking of the problem in terms of "what is", and not so much "what it looks like". SG-1 is a good example, where the argument is that there is no actual magic. Its "sufficiently advanced = looks like magic" not "... = magic".

    I interpreted the question to consider actual existence of magic. So, I suppose it hinges on how "magic" is actually defined. Where I thought it would be some kind of forces / energy that is manipulated by will or tools. Hm... I suppose this is a lot more nuanced.

  • Isn't it always different things? "Magic" being a different set of rules for how the world works. Technology being the things that can be achieved given the rules. And, whether advanced technology is influenced and how, depend on those rules, lore and culture.

    If for example magic is only available to some people with the ability or what not. Technology will always be available regardless.

  • I think they're referring to the online experience. Every single post about some "woman who does something intelligent / skillful", with enough attention (and it doesn't take much!), will contain guys being absolute shits.

    Seems like the confusion can be attributed to assuming the discussion was limited to "being outside".

  • It's not like the concept of using media as a source of misinformation and a tool for fascism has no historical precedent. What's absurd, is for it to be so black and white, and a bunch of finger clogged people going "nu-uh, dis different"

  • Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • I never considered it all that much of a paradox. If anything, it's a linguistic contradiction. It's a question of whether we should tolerate someone (in-)directly causing/wishing harm onto others. It also doesn't matter whether they understand it themselves.

    A lot of aspects that are considered "political", are arguably just "harm onto A that benefits B". I think it is right to call these out. Universal health care, education, affordable housing, etc. Take off the capitalistic monocle, and certain "rights" and "wrongs" are painfully obvious.