[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1699417227192.jpg (154.54 KB, 850x1202, 425:601, 9e17adabe434eca3b29d70cfda….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What happens if/when AI/robots become better and more cost-effective than humans for most jobs, leading to massive unemployment?

Personally, I am also still worried about getting paperclipped, but even if you don't think that an unfriendly AI will exterminate humanity, there are still massive economic problems that will be caused by AI.
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1700334549108.png (321.83 KB, 1080x803, 1080:803, Screenshot_20231113-132040.png) ImgOps Google

Suppose that AGI provides for all our material needs: good housing, good food, good healthcare, etc.  I worry that this might still be a dystopia.  For many, it is important to have a sense of purpose and to engage in meaningful work or activities where one can utilize one's skills and which provides a sense of accomplishment --- what if AGI deprives us of this?



I think that the traditional concept of the meaning of work would disappear as a result of AGI, freeing up people to be able to pursue more meaningful work. Jacque Fresco (with The Venus Project) talks about this in one of his videos from 2009 (I think it's from one of his movies): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUCmHH6grsI but it still seems to be relevant.


>What if AGI deprives us of this?
This is a question that I believe cannot be answered even slightly at this moment because it hasn't been adequately studied either academically or otherwise. It does matter. It should be asked. I hope that it gets looked into (since the possibility of individuals feeling like sponges as per your image is indeed real).


File: 1697811157452.png (625.03 KB, 1080x1200, 9:10, Screenshot_20231020-092413.png) ImgOps Google

Elon has messed up a lot in running Twitter, but Community Notes is a rare example of a clear improvement to Twitter under Musk's ownership.  Do you agree?
6 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1701755407043.png (250.66 KB, 650x898, 325:449, a3f2db9d9e05b163038109edf0….png) ImgOps Google

There was a precursor before Musk, but it sucked.  Basically just slapping a "this is misinformation" label on anything that questioned the official narrative about COVID. Even for posts that actually were misinformation, it didn't explain what exactly was wrong with the post.  The new Community Notes are much higher quality.


File: 1705362530354.png (1.11 MB, 1080x1587, 360:529, Screenshot_20240115-184654.png) ImgOps Google


Exactly right.


File: 1698829158349.jpg (20.37 KB, 305x165, 61:33, Spongebob.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

A lot of the debates on the Israeli-x-Palestine conflict that has recently flared up in a violent way has brought back old academic and popular culture debates on settlers, on colonialism, on the formation of nation-states, and on the idea of legitimacy in the creation of countries as legal entities.

A major issue is that of what makes a territory a "homeland". What makes an area an inherent place designed to be occupied by a certain race, certain religion, and certain ethnicity to the exclusion at worst or detriment at best of other categories of people. It's a sticky issue.

For example, "Palestine" as a territory is popularly thought of as a homeland for Muslim Arab peoples based on Islamic rule through Arabic culture that would either not have Christians, Jews, atheists, et al or would subject them to second-class citizen status in those lands.

In the U.S., the argument is made that this a white European based Christian nation made as a homeland for those peoples to which other groups (such as Muslims, or Black people, or transgender individuals who aren't Christian) are mere guests or such.

>What are your thoughts?

In my opinion, the concept of a "homeland" is not an ethically or legally viable one. Anybody living in a territory ought to have clear-cut civil rights such as the right to bear arms and freedom of speech regardless of their social group status w.r.t. their religion or whatever else. Nonetheless, I would call a "homeland" a practically and rationally viable concept. Historically, it can make sense to view a patch of land as having significant meaning to certain groups with that being given social respect that doesn't involve coercing anybody to do anything. For instance, the national parks associated with English colonial shipping in America ought to preserve educational information, such as protecting buildings for tourists, without this meaning that "being English" as an ethnicity is somehow targeted for political meaning.

P.S. I don't want to use a sad photo of Israelis or Palestinians being hurt or anything related as the OP, so have SpongeBob, I guess.
14 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


I thought from the thumbnail that Hagrid was yelling "But I am also a scientist!".

And, to be honest, I like that idea more.

Scientist Hagrid spin-off AU when?


I also think it's fucking stupid that other countries have to get involved.

Let nature take its course.

It's from my immortal


Yes, but I still like the other idea about Hagrid.


File: 1700413439951.jpg (324.14 KB, 1080x1849, 1080:1849, Screenshot_20231119_105945….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

It appears clear that the people of America have no consensus or majority view in terms of what foreign policy should be.

What will end up happening? What should happen? Will this division change into something more united later on?
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


>agreeable cougar

I think I met you at the bar last night



Interesting. While I don't go to bars, it's quite likely I'm not the only one in the world who ever presented this particular combination of thoughts and ideas somewhere at some time.


 No.12436[Reply][Last 50 Posts]

File: 1692881828290.jpg (88.45 KB, 982x1024, 491:512, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Gender Egalitarianism a movement for equal opportunity for the different genders, as applicable.  I don't think that people of different genders have to be equal, just that they should have the option if they prefer equality.  Are you in favor or do you have negative opinions about this general notion?
116 posts and 35 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Cheer up, humans may be worked to death making paper clips before becoming them.

Best of luck in starting a ponyville academic journal.  Sadly I will be on sabbatical for awhile.  But thank you for reading my posts, if you did, as I do not have a direct quote with the word "read" from your text.


File: 1698812692340.png (364.02 KB, 700x993, 700:993, swirlstar.png) ImgOps Google


Haha, thank you. Enjoy ~


I'm pretty sure that said AI wouldn't be using snails.

However, that's a scenario that I've never come across in my life in the media (as in "dangerous snails"), and I'd be curious to see that done.

While this is an off-topic post, I suppose it being a sincere message that's complimentary (as in "this is really interesting") means that it's not harmful.


File: 1698712862412.png (912.16 KB, 1216x1024, 19:16, large.png) ImgOps Google

This is a thread for opinions on transgenderism for animals who consent to view and share opinions on transgenderism.

I have the opinion that adults should be allowed to assert a gender or pronoun preference among groups of adults who consent to adults in the group asserting a gender or pronoun preference, where state power allows this to happen.  Adults should be able to prefer not to maintain contact with others who don't respect their pronouns, again where state power allows.  I have no opinions about children; I consider that other people's business.  I don't have opinions about groups of adults who do not consent to see or conform to pronoun preferences of other adults, except that they should not seek independent destruction of groups of adults who consent to adults in the group asserting a gender or pronoun preference, for the reason of those adults seeing, asserting, or respecting pronoun preferences.

You may agree or disagree with my opinion, with or without amplification, or express your own opinion, if such expression follows applicable site rules and law.

Happy discussing!


File: 1698713200492.png (125.17 KB, 952x840, 17:15, darn.png) ImgOps Google

Given some purposefully inciteful posting in townhall surrounding this topic, and the bad faith engagement i have seen, i am preemptively locking this thread, and issuing a warning that any further inciteful behavior will be met with a ban.

i think we've been generous in allowing the discussions to happen, but they've become increasingly mean spirited, shifting further and further away from the rather strict rules we have here on /townhall/.

The staff is discussing whether to permanently disallow this topic in the future, in light of the constant bad faith engagement we've seen around it.


File: 1694663294529.jpg (59.51 KB, 580x386, 290:193, shiba pup pvc pipe.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Should children learn a foreign language (such as Japanese or Finnish) in elementary school?
3 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1694812450870.jpg (121.04 KB, 710x994, 5:7, 1618107725751.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


File: 1694813126344.gif (22.22 KB, 70x70, 1:1, Old_flight_icon.gif) ImgOps Google

I am pretty sure they already do.


Children will learn in school what the state decides they will learn.  In some countries Japanese or Finnish are not foreign languages.  I'm not an expert on childhood development.


File: 1698038719135.png (283.31 KB, 914x1077, 914:1077, Screenshot_20231023-012212.png) ImgOps Google

4 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


It makes perfect sense to me that if you're a European conservative in the vain of those trying to bring back Otto Von Bismarck style traditionalist authoritarian glory that you'd support Russia achieving ultranationalist goals under a certain banner held up by Putin.

I'd refer to something like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultranationalism#Background_concepts_and_broader_context

What is Putin trying to achieve? The advancement of the Russian race. The purity and cleansing of the Russian race. The destiny of the Russian race as a classification of people given its inherent strength and ability due to their higher intelligence, stouter courage, tougher determination, better physical endurance, and the like is to achieve a massive Empire across both Europe and Asia as respective of the God-given destiny given to this tribe with such excellent literature, artwork, music, and the like. The rejection of corruptive elements such as Judaism, homosexuality, feminism, transsexuality, pornography, Islam, and the like that pervert a white Christian people from its destiny is logical.

As conservatives in Vichy France put it, **Travail, famille, patrie** Work, family, homeland. As conservatives in the Kaiserreich put it, **blood and soil**. That's the mindset.

If you're, say, a European conservative looking to create what you think is the idea theocratic ethnostate existence for the native Ayran race in Europe, why not look to Putin? Why not see him as hero? He's upholding Bismarck's legacy.

To me, I should say, this is genocidal madness of the worst kind. Yet I admit that extreme national pride is a powerful thing. It's like a spiritual form of heroin addiction, I suppose. Terrible yet agonizingly appealing in the pleasure you feel.


> To me, I should say, this is genocidal madness of the worst kind. Yet I admit that extreme national pride is a powerful thing. It's like a spiritual form of heroin addiction, I suppose. Terrible yet agonizingly appealing in the pleasure you feel.
I would have really hoped most people would have been over it after WW2.


While I think that the struggle against these issues is just and reasonable, and we should go through with it even if we're not sure what to really do, I don't know if it's actually possible for modern humanity to exist without extreme racial, ethnic, and religious prejudice.

These ideas have been as naturally human as drinking water and breathing air for millennia now.


File: 1695177340012.jpg (52.26 KB, 361x750, 361:750, e1e0df94bcae8d6f909b786eb6….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If you had a magic button that would repeal all gun-control laws and prevent enactment of any gun-control laws for 20 years, would you press it?  For purposes of this question, a "gun-control" law is a law that criminalizes the keeping or bearing of ordinary small arms by free adults or restricts free adults from acquiring such arms (including ammunition).  It does not apply to laws that restrict children, prisoners, inmates of mental asylums, etc., nor does it apply to laws restricting bombs, nuclear weapons, etc.  Also, it doesn't apply to policies of denying entry to sensitive places for persons bearing arms.
16 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Again only for on public roadways.
But that aside, the only limiting factor as I understand it are necessary components for safe operation on the road.

Do those taxes carry with them the penalties of years in prison with a felony if you have merely the components to make it shorter, and thus the "intent to construct"?

You're right that there are import restrictions, but I think it obvious to say, they're no where near as heafty as the requirements and restrictions on importing firearms.
And of course, once again, these restrictions you mention only apply to their use on public roadways.

>Sure the laws and regulations aren't identical but that's because nobody has been on enough cocaine to regulate the magazine size of a Misubiti or the caliber of a Dodge, or the rear view mirror angle and passenger side air bags deployment zones of a Browning.
Right. Because that would be absurd and would accomplish nothing.
Just as it has done for guns.

Nobody worries about a "shoulder thing that goes up" on a car, because it's obviously meaningless and changes next to nothing.


File: 1695526745987.jpeg (151.62 KB, 941x1244, 941:1244, F6quQT1XEAAympK.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Reminder: most early gun-control laws were explicitly racist and "applied only to particular groups, such as slaves, Blacks, or Mulattos".


It seems to me that the fundamental problem behind all of this is that the United States has an extremely "flat" justice system - almost, almost everybody goes through a nearly identical ringer no matter what they chose to do and gets out relatively soon-ish.

For example, the average punishment for murder or manslaughter is about nine years in prison.

This means that, ethically and morally, if you're arrested for something like selling bags upon bags of weed out of your house full of weed such that you get placed in the same cell alongside a man who intentionally ran over a child with his truck... maybe you receive three years in prison. You eat the same food. Sleep in the same bed. Get the same health care. Exercise in the same way using the same equipment. You're only as safe as he lets you be. You're getting the same essential punishment except in time duration.

Thus, the life of a dead child in the United States is legally equal to three houses full of weed.

This is even worse when you think about how something like stealing a computer set can get you a year in prison, so then a murdered child is the same as nine laptops.

Is it any wonder why normal people living their normal lives think of U.S. law enforcement and criminal justice as a complete joke? The most likely outcome if I get shot in the head walking home one of these days is that nothing happens to the criminal that did that. The alternative is them getting a stint in what's basically Crime University for a few years only to be right back out there. America, ladies and gentlemen.


File: 1694132756615.png (1.05 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, large.png) ImgOps Google

Context: "Starfield is an action role-playing game developed by Bethesda Game Studios and published by Bethesda Softworks." - Wikipedia

I just see this peculating down to Facebook, but I gather a controversy has formed over the freedom of a player to select gender pronouns.

I think this goes back to the notion of consent.  The ability to select pronouns is going to be seen by some as unethical, inappropriate, or a restriction of their religions freedom.  If an environment exists that would allow choice or preference of this kind, people should be informed ahead of time and be allowed to opt out.  People buying this game were not given this information, I gather, and are quite upset, feeling this optional menu item is being forced on them.  I guess it goes back to not making assumptions about others and allowing choice.
14 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Thank you for your consideration.  I find it best if I avoid the mental health industry.


I think that if political conservatives want to play video games without transgender people, black people, without Jews, without gay people, without disabled people, and so on, then there should be customizing options so that you can go about your game without encountering characters with darker skin shades or otherwise having your politics offended. Games are supposed to be fun. I believe.

I can't disagree more with their beliefs, but if this is them expressing them personally in private association and consuming private media, well, it's their right. That's that. Same thing with how going to a church or a book club or a ski lodge means the ability to kick out anybody for any reason no matter the justification. And how TV channels can refuse different things.

And, of course, if somebody walking down the street chooses to refuse to speak to any feminine man or any woman in a wheelchair, we would say that that's the individual's right? Yeah? I would think so.


>n there should be customizing options so that you can go about your game without encountering characters with darker skin shades or otherwise having your politics offended.

It would be charitable of a game developers to always create a non-political version of games for those who prefer.  We have to accept that some people's existence is going to be political, but in my opinion nobody has the duty to not exist, even in fiction, so game developers don't have to make a game without some potentially offensive class of human.  But we also should try to be empathetic, minimize offense, and respect freedom, which is the basic idea behind your post.  I do agree with that.


File: 1694332398505.png (200.93 KB, 820x1024, 205:256, large.png) ImgOps Google

Would you like to discuss ideologies and political theory broadly or more current events?

Would you like to talk about issues of social and environmental justice or more business and economics?

Futurism?  Tech? More about elections?  Wars?  Less of something?

Or do you want to discuss the politics in the MLP universe?
2 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Also fewer weird baiting threads would be nice.


So just the removal of the board?


OK.  Are there topics that are not political that you have in mind instead?

Hmm...I take it none of the threads are acceptable.  That is unfortunate.

I guess less of everything is an answer to the question.  But you'll have to recommend site changes to staff.


File: 1694492724922.png (753.31 KB, 1080x1779, 360:593, Screenshot_20230912-001047….png) ImgOps Google

Is the NFA tax on sound suppressors unconstitutional under the Second Amendment?
6 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.


Have to agree. Suppressors funnily enough are perfectly legal in Europe, by large, without any kind of issue.
The movie trope of untraceable silent murder that nobody notices is just not realistic.
Honestly, even if we did go by movies, it isn't like they're used by criminals, anyway. It's almost always state actors. Spies, assassins, agents of the powerful. Funny how that works.

But, yeah. All that's functioned with this is the creation of felons for no real cause, and significant distrust by the American people in the federal government thanks to events like Ruby Ridge.



>Ruby Ridge
Why you should own guns a case study.


I would operate under the inherent, default assumption that any regulation of firearms given the 2nd Amendment has to pass an inherent sense of legal scrutiny in terms of rationality. And these rules don't work. They don't pass the bar. They should be gotten rid of.

I've yet to see any factual evidence whatsoever provided that imposing a de facto kind of quasi-ban on sound suppressors reduces violent crime. This idea kind of just comes out of whole cloth. Even without evidence, really, I don't get the logic. A firearm with a suppressor on it is noisy. Less noisy than otherwise. What does that matter, actually? Would this actually change the plans of violent criminals doing what they want to do? I don't think so.


File: 1693696732533.png (942.63 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, large.png) ImgOps Google

Racial equality is assertion that racial differences are cosmetic and not substantive in terms one's abilities, character, or rights.  Is this general idea good, bad, or offensive in your opinion?  Is there any reason to try to be racially egalitarian (or I suppose to try to be less if your opinion is that racial equality is unwise)?
15 posts and 5 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1694269581465.jpg (86.88 KB, 640x511, 640:511, Ideal_Conceal,_Inc._Montic….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Ideal Conceal pistol
It is a nifty idea, but the sights suck, and so does the ammo capacity (it only holds 2 rounds).  I suppose it would be adequate if you're going jogging and want to be able to neutralize a dog who bites you, but I wouldn't rely on it to deal with two-legged threats.


>If I'm a police officer in an urban location, finding out that local criminal groups, especially dangerous gangs, are arming themselves with this will mean that I'm at a far greater danger than otherwise.
Not really.  With a good IWB holster and baggy clothing, it's easy to conceal normal compact pistols and sometimes even full-size pistols.  Gang members arming themselves with only an Ideal Conceal pistol would probably put cops at *less* risk, due to the very low ammo capacity.


It really has to be asked whether the concealability of such a gun is that much better than your typical derringer.
They aren't especially large, and ultimately, that seems to be all these are.


File: 1693010901722.jpg (141.86 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, large.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If you have a heterosexual relationship, you can identify that in public.  If you have a homosexual relationship, it's controversial, but maybe.  And if your relationship involves some kind of weird kink thing -- nobody wants to see or hear about that, keep it private.

Society is roughly a place for the normal. The assumption is that when people go out in public they consent to seeing normal things.  They don't consent to seeing weird things -- that should be done in private where people can opt in or out.

So some process determines what presentations, activities, things, and ideas may be public and what ought to be private.  What is this process?

I'm thinking of forming a science and tech society and have been thinking a lot about consent.  The more things we consider private business, the more we can give people the option to consent or not, possibly reducing conflict.  For example, should people's exposure to science happen only following consent?  Would that make people happier about science?
9 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


I doubt too many people would object to a police officer shooting an armed robber, at least under most conditions.


>Either you destroy the freedoms of certain politically and religiously motivated people by preventing them from hurting their perceived enemies, or you grant those freedoms and therefore in term allow the liberties of those opposed enemies to die instead.

Some religious people prefer to destroy or harm others.  Religious people must at least remember God is not above the state, but religion should be granted as much freedom as possible.


That's fair, but then most people would lament that the entire situation had to happen in the first place.

Similarly, doctors would celebrate a car crash victim successfully having a piece of a steering wheel or the like removed from their body and that individual walking around happily recovered, while at the same time lamenting that the person had their vehicle slammed into to begin with. Somebody with a cancerous tumor successfully removed would wish that they could've spent the entire hospital time with their families relaxing instead in the first place. And so on.


File: 1693580623429.png (525.05 KB, 765x562, 765:562, Mitch-McConnell-Image.png) ImgOps Google

Should elderly U.S. politicians who've publicly suffered mental and physical impairments such as Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Diane Feinstein, and Mitch McConnell be kept from further public office? Is it time to work out tough legal changes?

Or is that fundamentally a terrible idea? What exact legal tweaks would you want if they do happen?

r.e. the OP image, https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/7/27/23810222/mitch-mcconnell-health-retirement-senate
4 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Adding such an additional qualification would require a constitutional amendment.  


I personally agree with this.

Context is indeed important. And "what counts as having suffered a mental or physical impairment" is a fuzzy concept. I agree as well. Your observation about "bigger problem of inadequate representation" is logically sound, but I personally don't know what to say about that.

This seems rather logical, but I don't know the issues about U.S. law in this area personally.


Age isn't the issue. Impairments are.
If you aren't physically capable of doing the job, you shouldn't be in it.
Though really, this ought be something the voters solve.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]