Came here to see discussions about the truly insane case mentioned in the article. Actually found an entire comment section full of ‘not all men’ vs ‘basically all men’ threads

The start of the headline lured me in for the biggest WTF moment I’ve had in ages. I’ll be sweating bullets the next time I see something about a former model/Miss-Wherever

The '90s was 30 years ago. In the '90s the '60s were 30 years ago, so I think the analogy holds up

I assume they only ever watched the awful 2001 version, which has a more faithful ending to the original Planet of the Apes book than the 1968 film. In the book it’s also an alien planet, rather than Earth.

They probably never bothered to watch the 60s film and just assumed that they knew what was happening because the ending is so iconic and has been widely parodied for 50+ years.

Except the people who are opposed to Imane Khalief are not engaged in a good faith argument about gender not being binary and what a woman even is. They’re trying to impose a binary by saying a woman has to conform to our standards.

Look at how they’ve targeted female rugby players and boxers who have ‘less feminine’ features in their conception by accusing them of secretly being trans women. It’s all about appearances because these women dared to be strong while having strong facial bone definition

Okay but then would you put Michael Phelps in his own category for having:

• The torso of a 6’8 man and the legs of a 6’0 man, giving him a disproportionately large chest and less leg drag in the water
• A wingspan that’s longer than his own height (his arms stretch to 6’7!), something so freakish and concerning that he thought he might have a disease at one point in his life
• Double-jointed elbows, chest and feet that are basically flippers because of how much he can bend them

Or do you just accept that some people are extraordinary and that a Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps or [insert female athlete with unusual physical characteristics] can come along once a generation and dominate a sport because they were born to do so?

Who said anything about women fighting men??

It’s totally fine to be interested in these things. Where it gets murky is when people say things like: women with too much testosterone are too good and should take drugs to block their natural testosterone levels. Just because someone is at that 1% advantage level doesn’t mean we should stop them from competing. If anything we should let them cook so we can see what the upper limits of human potential could be

We’re talking about a cis woman who was born in Algeria, where gender reassignment is not a recognised practice. She is not trans, regardless of what chromosomes she has.

This weird obsession with female athletes who have too much testosterone or a Y chromosome being in some way at an unfair advantage is also absurd. Male athletes who are genetic freaks are just recognised as extraordinary for their height, wingspan or lung capacity. The same should go for women

‘Peoples is peoples’ apparently. What’s not to get?

The point is not that we can’t imagine speculative technologies. The point is that this is a grift which distracts from the real and present threat of AI like the threats to privacy, artists’ livelihoods and the internet itself which is being poisoned by LLM generated content

I don’t think he plans on delivering much product at all

Well good news. If the product you’re imagining is ‘Skynet’ or a ‘god-mommy’ both of those are science fiction and we don’t need whatever this bullshit is to save us

Possibly the most obtuse person I’ve encountered on Lemmy

I think we need regulation, that doesn’t make me a person who irrationally hates children skateboarding.

Also skateboarding hasn’t led to and been complicit in genocide on two continents, but social media has in Asia and Africa. If it had, maybe you’d see people writing op-eds about that instead of social media companies that value profits more than human life

deleted by creator

Again… banning the worst practices of social media is to help people. I think this is a comprehension issue at this point.

We need to break them up, and legislate against their practices for the future but this is something that can happen right away and hit them in their pockets

That was in my original comment. I was clearly making the point that the aim is to legislate against harmful practices. I don’t think most people need it spelled out for them why that is, or why we can’t do it right away but I’ve done my best to be patient in explaining it to you.

If you want to take a weird stance that I’m being mean to corporations that’s up to you, but I didn’t say anything vengeful let alone posted a ‘screed’

It’s really not about revenge. It’s about taking back power from corporations and giving it to the people. Right now, political power is with the highest bidder and these companies know it.

They are using the money from advertising to lobby and buy politicians, which is what stops us from having sensible regulations for social media. Taking away that revenue stream inhibits their ability to do this, so it’s a win for the people

The rest of these comments are surprising because I don’t remember anyone past an interaction we had. Now I’m wondering whose shit list I’m on

Except many advertisers don’t want to be associated with damaging things. So this has an impact on advertising revenue for social media companies and they would absolutely view this as a blow to their public image.

We need to break them up, and legislate against their practices for the future but this is something that can happen right away and hit them in their pockets