Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this. Also, happy April Fool’s in advance.)

  • maol@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    My University Keeps Sending Me Stupid Emails About AI, a continuing series:

    A poster that reads "This house believes that AI is the future of climate resilient design". There is also a picture of a robot.

    From the email:

    The debate will be chaired by Michael Pike. Speaking for the motion are Prof. Gregory O’Hare (TCD), Maeve Hynes, Prof. Gary Boyd and Chatgpt assisted by Student Curator Ruan McCabe, all UCD. Speaking against the motion are David Capener (UU), Lucy O’Connell, Peter Cody and Meabh O’Leary, all UCD.

    • bitofhope@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Artificial Intelligence is the future of climate resilient design in the same way that asian pseudo-medicinal ED treatments are the future of the white rhinoceros.

    • istewart@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Notwithstanding the subject matter, I feel like I’ve always gotten limited value from these Oxford-style university debates. KQED used to run a series called Intelligence Squared US that crammed it into an hour, and I shudder to think what that’s become in the era of Trump and AI. It seems like a format that was developed to be the intellectual equivalent of intramural sports, complete with a form of scoring. But that contrivance renders it devoid of nuance, and also means it can be used to platform and launder ugly bullshit, since each side has to be strictly pro- or anti-whatever.

      Really, it strikes me as a forerunner of the false certainty and point-scoring inherent in Twitter-style short-form discourse. In some ways, the format was unconsciously pared down and plopped online, without any sort of inquiry into its weaknesses. I’d be interested to know if anyone feels any different.

      • maol@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I have no knowledge or insight on the topic, but I used to get recommendations for “intelligence squared” videos on YouTube and I always thought it was a terrible, self-aggrandizing title for a series or event. Smart People Taking About Smart Things.

        • Architeuthis@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Intelligence2 didn’t seem half bad when Robert Anton Wilson was the one talking about it way back when, in retrospect all the libertarianism was a real time bomb.