/townhall/ - Townhall

>>12665
That doesn't answer my point!

There's also the thing that even if you guys claim that me being religious in any capacity makes me "retarded" and "inferior", well, you're going to have to prove that God doesn't exist in the first place to form the bedrock of your whole ideology.

To be honest, the fact that being religious at all makes you labeled "retarded" and widely hated in the world today, at least today, seems to me to be a regression and a negative rather than some kind of cultural progress meaning advancement.

>>12663
Nobody said it's inferior. Nobody said it inherently involves unhappiness or whatever. Would you say this same thing to a blind person asking to see? Did Jesus perform magical eugenics and think those he healed inferior when he cursed their blindness? The question of inferiority shouldn't even be asked, but it also shouldn't even be a question if help should be given if someone is asking for help with something and the means to provide it is is very readily available. No one said to force the ability to see onto people, we're talking about people who WANT to. Would you deprive them of that right for this outlook you have?

>>12663
Who has claimed that blind people should be considered to have less moral worth than other people?  Certainly not me!

>>12668
Why are you unable to understand the difference between allowing somebody the free choice to change themselves based on the idea of them being loved and cared about no matter what they choose, on the one hand, versus forcing somebody to change no matter what they think because that's the only way that they'll be perceived as being a person worth being alive, on the other hand?

Why are you unable to understand that these two things are not the same?

>>12669
See: >>12670

>>12667
I don't know where this is coming from. My first post here should indicate I don't have any problem with you being religious or anything. I'm an agnostic and Have been religious throughout my life not even an atheist. Though being an atheist wouldn't imply I have something against your beliefs either... maybe you're seeing people saying this elsewhere and it's coming out in a strange way but I don't have anything against you being religious or believing in God.

>>12670
>Why are you unable to understand the difference between allowing somebody the free choice to change themselves based on the idea of them being loved and cared about, on the one hand, versus forcing somebody to change no matter what they think because that's the only way that they'll be perceived as being a person worth being alive, on the other hand?
Uh I do understand the difference because I never advocated the latter. I don't know what gave you the impression that I think they are the same.

People who advocate for eugenics don't understand how genetics work.

https://youtu.be/zpIqQ0pGs1E?si=DcWCZwyL1LKI0zT8

And this is getting beyond the whole question that I don't think a lot of these things are "disabilities" in the first place.

Being Jewish. Being Black. Being tall. Being very manly looking. Having a deep voice. Being Hispanic. Being gay. Being bisexual. Being transgender.

All of those things may be precieved as being negative for you, in modern U.S. society right now, but are they really inherently biologically a bad thing for you to be?

Suppose science makes us all short feminine types who're all covered in perfect-looking lily white skin and so on, and so forth.

Isn't it kind of horrifying that science has caused humanity to become far more homogenous and same-y due to peer pressure, then, should this dream of some types be enacted?

Why not just literally make everybody clones? Take the ideology to its logical conclusion? Why not?

Get rid of all masculinity. All skin shades that aren't white. All hair colors that aren't blonde. All height that's beyond a certain centimeter threshold. And so on. Use genetic engineering to scrub all difference from human variety.

Design "perfect humans" with "perfect IQ abilities" and "perfect health" as well as other factors.

Would that actually be a better America to live in?

>>12674
None of those things are a negative to me. There's like one poster here who arguably sees any of those things as a negative from what I read and it's no one you're currently talking to. I think there's a lot of confusion and misunderstanding of definitions going on here.

>>12675
Because no one is advocating taking away a person's right to choose what they do with their own body?

I'll say this, though, given current socio-economic trends... this likely is the future of humanity (and nobody who isn't in this picture will be allowed to exist):

>>12677
Well that's not the future I want nor is general sameness, but I do want people to be able to choose what they do with themselves according to their wants and especially needs. I also see no reason why everyone would want to be a woman, it's rather human for at least a set of people to always deviate from the norm in every way imaginable (and I don't think wanting to look like the same kind of woman is at all the norm), so short of literal mind control or forcing it I don't see how this would happen. And I don't think anyone is advocating or wanting that here. Perhaps what the government may do in the future could be scary and forceful, but that's a whole separate issue.

>>12678
What makes you think racial prejudice, ethnic prejudice, homophobia, transphobia, religious prejudice, classism, biphobia, and the like won't exist in the near future, though? Especially when they're pervasive in the U.S. now and recently have more or less not improved over the 2000 to 2010 to 2020 timeframe (with America not at all radically becoming a nicer place to live during that time)?

If anything, I expect to keep seeing the rationalist movement and other social movements in the U.S. ruinously shaming and guilt-tripping victims more and more in order to make themselves "perfect" and "worth being loved" in the eyes of stereotype-filled regular people.

>>12680
I think it always will. It's possibly the price of people being able to think for themselves but people should be able to think for themselves none the less, the day we get into literal thought policing and literally trying to mind control should never come. But those things existing shouldn't be an excuse to take away people's choice to do what they want with their own body..

>If anything, I expect to keep seeing the rationalist movement and other social movements in the U.S. religiously shaming and guilt-tripping victims more and more in order to make themselves "perfect" and "worth being loved" in the eyes of stereotype-filled regular people.
Well if that happens I will resist it. Just as I hope you would resist religious tyranny within an authoritarian theocracy.

I'd also like to point out that if the argument from rationalists wasn't that certain characteristics are a moral failing, then we wouldn't have the worldwide media using terms such as "final solution" and "the X question" / "the X problem" / "the X debate".

So, in a world where there's nothing to fear from the eugenics movement, you wouldn't have the language be from rationalists: "The Final Solution of the Disability Question" / "The Final Solution of the Transgender Problem" / "The Final Solution of the Homosexuality Debate" / etc.

>>12682
Most of that comes from people I am rather ideologically opposed to so I don't know what to tell you.

>>12681
>>12683
If a dude is a Muslim person who is totally opposed to actions by ISIS and other terrorist organizations related to certain small and notorious subgroups of Islamic thought, then I would tell him to call himself "a Muslim" and never, ever "an Islamist" and/or "a jihadist" because those more specific terms have justified baggage in people's minds.

Similarly, if some woman is a regular atheist person who wants universal health care to help everybody, and she has nothing to do with anybody who would kill anybody else, I would tell her to call herself "a universal health care advocate and an atheist". Not "a rationalist" and/or "a eugenics advocate".

Or, to be blunt, somebody who works on a charity for children shouldn't call themselves "a pedophile" even if technically that term applies if you're somebody who just happens to like children emotionally. The one very specific sub-definition of the term (as somebody sexually interested in children, of course, and not just being a friend to children) is what people first think of. And that makes sense.

>>12684
I don't even know where this idea comes from that rationalists are prone towards this kind of extremism though. Either way I don't identify as a rationalist or eugenicist in the first place. But I also don't think we even agree on what eugenics is defined as.

>>12685
>I don't even know where this idea comes from that rationalists are prone towards this kind of extremism though.
Uh... over a hundred years in which tens of millions of innocent people have been killed through rationalist doctrines? I really don't know what to tell you. Same thing for eugenics advocates..

Again, "jihadist" for most of history meant a monk type person reading religious books alone in a library trying to spiritually connect with their friends. Almost all jihadists in history have been peaceful Islamic reformers making life better (really). The word being dirty is an extremely recent trend. Yet, well, its meaning has changed.

>Uh... over a hundred years in which tens of millions of innocent people have been killed through rationalist doctrines?
I've never heard of this. But it sounds to me like rationalist is on par with islam not jihadists in that it's a very broad ideology and it's a comparatively small amount who use it for evil. If we're literally just basing the definition on acting on reason rather than emotion, that is a whole lot of people and it's rather dangerous to throw them all into the same bus like that.

>>12687
"Rationalist movement" doesn't mean "everybody who acts out of reason over emotion". Most people act out of reason over emotion. The "rationalist movement" is a specific international grouping of social and political factions based on very specific ideological positions, such as enacting changes in charity laws and such. It's like comparing "being a religious person" and "the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church", which relates to actual people in palaces in Rome inside of Italy. Whereas anybody anywhere can just be spiritually interested in whatever on their own time.

Similarly, "the eugenics movement" is not at all the same thing as "the public health movement", which itself even isn't the same thing as "people who think about medicine a lot". I'm not sure how to better explain this. I'd actually maybe visit Wikipedia.

>>12686
>over a hundred years in which tens of millions of innocent people have been killed through rationalist doctrines?
Lol, when I say I'm a 'rationalist', I'm referring to the internet subculture founded by Yudkowsky less than 20 years ago at LessWrong.  Nothing at all to do with mass murder, well, except lots of rationalists are worried about AI commiting genocide against the human race and want to prevent that from happening.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/27/why-i-am-not-rene-descartes/

>>12689
I'd like to point out that contrarily to presentation, Eliezer Yudkowsky did not intend to start a cult around himself and has found the notion of being perceived as being like that as unfortunate.

See: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/o9dnstYoc7cwpgdhg/unwitting-cult-leaders

The man has even said half-jokingly: "[I]f you tell your doting followers not to form a cult, they will go around saying ‘We Must Not Form A Cult, Great Leader Mundo Said So’."

>>12682
Also, the Rationalist (in the Yudkowsky sense) community has lots of Jews and transgirls.

>>12690
It's not a cult!  And  although Yud is influential, his word is certainly not taken as gospel.

>>12691
That's exactly the point. Being "a member of the rationalist movement" as an advocate for a social and political grouping pushing for legal changes in different governments isn't at all the same thing as just "being a person who wants to be rational in their life choices". I wouldn't call the movement a cult, but it's closer to a cult than any random collection of most people. The same way that everybody who's a political campaigner giving money to the U.S. Democratic Party is closer to being in something like a cult than a random person picked off of the street. I'd vastly prefer "club" and "movement" over "cult".

What about this aren't you getting?

>>12692
>pushing for legal changes in different governments
Are you referring to the push for laws preventing the creation of superhuman AI?  That's the main legislative push I've seen from the Rationalist community. Oh, and also legalizing prediction markets.

>>12693
This is starting to feel exasperating.

Look, if you're a part of a political and social faction that's doing a ton of things in terms of funding politicians, funding political parties, funding political media, and the like with the explicit arguments made in public against people such as myself in the vein of "Either you quit and start voting for us, or you're a retarded loser" that involve a gigantic variety of laws from not just everything to do with AI but everything to do with health care, everything to do with adoption, everything to do with charity work, everything to do with the free expression of religion, and so on... like you can say that the movement is overall positive, and I'd disagree, but that argument could have some merit.

But if you're going to pretend that being a "rationalist" only means "being somebody who values being rational in your life", that's basically straight-up lying.

I'd call it a Motte-and-Bailey fallacy, but it's so much more glaring than a usual fallacy with that label that it simply appears to me to be lying.

For me in particular as a disabled person who's bisexual and transgender, I don't like having my very existence being viewed by rationalists as a social problem that needs to be corrected in order to eugenically cleanse American society, with rationalists fighting nail, tooth, and claw to make sure that health care resources don't go to "the undeserving".

>>12654
I don't think this site is a good fit for me.  Lately I'm more tolerated than anything, and don't really feel comfortable here.  I'm going to create my own site eventually.  For better or worse, it will be what some call a safe space.

>>12695
I suppose you can cheer up in that, because of genetic engineering and gene editing based measures, neither of us will be around that much longer.

Then, nobody will need a "safe space" because only a higher evolved species who can take anything from anybody will exist.

When that superior race comes about that replaces us both, I do wonder what they'll think of us.

>>12694
>But if you're going to pretend that being a "rationalist" only means "being somebody who values being rational in your life"
Huh?  I do no such thing!  Read again what I said in >>12689 :
>when I say I'm a 'rationalist', I'm referring to the internet subculture founded by Yudkowsky less than 20 years ago at LessWrong.  

>>12695
Try posting on >>>/pony/ !

>>12696
My field is software applicationeering and physics.  I don't want to try to paraphrase what you have written so can only thank you for commenting.

>>12698
When they made townhall, I moved to townhall since it seemed out of the way.  Someone invited me back to pony, but when I visited I got the impression animals would prefer I stay here on townhall if anywhere.

And here, I don't really want to debate my existence or really much of anything political.  And now I question whether this site is really a good fit for transgender ponies.

>>12699
>I got the impression animals would prefer I stay here on townhall if anywhere.
Nah, you're welcome on /pony/!

>And here, I don't really want to debate my existence
Remember, cogito ergo sum!

>or really much of anything political.
Try coming to /pony/!

>And now I question whether this site is really a good fit for transgender ponies.
Oh, ignore that Communist-rabbit poster.  Everyone else here is fine with transgender people

>>12700
>Nah, you're welcome on /pony/!
Thank you for writing "you're welcome on /pony/!", Bright Rabbit.

>Oh, ignore that Communist-rabbit poster.  Everyone else here is fine with transgender people
You might get upset if I try to associate your text "Communist-rabbit poster" with an animal here.

I'll have to think about your invitation.  Ideally I'd be in a place where I wouldn't have to ignore ponies.  I know, social media in general contains a wide range of opinions on every political topic and I've become habituated to things like negative opinions about people's genders.  I look at mainstream media like Facebook because a part of me likes to keep tabs on what society is saying, so I'm prepared.  But a part of me also wants a group of like minded people/ponies.

What will probably happen is a month or two break, then maybe I'll give /pony a second try.

>>12701
>You might get upset if I try to associate your text "Communist-rabbit poster" with an animal here.
The Communist rabbit is a character from the Chinese propaganda anime *Year Hare Affair*.

I'm no longer at liberty to respond to the thread. Thankyou for your time.

>>12699
>>12700
>>12701
I don't want to be rude, but since a gigantic percentage of people in Western countries such as the United States don't believe that LGBT people should be allowed to be alive (and this isn't a small fringe, to be clear, it's over 15% of the population at least), you're going to have to accept the fact that your right to exist isn't a given. It's a debate. If you want to be alive, then you have to fight to be alive. This is just reality as much as that two plus two equals four and that the sky is blue.

I do really wish you well in all of that. Life is beautiful. It really is. Fighting for life doesn't make it less beautiful.

>>12704
Thank you for the response.  I agree some people want others dead.  But if everyone got their wish, the human population would be zero.  For most who want others dead it's just fantasy, and I guess I'm also skeptical of how much online debate changes hearts and minds. I'll probably die of cancer, heart failure, or pneumonia in about 35 years.  I suppose there is privilege in that, I don't get around very much to see how others live.

I wish you all the best as well.  Life is mostly working, but it can be nice once in awhile.

>>12705
I worry that I'll be killed by an AI turning me into a paperclip in 5--15 years.

...got bored so i thought id do a little meta-analysis and spruce up the thread a bit. other than what i noted, everything else looks pretty good

>>12444

"...as women, given the choice, will form preferences for powerful men..." [citation needed]
"...(as we're already seeing in countries with large gender egalitarianism)..." [citation needed]
"It's an innate biological desire..." [citation needed]

>>12447

[not an academic source]

>>12456

"I'm not sure that's the case in most circumstances." [citation needed]

>>12461

"...but no system gets that far off the ground without someone at the top having cold, calculated goals." [citation needed]

>>12463

"Women speak in code when referring to poor men..." [citation needed]

>>12468

"Discrimination and prejudice against women is so much of a smaller and weaker social issue in the U.S. compared to basically any other way that people are knocked down..." [citation needed]
"Thus, throughout much of America today it's flatly an advantage to be a woman." [does not follow - citation needed]
"obviously" [not academic language - should drop "obviously" or state what appears obvious to you, in case it is not obvious to others
"Giving a $5 bill from a homeless black man..." [good analogy but needs more formal framing for /townhall/"

>>12469

"It's the victim industrial complex at work." [citation needed]
"...and some of the smartest people in history have tried many times with many different methods to solve it, but to no avail." [citation needed]
"...'support'..., ...'administrative expenses'... ...'doing good,'..." [citations needed if using quotations]
"...it's basically always been the parasite that sucks at the flesh of any organized society." [citation needed]

>>12474

"Honestly, a bounty system might be more productive, or at least, it might be a reasonable way to encourage dissolve." [possible jargon - elaboration needed]

>>12475

"...more than basically any other collection of human beings in world history other than literal royalty and nobility." [citation needed]

>>12545

[OP indicates the thread may be getting off-topic]

>>12586

"...obvious..." [use of word "obvious" shouldn't be used in an academic context - either drop the word or state/restate what appears obvious to you in case it is not obvious to others
"You don't need a master's degree to recognize they're two topics that share a lot of overlap." [Possible Rule 2b violation - Snark]

>>12618

[discussion entered into informally - should be more formal in /townhall/]

>>12708

>>12619

[informal entry prompts casual reply]

>>12623

[interesting but not from a peer-reviewed journal]

>>12624

[anecdotal - needs better citation]

>>12625

[good]

>>12627

"...but I literally don't care..." [non-academic tone]
"Just like I don't want a blind person's opinion on colour, and I don't want a dyslexic person's opinion on stage directions." [ultimate position too uncivilly-stated for /townhall/; poster is taking an epistemological position but it is unclear in the post."

>>12628

"Some have the opinion that transgender people are gender-based failures, I think.  I gather that's your perspective." [poster did not understand the argument being presented, as it was poorly and uncivilly presented; possible bad-faith response?]

>>12629

"They have a disability pertaining to gender..." [poorly-restated epistemological position]
"I never said gender based failure, you dense and defensive person." [possible bad-faith response]
"Don't put words in my mouth." [bad-faith response, possible violation of Rule 2b - Snark]

>>12630

"Once again, /townhall/ further erodes my trust in people of this community." [generalization]

>>12631

"That doesn't have anything to do with why I am transgender." [anecdotal, but what is being replied to had needed a citation]
"The reason people like me identify as trans is when what's in the outside is counter-intuitive... [citation needed]

>>12632

">Expecting good things on the containment board" [possible violation of Rule 2b - Snark]

>>12633

"You have a mental illness..." [uncivil reply, citation needed]
"Take your hormones, because that's how you treat gender dysphoria." [citation needed]
"Are you happier now? If so, good. You will never be a real woman. Just eat your estradiol and accept that fact." [poster needs to more clearly articulate philosophical positions, as this is /townhall/; possible violation of Rule 2b - Snark]
"No, it's not..." [citation needed]
"You're susceptible to the mind poison..." [citation needed]
"So because you're mentally ill, we'll pump you up with hormones and change your legal gender status, but you will still never ever be a real woman." [Possible ad hominim, as point was already made a few lines ago]
"You can get a fancy surgery, and you'll still be a sexualised bastardisation of what a real woman is." [ad hominim]
"...it is still a downright insult to real womanhood to consider you as a woman." [citation needed]
"Letting men actually believe in the delusion that they are women is a slippery slope." [slippery slope fallacy, citation needed]
"Do you think a person should be allowed to have sex with a twelve year old because they delusionally think they are children themselves?" [strawman argument]
"You do not belong in a woman's space, no matter how many hormones you pump yourself with." [ad hominim]
"The world is under no obligation to partake in your gender role play." [strawman]

>>12635

"So you're telepathic now?" [possible violation of Rule 2b - Snark]
"You're just making yourself look like an idiot..." [Possible ad hominim]
"This tired rhetoric is disengenuous as shit, and is really fucking cowardly." [ad hominim]

[(...got tired of analyzing post - remainder of post not deeply analyzed - discussion not up to /townhall/ standards)]

>>12636

[appears to attempt to keep the discussion civil]

>>12637

[poster implies having academic sources but does not cite them; ad hominem]

"Yeah. Transgenderisim is suffering from gender dysphoria. An illness of the mind." [citation needed]

>>12647

"Goddamn are you hypocritical." [probable ad hominem]
[(& etc. (too bored to analyze rest of post))]

>>12648

"You should be grateful for those accommodations, they're a privilege, not a right." [citation needed, possible violation of Rule 2b - Snark]
[poster makes many arguments that need citations, did not read the rest closely]

>>12649

[OP expresses a wish for the thread to get back on topic, but it doesn't; all subsequent posts are in violation of Rule 1a; upon reading some more of Rule 1, some (or parts) of previous posts also suspected to be in violation of Rule 1b]

>>12651

[multiple suspected rule violations; last point at which thread ought to have been locked, if maximum leniency was granted]

>>12654

[poor OP just sitting and watching their thread implode]

>>12655

[post with emotionally-charged language and token citation to seemingly try to get thread back on track]

>>12656

[the thread is hard to follow as a cohesive whole at this point, but this seems to be doubly off-topic and a casual treatment of a generally serious topic, which somehow came up in the previous post, none of which is up to /townhall/ standards]

>>12657

[possible doomposting]

>>12658

[discussion continues to branch out and get further off-topic]

>>12709

>>12661

[casual mention of Nazis - thread officially dead]

>>12662
>>12663
>>12664
>>12665
>>12666
>>12667
>>12668
>>12669
>>12670

[too bored to analyze thoroughly, but generally off-topic, or only tangentially related to OP, without anyone discussion relationship to OP, and no citations]

>>12671
>>12672
>>12673
>>12674
>>12675
>>12676
>>12677
>>12678
>>12680
>>12681
>>12682
>>12683
>>12684
>>12685
>>12686
>>12687
>>12688
>>12689
>>12690
>>12691
>>12692
>>12693
>>12694

[didn't read closely, but appears to mostly be ad-hoc arguments about various tangentially related topics, without citations; anecdotal, but "Precious Grasshopper" says: "This is starting to feel exasperating." which mirrors my sentiment in meta-analyzing this thread]

>>12695

[OP appears to get upset, possibly due to a lack of rule enforcement]

>>12696

[non-sequitor]

>>12698

[non-sequitor]

>>12699

[OP appears sad because the rules were not enforced]

>>12704

[exaggeration of an exaggeration and citation needed]

Discussion:

After a meta-analysis of this thread, it has been concluded that 1) the rules of /townhall/ are not being adequately enforced. 2) As /pony/ is the board of leniency, it would be a mistake to be lenient on /townhall/, which should act as a rule-refuge for those who like to follow rules and should even err on the side of being too strict. 3) the rules of /townhall/ should be changed to require a citation when making a claim or require one to be requested when a claim is not agreed-upon in order to continue the discussion (unless all parties agree one is not needed) 4) with the leniency of rule enforcement in /townhall/, ponyville.us excludes those who prefer a structured environment in which to communicate and associate

Further Discussion: /townhall/ was created as a board with strict rule enforcement, as its name implies and as Rule 6 states: "As the standards on this board are very high, enforcement measures taken here will not be considered part of your "record" elsewhere on the site, except in the case of First Degree violations." Therefore, there is no reason to be lenient in enforcement. I believe the first rule violation occurrred in post >>12586 when Whimsical Hare said, "You don't need a master's degree to recognize they're two topics that share a lot of overlap." While this wouldn't be a violation on /pony/, it certainly appears to be snarky, which is a violation of Rule 2b. Leaning towards being too strict, this comment ought to have resulted in a warning. As this comment was on 10/12/23, the entire dynamic of the thread might have been changed by this enforcement. For future /townhall/ threads, a permanent topic ban is not suggested. ponyville.us should instead enforce the rules in /townhall/.

Furthermore, it has been suggested that OP go to /pony/ to discuss things, which has more lenient rules. If /townhall/ is the board of strict rule enforcement, then discussing similar things on /pony/ will most certainly result in even less rule enforcement (although the social dynamic being different may prevent a similar outcome as this thread on /townhall/).


////////
Edit:
////////


Addendum (Meta-meta Analysis and Further Study):

At post >>12649, OP appears to have made a new thread to discuss the topic of transgenderism specifically, as is suggested in Rule 1a ("...however, if these hinder discussion of the original topic, making a new thread is preferred") to try to get the topic back on track. This post, however, was almost immediately locked. This didn't seem to take into consideration the second part of Rule 1a, described above, which OP appeared to be adhering to. OP's post shortly after (>>12654) in this thread indicated disenfranchisement with /townhall/, as their attempts at getting their thread (or a thread) on track had failed. In the second thread OP had created, it was warned that future rule violations would result in a ban (although this didn't appear in the original thread). After analysis, it would have likely been better to simply lock the original thread at this point instead of issuing a warning in the second thread OP had created (in addition to locking the transgenderism thread), as OP's thread was already off-topic, and continuing the discussion of Transgenderism in the second thread would have likely resulted in a lack of civility there without a break and explanation.

Further study of the second half of the original thread is recommended to see what additional rule violations there may have been, although most posts were at least off-topic, violating Rule 1a.

Given the suspected results of a study of the second half of the thread (and even just considering the violation of Rule 1a, as OP had clearly established was the case), if moderator resources being low are a reason for a lack of moderation in /townhall/, it is recommended to give OP (in /townhall/) some power to moderate their own threads (such as requiring approval by OP for posts to appear until a mod sees it, temporarily hiding posts which are suspected to be against the rules, or to flag certain posts, which would be set up to result in faster consideration by mods).

>>12708
This is a pony imageboard.
We're not going to be citing every piece like it's a college essay.
Besides, to be frank, that's bad form anyhow, and teaches folk to merely regurgitate whatever's been said by another.

>>12711

And I'm Starswirl.

...The Bearded.

>>12709
>>12710
There's a lot of good information on the internet that isn't formally peer-reviewed and from authors who don't have relevant academic credentials.  You'll miss a lot if you dismiss sources for lack of peer review or academic credentials.

>>12713

I apologize for being so harsh on your comment (>>12656). I know I needed to reword it, but I'm just an old unicorn and this thread was making me tired..

I think I should have read the previous post more carefully and simply said that "the thread is hard to follow as a cohesive whole at this point" as I was too tired to read into the thread closely at this point and relied mostly on assumptions.

It sounds interesting, though, but that is enough for today.

>>12706
Cheer up, humans may be worked to death making paper clips before becoming them.

>>12710
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.

>>12715

Haha, thank you. Enjoy ~

>>12706
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.