Is the issue that there's no there there - or is that LLM chatbots are just not good enough? If they (as they sometimes remind me of ) weren't like a golden retriever that will happily agree with you about anything as long as you keep throwing the ball would it all be better?
On one level it would have to be be but if there's "no there there" then fixing that flaw would just raise a different one.
Maybe I'm really self-centered but I go through all the motions with those bots - please and thank you for example - but I have zero problems asking the dumbest questions in the world.
Wasn't there a bit in Umberto Eco's book Foucault's Pendulum where one of the characters who's totally rational flinches when the titular pendulum is coming towards his face - even though he's far enough way that it won't hit him? That's how I am with chatbots. I know it's a trick but it's just easier to pretend the dove has vanished then to think about it hiding in the magicians sleeve.
I remember when I was a kid one of the cats we had - who at that point was very much not a kitten and blind to boot - had gotten into a tussle with some strange cat. I just reached in to the melee and grabbed our cat. He promptly bit my and - or rather he started to. Didn't even break the skin. Just immediately stopped and I swear to God if a cat could say, "Oh, I'm sorry I thought you were someone else" that's what he would have said.
I got bit by a dog a while ago and the thing that really woke me up was how unexpected it was. I generally think that I'm fairly observant and empathetic with animals. All B.S. aside I genuinely think I can tell when a dog is scared. The dog that bit me though, totally out of the blue. I saw it. No body language, no nothing - and I walked by it and next thing I knew it jumped out and bit my hand.
Since then if I see a strange dog and the option is there I keep plenty of distance between it and me no matter what I take to be it's state.
I don't know if I liked it more then Soul Of A New Machine but for some reason House stuck with me. I remember a bit that talked about building to a "good and workmanlike manner." It's funny the stuff that sticks with you.
I agree with your description of what goes on here with this and other things as well. It's depressing that it seems like for almost any activity the two choices are illegal and celebrated. It seems like if you venture an opinion that X is wrong not adding and I think it should be a crime marks you as something akin to a hypocrite.
Nominally we live in a tolerant society but sometimes I wonder if anyone knows what the word means.
I would largely consider being critical of sex workers (who do it in a safe manner) is largely just intolerance.
In American society, sex is in it's own corner. It's icky, immoral, unpure, and stands alone in it's perception. Violence, blood and guts, exploitation, injustice - these are all much easier for Americans to swallow than sex. A company laying off 500 people and potentially ruining their lives is business as usual, but a woman showing a part of her body to people who consent is unthinkable.
The reality is, I think, we all sell our bodies, and minds. And, out of all of us, OnlyFans models sell their bodies some of the least. After all, they are not at higher risk of heart attack. After all, they do not get carpal tunnel or arthritis. After all, they are much closer to self-employed than me. After all, they write their schedules, they define their work, and they set the expectations for performance.
That's not to say it should be celebrated. But I think we should view it honestly, for what it really is. A way to make money. People want to see other naked people, and they're gonna do that, so why not? And, is the human body really so repulsive that we have to degrade people for showing it off? I don't believe so.
If my daughter said she was choosing between two jobs - plumber and OnlyFans - I'd suggest she buy a wrench.
There are a lot of people who will say that all jobs are exploitative. Besides that who's to say the woman on OnlyFans aren't the ones doing the exploitation of the guys who are forking over money. And as you say should anyone be degraded for showing their body? Or even wanting to see someone else's?
It's all true.
And yet for some reason I'm still going to say buy a wrench. I'm not sure why but I think it has to do with the fact that it confuses the personal and the social. Things that you do for personal non monetary reasons should be separate and apart from things you do for social monetary reasons. It's probably why I wouldn't ever loan money to friends - I'd rather just give them money. Or my job gives me a paycheck and not a thumbs up every 2 weeks - even though that's pretty much all my wife gives me when I take out the garbage.
I don't think saying people holding the opposite view are wrong is intolerant. Making it a crime? That's intolerant. When you go from making an argument to forcing your will is where intolerance starts. The opposite end is approval and that starts with thinking something wrong but not actually saying anything at all.
If you draw the line of intolerance at making laws, I would say you have next to no conviction.
Which is why I think you probably don't actually believe that. That's just the standard you're choosing to apply to this one specific case. As I've said - sex stands alone. The standards are completely unique.
In general I'd say, if the intolerant think I'm intolerant, then I must be doing something right. Ultimately I don't really care how women choose to make their money, and I don't see anything wrong at all with lust. Purity is stupid, who cares, have all the sex you want and jerk yourself off silly.
Also, monogamy is stupid. Or, at least, how most people view it is. There's nothing wrong with being monogamous because you want to. But most people aren't doing it for that. They're doing it because they fear how they will be perceived if they are not monogamous.
And so we see rampant divorces, failed marriages, and cheating out the wazoo! The stupid point to this and say "see, this is what happens to the impure!" But that's not true. That happens because of a notion of purity fueled by shame and perception.
Nobody asks themselves if they love someone. They ask if other people view what they are doing as love. And so, sex is wicked, marriage is good, and that's that.
Why would I care about my words meaning anything to anyone? I am just a meat sack with a wallet, and my only relationships with the other meat sacks are economic. There's no such thing as a culture or a community, and anyone alleging harms to it is "largely just intolerant". I can tolerate anything but someone with a standard of right and wrong.
Personally, I have no notion of what it's like to have standards, which is why I never bothered to learn the difference between "it's" and "its", or to think about anything on a deeper level than Econ 101.
As of March 2026, the average annual salary for a full-time Amazon warehouse worker in the U.S. is approximately $39,183–$47,415 annually, or roughly $18.84–$23.00 per hour. Total compensation, including benefits, can exceed $30 an hour, with many positions paying over $22 hourly for entry-level, plus potential for increased pay based on location and experience.
Don't compare this year to last year. Compare this year to 10 years ago. To 20 years ago. Then say it's a zero sum game. Ask yourself if you would switch places with John D. Rockefeller. I would not.
On one level it would have to be be but if there's "no there there" then fixing that flaw would just raise a different one.
reply