I think the reason it feels like schadenfreude is the context of the community.

Like, the only version of why someone would post this here that makes sense to me is, “haha, yeah, go gang members, eff those cops.” The person with that mentality would view this as “upliftingnews,” which would fit in the schadenfreude bucket to me.

Is that what OP thought? I can’t possibly know. But I don’t know why else they would have posted it here if they didn’t.

Here’s the thing. Even if this isn’t bad (which I would argue having to resort to asking armed criminals to police your streets certainly isn’t good), that doesn’t make it “upliftingnews.”

It has the same vibe as a “Trump gets cancer” headline. Would a lot of people be super happy about that? Sure. But it’s not “upliftingnews.”

That was the implication I got from what she said, but I suppose it’s possible she was telling the “cholos” to “defend their block from the biggest rival street gang” in a peaceful way. (Her words, not mine.)

I mean, you’re right, I didn’t.

I did just read it, and you’re right, the article is pretty “that thing she did was bad.”

But then an article that’s saying “politician did a bad thing,” still doesn’t feel like “upliftingnews” to me.

This feels like this breaks the no schadenfreude rule…

I wouldn’t call it exactly “uplifting” that an elected official is asking gangs to attack cops.

I just wish we would consolidate on 5 letter words ending with EL and LE as to what the order should be.

Why is it “table” and “label”? They’re basically the same word minus the first letter, but the spellings are different. I hate it.

I mean, it kinda just looks like boiled chicken, so it’s probably fine? Probably not tasty, but not raw by a long shot.

I think it’s presumptuous that only a certain income level is going to have access to this. It very much depends on the scalability of the treatment. Nearly everyone in the entire nation got the COVID vaccine, and those that didn’t weren’t due to lack of financial means. Just because you assert this will be reserved for the ultra wealthy doesn’t make it so.

The rest of what you said is borderline unintelligible, but I’ll give it a shot.

Sure, it would probably be difficult to “un-black” a baby or something, as there are a ton of genetic markers that inform what we think of as “blackness.” But just because it’s hard, doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

And you say that Eugenics “is a vocal minority,” which I presume to mean that most people are anti-eugenics. But, as you say, we live in a capitalist hellscape. It would be entirely possible for a billionaire to run a “un-black your baby for a chance to win a million dollars” campaign (a’la the Elon Musk voting drive), and have that take off in a big way.

And all that assumes that people wouldn’t be driven to it by simple desire for conformity. It’s easy to justify a lot of things under the “my child would have a much better life if they just weren’t… fill in the blank.” In the modern climate as an example, there would probably be a lot of Hispanic people saying things like, “my child probably wouldn’t get abducted by ICE if they just were more white passing.” And that’s terrible, obviously, but I guarantee it would happen. Not every mother. Not even a majority. But a good number would.

But what does bodily autonomy mean when this will almost certainly be primarily used in utero? Should I be able to use CRISPR to keep my baby from being born with Downs?

Should I be able to use it to make my baby less prone to other diseases? Make them taller?
Change their race? Add interesting modifications that I think would be cool, like an extra set of arms or gills or something?

What does bodily autonomy mean for a fetus?

I mean, sure, if you ignore all of history. What if I was using CRISPR to prevent a child from being born black or brown?

Hell, what if I used it to keep a kid from being born deaf? The deaf community is one that’s very outspoken about exactly that kind of treatment as a form of eugenics, as it is a potential existential threat to their culture.

I mean, this will be used in utero waaaaay before it’s applied to a full adult human. Far easier to change the cells when there are only a few, and they haven’t already started to effect development.

But it’s hard to get informed consent in utero.

Depends on how you define AI to some degree, but yeah. Protein folding has basically been solved in the past few years with neural-network based AI systems.

My immediate reaction as well.

While I don’t disagree that this point is almost exclusively made by trolls, the way you’ve phrased this implies you think they’re correct in pointing out that it’s a contradiction to no support trans-racial people.

Trans-racial people clearly exist to some small degree (Rachel Dolozov being the famous example). Should people be defending her choice to identify as black, since race is just a social construct?

Removed by mod

Sure, I agree that it’s a stupid idea from an effort vs reward perspective. It’s at best unnecessary.

But your initial position was that it couldn’t be done without being easy to prove that it was a fabrication, and I think you’re wrong about that.

I think that they are more than capable of doing it in such a way that it’s wholly word-vs-word, with no forensic evidence pointing to it being doctored. And the idea that they would do that is outlandish enough that most reasonable people would assume the post was legitimate and that the “offender” was lying about it to try and deflect blame.

It’s the classic, "No, I didn’t post that list of porn search terms to my Twitter! I was hacked!! Totally somebody hacked me and did that. Wasn’t me at all!!” But in this case it’d be something that was a pretext for the government to arrest them.

Sure, but then it’s a question of narrative not proof, right?

Because the response from X would just be, “we aren’t sure why Mr so-and-so didn’t/couldn’t immediately delete the post, but we froze it in short order because we believe the fact he would post such a thing is a matter of public interest, and we refuse to let him sweep it under the rug.”

Yeah, he could say that he posted something completely different and X changed it, but how do you prove it? Everyone would just assume it to be a lie trying to cover their ass after posting something terrible.

Not saying this is at all likely. Just that it’s possible.

And this assumes they notice it was doctored immediately anyway. Most people don’t verify that the post is correct after hitting “submit.” A good 90+% of people would probably never notice if the text was changed post upload.

You could just replace the text of a post as it gets submitted. Keep all metadata otherwise unchanged. Lock the account from being able to make edits.

I mean, it’s kinda true.

Some places do tip sharing, but not most (though most have some sort of tipping out to the back of house staff,) and obviously you pay taxes on tips.

But I think the sentiment was that it’s not lining the pockets of the business owner, which is true.

Probably, but if you’re interpreting user inputs as raw code, you’ve got much much worse problems going on, lol.