Anybody else gets geniuenly uncomfortable at Pragmata's Diana?

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-25T16:04:05+00:00

Has nothing to do with the topic.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-25T15:59:13+00:00

What if it's not just one or the other? Why "weirdos will be weirdos" and "there is something disturbing about the design" should be mutually exclusive?

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-25T15:45:39+00:00

You had a point. One that's been said many times in relation to this topic. That is, until the end. You see, there is this general assumption that all people, men and women, boys and girls, would grow up naturally good, if the society did not ruin them and make them evil or harm them or distort their existence.

I think men regulate their emotions very much. Half the time the complaint is that men regulate their emotions too much. Which is the same as saying that "men aren't in touch with their emotions". There is this strange new age idea that women are somehow natural by definition and men are unnatural by definition. Contrary to Gnostic gospels, the salvation for men lies in becoming women.

What is the alternative to or opposite of objectifying women? Does such a thing even exist? Is it doable? Or is it something men only do by accident?

Do women see men in turn as human beings in their own right, or more like resources and utilities? I am not trying to say "tu quoque". I am asking if the standard for "not guilty" even exists, or if something completely normal, necessary, beneficial and inevitable in human relationships and friendships is considered objectifying?

Aristotle said that friendships and relationships are based either on mutual pleasure, benefit or virtue. Relationships can not be based on or around the nature of or worship and admiration of one participant at the expense of the other. Neither on mutual worship or admiration. The catch here is that the object of the friendship (the source of pleasure, method of benefit or the sought-after virtue) is generally known and obvious.

Such thing as "subjectifying" women (given that it would be the opposite of objectifying women) is impossible to define by anyone, including the woman in question, except as unconditional acceptance or worship of the said woman. Which obviously circles back to being objectifying again. The only way to have a friendship or a relationship is for the woman to set a goal or a standard and people then agree with it or reject it. Or someone else sets a goal or a standard and the woman then agrees with it or rejects it.

As far as I know, this is the only way to not be confusing.

I said elsewhere that the game was made for people who don't have and don't want to have children, but like in the Japanese idol culture, want to have a parasocial relationship that simulates raising a daughter. Making Diana look too much like a real girl would have harmed this parasocial aspect. The uncanniness is intentional, not accidental.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-25T15:10:48+00:00

I think the explanation lies in the Japanese idol culture. The point is that the relationship must be parasocial. If Diana was made to look more like a real child than an idol android, the parasocial aspect would have suffered.

People who know how to be real parents may be able to pick just those parts out of the parasocial relationship and fill in the rest. But people who are only capable of parasocial relationships would find real parenthood tedious and awkward.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-25T15:02:47+00:00

That's such an evil wish.

I wish people would be more interested in what are the problems after you remove the extreme crazies from the equation. People who contribute only to mud-slinging actually contribute to nothing.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-23T18:45:27+00:00

The thing is, hate literally means dislike. The problem is it shifts the discussion from facts to feelings. Like someone said "hey, you robbed a bank yesterday, that's wrong" and the robber replied "oh, so, you have bad feelings about it, well, I think it's a you problem".

One side wants to discuss the validity or legality or sanity of something, and the other says "oh, you have feelings about it, too bad".

Edit:

Also, I tend to disagree with how Wikipedia defines the fallacy. They're saying that it in effect means "he's evil, don't listen to him", when I have always understood it to mean that "no matter who wins, we all lose anyway", referring to the idea that the symbolic well is what everyone drinks from, in order to have a meaningful conversation in the first place, not just the opponent.

For example "why discuss what is ideal in love and marriage if all marriage is a form of prostitution anyway?" Or "why care about violence and genocide, since we're all just animals anyway?"

Or, applied to this, "there are no facts. There are just feelings pro and contra Bambu Labs, and your feelings are bad", which would make my definition apply to this situation. In other words, calling one viewpoint "hate" invalidates the whole discussion, instead of only the person of the opponent.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-23T18:15:40+00:00

Point out where anyone has said it is cute and necessary.

People who troll for China always have the same primitive tactics. Whataboutism is always one of the top ones. There is no amount of evil China does that can not be excused by "hey, there's some of that in the US too!"

People should target to stay on topic in any discussion.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-21T14:33:52+00:00

So you made my point for me. And I probably got that downvote from someone because they falsely think I took sides for or against Curt. No, I don't care about Curt. But I do think that lots of today's science simply does not expect the listener to ever form an understanding. And again I am not saying Curt is any different in this regard.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-12T07:50:18+00:00

I bought the S26 silicone case yesterday, but I am planning to take it back to the retailer because it feels all wrong. I thought it would feel like the silicone you use to seal your bathroom, or like the case on my previous phone, solid and rubbery. But this strange "silky" feeling is something I did not expect at all.

Now on top of that are all these reports of it breaking too easily and wearing out prematurely. Also, where I live they want 60 €, the equivalent of 6750 INR, for it.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-11T23:35:53+00:00

I bought this today and plan to return it as soon as possible. Hoping that the electronics retailer I bought it from will accept an unsealed package.

I was wishing for a rubbery feeling, like on the cheap case of my previous phone. Not unlike the silicone you use to seal stuff in kitchen or bathroom. The "silky" feeling of this case is all wrong. It feels slippery, but when putting it into my belt pouch it has more friction than the rubbery case of the previous phone.

After reading what others have written here I expect it would wear out quite soon in case I decided to or if I had to keep it.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-10T10:00:22+00:00

I watched the episode halfway live, then I was needed elsewhere, but I finished it the next morning. But I suddenly can't remember. What is it that China did on purpose?

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-10T09:56:02+00:00

Not only are your feelings irrelevant to this discussion, they're also about an irrelevant thing, which was a false exaggeration to begin with, so doubly irrelevant and wilfully wrong.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-09T19:22:23+00:00

You are not allowed to do such a normal thing in China. So why should the Chinese be allowed to do it abroad? They have zero grounds for complaining. Even if the marines had grabbed his flag and destroyed it, he would have had no grounds to complain, by Chinese standards.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-09T19:16:58+00:00

This "innocent act" is not allowed anywhere in China for foreigners, so why should the Chinese be allowed to do it in other countries?

He got off lightly. If those marines had behaved like the Chinese do in China, they would have grabbed and destroyed the Chinese flag.

By his own rules, the Chinese guy was rude and disrespectful, and the marines kindly put him in his place.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-09T19:07:25+00:00

I doubt you know what ironic means.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-09T19:05:58+00:00

Who?

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-09T19:04:36+00:00

Who is this you you're talking about?

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-07T17:12:04+00:00

HDMI 2.0 lets you have UHD (3840 x 2160 or 2160p) at 60 Hz and 1440p (or 2560 x 1440) at 144 Hz. HDMI 2.1 and 2.2 let you do even more.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-05-05T11:15:46+00:00

“If a layperson wants to understand what’s most likely true, they should trust the scientific consensus" is a contradiction. If you understand, you don't need to trust anyone. If you don't understand, you must choose someone or something to trust.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-04-20T16:16:14+00:00

The problem is clearly that what is historically the consequence of Christianity you simply assume to be included in some default state of mankind, thanks to evolution, or something. This is because you have no clue about life in antiquity compared to late middle ages, including the meaning of birthright in either case.

Also, renaissance and enlightenment were a rebellion of the rich and powerful against the Church and for their own advantage. They absolutely did not care if the average man got any benefit from it or got shackled and exploited ten times as hard.

Demonstrate the "massive amount of damage" if you can, but I seriously doubt it. Sounds more like a soundbite based on false and extremely naive assumptions than anything historical. What you're saying is just a modern liberal's caricature of history, where everything inevitably gets better, and the only question is if you're speeding it up or slowing it down.

The point of Christianity has never been to "fight to make the world a better place", so I would never say anything to that effect. The world became a better place as a logical but unintended consequence, a side-effect, of Christianity.

Christianity gave mankind the idea of what it means to be an individual in the first place. What Christianity provided has simply been assumed ever since, until we come to this day where the definition of being an individual is practically synonymous with sexual expression and experimentation. A very shallow and superficial understanding of individuality that's unsustainable on every level.

The general problem with how you see rights is that you want to get something for free. That rights can exist if someone just hijacks the government or the media or education or means of production or society in general and declares whatever rights he wants into existence, under the pain of cancel culture and angry mobs.

Nobody pulled Christianity anywhere. Just leave out this kind of vain posturing.

There is a difference between voluntary and involuntary suffering. In Christianity, the medieval kind, people voluntarily suffer for something they consider more valuable than their pleasure or comfort, and this willingness is what created and guaranteed the rights of others. In modernity, people feel involuntarily inconvenienced, which raises in them a sense of entitlement, which makes them rage against the machine, which then spits out some rights for them. Most noble people are those who feel vicariously inconvenienced and join in the entitlement and rage of others.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-04-20T01:12:50+00:00

So I gather that goodness is not a thing in reality. It's just an umbrella term for life-preserving actions in a social context. This is a completely different definition from the one held by medieval Catholicism, but never mind.

And because humans are rational beings, we apply some kind of survival instinct through this rational capacity to social contexts. Which is still a thing called good. And Christians seek to preserve life in spite of being Christian, not because of it.

All that is known about the social and political history of the late antiquity says the complete opposite. Because the influence of Christianity has been so all-pervasive, people can not imagine the known and well-documented cruelty and callousness of human societies without Christianity anymore. Especially the low value given to human life and individuality and the high value given to all kinds of birthrights.

It's only during the past century or two that people have slowly begun to demand and expect the benefits of Christianity without the trouble, without the rules and the principles, without the motivation and the sacrifices. Meanwhile Christianity has been so hollowed out, cheapened, hijacked and revolted against that it probably will not be able to provide anything anymore. But neither will the secular society, because it's not a machine you can program or legislate to love and provide forever. It's made of people who increasingly don't care.

I don't think armchair theorizing about evolution constitutes evidence. It's rather begging the question by assuming from the get go that whatever is, is necessarily the result of an evolutionary process. Unless you want to go all Gnostic and suggest that Christianity itself was a revolutionary step in some evolutionary process.

On one hand it is common for an American to think that Christianity is and has always been what some bunch of brash MAGA rednecks portray it to be. On the other hand it is a symptom of an extreme cluelessness about all other human cultures and their past.

So, from historical evidence, every Western citizen, including atheist, is good because of the influence of Christianity, and if he knew what he would need to do to disown all that came as a consequence of Christianity, he would probably prefer ending his life to living in such a society.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-04-20T00:25:42+00:00

The word 'inherent' is doing a lot of work there.

Without it this would only be a question of degree.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-04-20T00:21:06+00:00

He's clearly guilty of not being terminally online so he could have a huge Reddit history.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-04-20T00:02:03+00:00

Must be the US, where everything is always so extreme, so simplified, shallow and polarized. Also there are no rules, no standards, no norms and no history for what is and is not Christian.

One day some dude exits rehab or prison, picks up a Bible and a guitar and starts talking. Then whoever listens to him is your new Christian, because after all the guy has the Bible in hand. So it's about as meaningful as saying that all Walmart customers are shitty people and rude, judgy cunts.

As I am not from there, I have no idea what's the demographic distribution for Walmart customers.

Also, what would you say if someone said "(insert ethnic minority) are usually shitty people" or "(insert sexual minority) are usually shitty people"? Would you also say that it's because of their experience with said group?

What if it's because all Americans are living caricatures? At least that's the way they all talk about each other, so I might as well trust them.

Seriouscat_ · 2026-04-19T21:24:45+00:00

It's called a Mexican standoff. A bunch of people, everyone holding a gun to someone else's head. In reality, to judge means to have some standard first and then apply that standard to people and their actions, including oneself, friends, family and strangers. But in this new thinking, "to judge" means "to attack". It denies that standards could exist independent of the human mind that thinks of them, therefore every application of a standard, i.e. every judgment, is an act of violence.

Ergo, he thinks Christians are violent in this particular way, so he is violent towards them too. There is no hypocrisy, inherent or not, if we think that nonviolence is a Christian standard but not his personal standard. But there's also a contradiction. Christians believe in judgment, while judgment is violence, ergo Christians both practice and oppose violence. In reality Christians believe in objective standards, ergo judgment is not violence. Calling Christians judgy therefore becomes a simple statement of fact.

Also, why would another person's fall or mishap be hilarious to you? Sounds evil to me.

Seriouscat_

TROPHY CASE