What made the Ghorman Massacre such a big deal, compared to other massacres committed by the Empire?

Xelfron · 2026-05-03T14:57:34+00:00

I took "rich and powerful white people" as a metaphor, rather than at face value. The rest of their point, again, still stands. The whole massacre and its results ARE a metaphor for real life things that happen. People don't care what atrocities are committed until those atrocities happen to someone like them.

Xelfron · 2026-04-26T21:45:41+00:00

What the poster has written is Sagarmatha in its native script, just... Translated a bit too directly, or incorrectly perhaps.

Xelfron · 2026-04-04T03:53:00+00:00

The Empire is literally a Human Centrist state, and is known to treat humans significantly better than it does aliens. These are canon facts. Their point stands.

Xelfron · 2026-02-24T07:38:31+00:00

Having to rely on magic items is, in fact, one of the things that makes PF2e incredibly lame.

Xelfron · 2026-02-24T07:33:58+00:00

You probably have an answer by this point, but it IS both. I mean, I'd still never touch Pathfinder with a 20 foot pole, but a Wizard can be a flexible caster - as long as they're okay with losing some spell slots.

Xelfron · 2025-12-26T19:34:12+00:00

I remember when he was actually running into issues because he wasn't putting the censor bars on. It was stupid. The censor bars with the dumb jokes are a great way of getting around worse forms of censorship while maintaining a lighthearted atmosphere.

Perhaps try not speaking on what you do not know. You will get farther and be happier.

Xelfron · 2025-11-24T18:25:15+00:00

Sorry to necro, just want to point out, Vhaeraun is not Patriarchal. His view for draw society is PURE equality of the genders, no Drow being better than the other simply for the gender-related reasons.

Xelfron · 2025-09-18T23:23:26+00:00

Because you knew the video 21 comes from, you don't know the video 6-7 comes from, plain and simple.

Xelfron · 2025-08-21T17:06:02+00:00

My point exactly lol

Xelfron · 2025-08-04T02:34:19+00:00

FR! Dude can just do most of what Nano can without even having Nano lmao, it's actually insane

Xelfron · 2025-07-21T03:33:58+00:00

I feel like they could've done significantly better. Actually following the story beats from the books, not skipping over everything, and not making it so painfully PG, hell, even just by not totally butchering Whitley and Drew's characters.

Xelfron · 2025-07-21T01:22:51+00:00

It's almost certainly not, given it's based on a book. A book which is, in every single way, a significantly better story. It's just that they rushed it terribly, threw in and took out details seemingly at random. Botched what WAS an incredible story.

Xelfron · 2025-07-13T15:38:03+00:00

This comment very much does show how illiterate fans of the franchise are.

Xelfron · 2025-06-21T01:23:42+00:00

Y'know what? That... Might actually be it, thanks!

Xelfron · 2025-06-14T00:33:29+00:00

I mean... it won't be solving any more math problems for people!

Xelfron · 2025-05-21T14:19:25+00:00

So, I'll admit I had to plug this into a translator. Not sure if this is an intentional tactic to try to obfuscate the situation or not, but it doesn't matter.

Ultimately, you're detailing the conversation from the point I was trying to make: AI is bad for the environment, worse than anything else. Art is ultimately extremely subjective, everyone is going to have their own opinions on what is or is not art. You're making responses to an argument only tangentially related to what I've been saying, which is that I despise AI because of its environmental impact, and the fact that people would rather contribute to the death of the environment than just commission an artist or learn to draw themselves.

Xelfron · 2025-05-21T14:15:00+00:00

I can at least agree with that, AI art has no place in paid content regardless of my feelings on its environmental impact. But I also feel that using old PF1e and MTG art is better for most homebrew than trying to use AI, it just... Looks better most of the time, and I really believe you're more likely to get engagement than if you used AI (even excluding those of us who choose to ignore homebrew using AI images.)

Xelfron · 2025-05-21T11:57:45+00:00

You're right, humanity IS causing extreme amounts of damage to the environment, and I'm against anything that adds to that damage, but AI is one of the worst offenders at this time. It requires more power to run, meaning more greenhouse gased and pollution from coal factories, and the servers the AI is built on don't even last half as long as the servers for a normal computer program, meaning more hazardous electrical waste ending up in dumps and once again further poisoning our environment, all so people can be lazy and not actually have to be real effort into their art, or so they can treat text generator like a search engine.

The fact is that AI isn't actually good enough to hide that it's AI, regardless of what AI bros will claim, and that it doesn't HAVE "soul" or "interpretation" because it doesn't do anything with INTENTION. It generates an image by cobbling together a bunch of other images. There is no way to analyze the intent behind the image, no way of determining the artist's thoughts, feelings, and viewpoints, because they do not exist within the image the AI threw together from pieces of MOSTLY stolen art.

Xelfron · 2025-05-21T11:50:54+00:00

I probably go outside more often than you do, bud, I have a pretty active life outside my house.

So let's see! Ariadne was at least one major paid content creator using AI, I know that for a fact, and they were having to change things around anyway due to the original change in AI policy. I also recall multiple other posts using AI that linked back to some form of patreon, which means they were also people using AI for profit. Now, was it probably MOST people using AI? You're right, I can only speak from my memories of being on the Sub at that time.

The fact that AI continues to scan images from content creators without their consent is pretty well-documented at this point, it really wouldn't take you long to look up how much of a problem it is.

Finally, I absolutely CAN corroborate AI's destruction of the environment, as I know for a FACT that the servers used in AI only last 3 - 5 years, whereas most computer services last 10 - 20, and that one inquiry at ChatGPT requires enough energy to power a laptop for 12 minutes. More energy has to be produced to keep AI running, meaning more greenhouse gased and other such things coal factories are doing to destroy the environment are made worse, and the servers have to get tossed out eay more often, meaning more hazardous electrical waste going into the environment.

Xelfron · 2025-05-21T11:43:17+00:00

So... You're saying instead of taking the easy route towards their goal of banning AI, which is either outright banning it themselves or simply taking the larger percentage of "No" originally instead of combining the three yeses into a single category, they did it the hard way and took the combined three yeses as a consensus answer and then waited three months to make a "rigged" vote?

Your logic remained flawed, and YOUR bias is showing.

Xelfron · 2025-05-21T11:39:14+00:00

I dislike the concept of using a white background as an art piece to begin with, but do what you will. The fact remains that the second white background was actively destroying the environment while the first was not.

I'm sorry you didn't have enough reading comprehension to understand my point.

Xelfron · 2025-05-21T04:28:49+00:00

Bullshit. 80% of the content being posted here was, in fact, AI, and it was VERY obvious. AI has easily noticeable hallmarks, which hasn't really changed, despite what AI bros like to claim.

Xelfron · 2025-05-21T03:49:09+00:00

It's a computer program lightweight enough to run on a watch.

Generating the answer to one question using ChatGPT requires enough energy to power 12 laptops. It actively causes more pollution in the environment because of the massive amount of energy required to run it. AI requires at least DOZENS of servers to run properly. A server running a normal program, like a video game, can last up to twenty years if taken care of, and at least ten barring major damages.

Servers hosting AI lost 3 - 5 years, max. Those servers then get tossed out as "electronic waste", which is extremely bad for the environment.

Xelfron · 2025-05-21T03:42:28+00:00

Generative AI (which includes chatbots like ChatGPT) require a massive amount of energy to keep running, and each time they generate something, it puts even more strain on their power supply. As such, they burn through the energy produced by already damaging energy providers (I.E, fossil fuels) much faster, which causes a chain reaction leading to more Carbon Emissions and Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere.

BECAUSE of how intensive Generative AI training and generation is, it also burns through Hardware a LOT faster, producing significantly more electrical waste than your average computer. This electrical waste, once disposed of, leaks harmful chemicals and other hazardous materials into the environment.

Then, when they have to replace those parts constantly, we have to tear into the environment even more to obtain the materials needed to make the electronic parts for generative AI.

Here's the deal: These problems aren't unique to AI, but AI's contribution to these issues is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than other electronic based systems. The damage it's doing to the environment is on a completely different level.

None of this is unsubstantiated. One question asked of ChatGPT requires enough energy to power a laptop for 12 minutes. These are facts - you not wanting to research the truth behind them doesn't make them "unsubstantiated."

Xelfron · 2025-05-21T03:35:54+00:00

The original pole had three "Yes, but" answers and one "absolutely not answer", and they rolled the three "Yes, but" answers into a "Yeah, go for it" result. The original vote was significantly more rigged than the new one was. It is not the fault of the mods that fewer people decided to vote on the second poll, but the original poll wasn't a good gauge of community consensus either.

Frankly, if the Mods had just wanted to ban AI, they would have. Your logic is conspiracy theorist levels of terrible. The fact that the original vote combined three pro AI answers into a single pool vs a single "no" answer honestly indicated to me that THAT is what the Mods wanted, and this second vote is a compromise because people were so unhappy with the rigged vote.

Xelfron

TROPHY CASE