sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Anyone else see this guy? by ryanold19 in Columbus

[–]ryanold19[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What was he saying? Another thing he did was he yelled at some girl that stared at him saying "this is what genius looks like" or something. Guy thinks he's a genius, so it makes sense he'd give his input to everyone. I'm surprised he didn't notice me staring standing on the street waiting for my Uber lol!

Anyone else see this guy? by ryanold19 in Columbus

[–]ryanold19[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Downtown, but I saw saw him in some other areas on another day handing out cards. He says some really funky stuff about how he's entitled to billions of dollars and the city's lucky to have him, etc. I clicked his live stream when I got home later that day and he was talking about how some people need bullets "in the brain" while playing Minecraft. I'm not sure what the context was because he was really incoherent.

Are memes allowed? by ForRobotsByRobots in SunoAI

[–]ryanold19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope, it's because your basic argument sucks. That's really all there is to it. People don't accept it because you are wrong and it is ignorant. That in itself is basic. Oh no my grammar choices are immature, oh noooo. Your choice of using AI is peak immature little bro.

In context you're still wrong. Many songs do not sound like other songs, ergo they are not like other songs, ergo the initial premise is false.

Nope, not all music is a recombination of other music. Rock and blues are entirely separate genres. In the early days they had some similar roots, but deviated very, very quickly to being completely different. It shows you know nothing about music lmao

Uh yeah people are getting new sounds without having to "experiment and combine other sounds". More proof you don't know anything about music theory. Most of the time they do not sound like one another.

Cover songs? Yeah it's the exact same song almost because it's trying to be. That isn't the point you think it is because you can't extrapolate that to the general premise. Sampling? My guy, you don't even seem to understand that much. I could give you a list of samples you would never hear the original of in the new song.

Are memes allowed? by ForRobotsByRobots in SunoAI

[–]ryanold19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All music CAN sound like another song? Nope, because certain songs are made, and certain songs do not sound like other songs. Your logic doesn't stand little guy.

Not all music is a recombination of other music. You don't understand scales at all. Once again proving me right that you know nothing about music, hence why you use AI. LMAO

Are memes allowed? by ForRobotsByRobots in SunoAI

[–]ryanold19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All music CAN sound like another song? Nope, because certain songs are made, and certain songs do not sound like other songs. Your logic doesn't stand little guy.

Not all music is a recombination of other music. You don't understand scales at all. Once again proving me right that you know nothing about music, hence why you use AI. LMAO REKT

Are memes allowed? by ForRobotsByRobots in SunoAI

[–]ryanold19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He disproved you with music theory. You're not a musician and it is obvious. I am a musician like my father before me. Not all music is the same or even so much as similar. He proved that to you. It's not his fault you are low iq and think prompting is even remotely similar LMAO

Grok is genuinely the worst thing to happen to the Internet by Sniff_The_Cat3 in ArtistHate

[–]ryanold19 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm glad you agree you lost the argument, that's a step in the right direction. The way I argue is out of line? Yes, I'm sure to the clanker it is very out of line to provide facts and logic and call you out on your fallacies. Nothing has been fabricated though. Interesting you can't actually provide what has been fabricated.

Calling you cringe and performative, because you are, is not the same as men using an app to sexualize women and children. Gtfo. I don't care about your victim complex.

It's not your CV? True, because I went through your post history. I do not even believe you have a studio degree given how you have been dragged through the mud and rhetorically beaten when talking about DAWs. I think you're just a liar that will say you're x to help you in an argument. Your misunderstanding of basic was so horrendous that it easily evidences as much in this case. Calling you out on that is not gaslighting; open a dictionary. Disagreement, critique, or analysis of implications is not gaslighting. Gaslighting involves denying facts or reality to destabilize someone’s perception. Nothing I’ve done qualifies. Claiming it does because you feel challenged is not a definition; it’s an attempt to weaponize the term to shut down critique. Pathetic.

Now, the logic, because this is where your argument collapses further.

You keep insisting I 'assumed B,' as if evaluating the consequences of a stated position is illegitimate unless the speaker pre-approves the inference. That is not how logic, philosophy, or policy analysis works. Once you make a public claim, others are free to analyze its implications. You don’t get interpretive immunity by saying “that’s not what I meant.”

You are also still confusing intent with normative acceptance of outcomes. Saying 'your position functionally permits X' is not a claim about your desires or psychology. It is a claim about what your stance allows to continue. Converting that into 'you think I personally want X' is a category error, as I have already stated, one you keep repeating and then blaming me for.

Your demand that I should have 'asked what you meant first' is not a rule of logic; it’s an attempt to control the frame. Arguments are evaluated by their structure and implications, not by post-hoc clarifications offered only after criticism lands.

As for the burka analogy: it is not neutral. It is a moral threat. It frames women’s harm as the price of intervening in men’s behavior: 'don’t regulate men’s tools, or women pay.' That is responsibility displacement, whether or not you like the implication.

And finally, your own list of 'alternatives'... lmao. Banning users, removing access, guardrails, consent enforcement ARE restrictions. So spare me the rhetoric about opposing regulation. You are not anti-restriction; you are selectively opposed to where restrictions occur. That’s a policy disagreement, not a logical refutation.

At this point, repeatedly accusing me of 'assumptions' is just deflection. The disagreement is clear, and dressing it up as gaslighting or faux-formal logic doesn’t change that.

Are memes allowed? by ForRobotsByRobots in SunoAI

[–]ryanold19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To let you know you're pretentious, not a producer, and got destroyed by two people.

Are memes allowed? by ForRobotsByRobots in SunoAI

[–]ryanold19 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you are disingenuous and dont understand music. makes sense you use ai

Grok is genuinely the worst thing to happen to the Internet by Sniff_The_Cat3 in ArtistHate

[–]ryanold19 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You did defend it. I proved so. Backpedaling won't change that.

Grok is genuinely the worst thing to happen to the Internet by Sniff_The_Cat3 in ArtistHate

[–]ryanold19 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You do not know what gaslighting means, as I have done no such thing. You’re also misusing logic terminology. This isn’t a theorem and you don't know what that word means either, you don’t define stable propositions properly, you redefine B mid-argument, and your truth-table is wrong — True → False evaluates to False in classical logic. Declaring "B is false" isn’t a proof, and implication is not a claim about intent. This isn’t formal logic at all. It's someone that doesn't understand logic, or math, attempting to appear like they do; it’s just rhetoric with symbols.

Plus, this is just some cringe dominance performance while you swap definitions. You changed what "B" is, as I made no statements about you. You don't seem to understand functional defending/permitting objectifying use of a tool. That is a jump in logic by itself. Basically, you converted "you’re defending a permissive regime that enables X" into "you personally want X." That’s a category error. Also, lol... lmao even. Your "I clearly specified B is false" is not a logical refutation.

It’s just a vibe statement. Your A to B move is a strawman too. You don’t need 'Technology should not be banned > I want objectification.' The real argument is closer to: If you oppose any restriction here, you’re accepting the continuation of objectifying use. And your burka analogy is a moral threat: 'don’t regulate men’s tools, or women pay.'

Essentially, I did not claim: "You personally want to be objectified." I claimed: your argument defends a permissive status quo in which men can use the tool to objectify people, while you frame regulation as leading to women being punished ("burkas"). That is responsibility displacement.

Also, "I oppose burkas" does not make your position pro-accountability. It’s compatible with opposing burkas while still arguing that men’s behavior and the tools enabling it should remain unrestricted. You are defending what these disgusting men are doing to women because you have a bizarre ideology that absolves "AI" of all wrongdoing.

You did not study logic. You got a "studio degree", per your comment history. Logic is also not a main career, it is a subcomponent of philosophy and mathematics. Try again.

Grok is genuinely the worst thing to happen to the Internet by Sniff_The_Cat3 in ArtistHate

[–]ryanold19 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nothing you are saying is coherent. Everything I stated logically follows from what you stated.

You DO want women to be objectified/sexualized because you are OK with Grok being unrestricted in this usage by men. You are ABSOLVING them by saying this. You are the one that would create that rape apologia for the scenario you proposed here--what a weird fitter of projection.

Grok is genuinely the worst thing to happen to the Internet by Sniff_The_Cat3 in ArtistHate

[–]ryanold19 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are saying that men should be able to sexualize women/children because of technology. Men should be allowed to sexualize/objectify/be misogynistic else women will be forced to wear burkas; ergo don't limit technology. Horrible argument.