And that's why we want someone like Harleen who is the type of mentally unstable that is useful for us rather than say Hugo Strange who's just Dr Moon but with less scalpels and more scarring psychiatric treatment
Lex Sedet In Vertice: A Supervillain in the DCU CK2 quest
- Thread starter King crimson
- Start date
- Superhero
- Location
- Mid-Atlantic
Gonna be honest, if we DO go talent-hunting at Arkham it'll probably be (OOC) specifically to find Harleen Quinzel. There's an IC justification for why Luthor might try it if he's already in town, and Quinzel, specifically, has a combination of traits that recommend themselves (ability to relate to truly deranged people without getting shocked, clearly being willing to deal with the criminally insane, and a tendency to become absurdly, irrationally loyal to a supervillain which is a huge asset given that we are a supervillain).
The main failure state would be if she gets fixated on one of our mad scientists like she does the Joker in canon... And frankly that's unlikely to be a problem because they're a bunch of huge nerds.
The main failure state would be if she gets fixated on one of our mad scientists like she does the Joker in canon... And frankly that's unlikely to be a problem because they're a bunch of huge nerds.
King crimson
Confusion Will Be My Epitaph
- Location
- Los Angeles
So if people have no objections I'll be attempting to update tomorrow.
- Location
- Singapore
Goddammit! Bronze Tiger got brainwashed! We were too late!
....On the other hand, this can be an opportunity. Once we investigate & meet Richard Dragon to trigger the [Rescue Ben Turner] storyline, should we cash in on Ra's favour to release Bronze Tiger into our custody?
Providing psychological rehabilitation and restoring his freedom should net us a high Co-op from Richard Dragon & Ben Turner right? Having both of them teach Cassandra would be ideal.
- Location
- Fifth Dimension
I mean...it really isn't that deep. She's just a clone of Supergirl (who's not a minor btw) and no one even sexualized her. Like she legit has the costume design discussed in the initial post already, and the second point was just going full Powergirl rather than half Powergirl like the Jl cartoon did.
At no point was anything sexual discussed.
Things didn't become deep until...
This post. The truly disturbing things like sex slaves and pimps and salivating over sexualization or really any sexualization only occur here and nowhere else, ironic since it's a mod post reacting to...made up strawmen it seems as nothing it addresses actually exists in the posts it cites. And then it makes up serious charges and allegations and battles over those. Despite them never existing in the first place.
I'd say the issue is a non-issue. Galatea is technically an adult, so is Supergirl like...90% of the time she's shown and especially when she's dealing with the Galatea issue, and no sexualization even occurred. Just reference to existing designs and characters.
Kinda weird/telling that in a topic where torture is occurring and suggested, that this is what triggered someone.
Basically too much sensitivity, looking for what's not there, insecurity, and projection going on.
King crimson
Confusion Will Be My Epitaph
- Location
- Los Angeles
Not going to talk to deeply about this but I did want to point out something that's very clearly wrong.
Secondly Supergirl is most likely a minor when the sample was taken. Supergirl is 16 when "Legacy" (the point in time where Hamilton takes DNA from her) occurs. The Justice League forms after that in 2001. Time passes and Galatea is revealed and they have their whole show down. Then later in the mid to late 2000's Kara debuts the new costume and is declared to be 21 before leaving to go off into space. The DCAU isn't perfect on timeline stuff but it's pretty clear that Supergirl was a minor when the DNA sample was taken if not when she fought Galatea.
Thirdly the argument wasn't "do you want to give Galatea Powergirl's design" unless you want to argue that Negation's use of Powergirl's image in his initial post linked to the word boobs constitutes as such. There was no commentary on giving Galatea a cape or blue gloves and boots. The topic was always "do you want to give Galatea bigger boobs and a cleavage window". Contrary to popular belief Powergirl's design is not just a boob window. Also you are blatantly making things up at this point.
Here is Negation's original post (sorry for dragging this back up)
As for the whole sexuality triggering and bothering people more than violence, yes it's weird but that's more indicative of the greater culture of the America's (I personally think the puritans had a hand in it). This isn't anything new and in fact I made a post which briefly touched on the subject ages ago as you can see down below
The perspective the mod took (if you really want to stand and die on the hill that the initial post talking about giving Galatea bigger boobs and a cleavage window also included and condoned torture) isn't unusual at all in American culture. Is it right? No, not necessarily but I also wouldn't go as far as to call it wrong either. There are other places to debate the morality of that stuff.
Do I think the mod was right in all of their accusations? No I don't (I don't think the sexual slavery accusation was grounded well unless they wanted to go for a very roundabout argument based on mind control) but I do think they had a point hence why I posted on the subject of Galatea.
My final thing to say on the matter is as follows. Nobody suffered any actual consequences from what happened. I wrote on why Galatea is a really uncomfortable character to sexualize. I also said that you probably shouldn't make in-thread comments about whether or not you, the players, should sexualize Galatea (and yes giving a character larger breasts is sexualizing the character. If you need a litmus test for what is and isn't sexualizing see what porn featuring these characters tends to do with them). I think I didn't condemn anyone for what was probably an honest mistake (you walked through a field and stepped on a landmine. It's not your fault but it's something that should be kept in mind for the future). I've said my piece on the subject matter and while I can elaborate further I do think that this is something that you should think carefully as to whether or not this is the hill you want to die on.
First off everything is as deep as you make it. Just because you are unaware of something being that way doesn't mean it's not that way. With artistic mediums there is a lot more freedom of expression but things like subtext and themes exist no matter what you do. Saying "it isn't that deep" is reductive to an extent because it dismisses everything that you do not immediately observe as invalid and not real. It doesn't mean you should be constantly looking for things beneath the surface all the time (you can do so it just might impact your enjoyment). This argument (it's not that deep) can be applied to anything that doesn't just flat out tell you what it's about (pretty much all literature that's not philosophy could be twisted in such a way that you can claim: "it's not that deep". Unless you are giving guidelines for what is and isn't deep then you've essentially condemned all literature to only surface level readings).
Secondly Supergirl is most likely a minor when the sample was taken. Supergirl is 16 when "Legacy" (the point in time where Hamilton takes DNA from her) occurs. The Justice League forms after that in 2001. Time passes and Galatea is revealed and they have their whole show down. Then later in the mid to late 2000's Kara debuts the new costume and is declared to be 21 before leaving to go off into space. The DCAU isn't perfect on timeline stuff but it's pretty clear that Supergirl was a minor when the DNA sample was taken if not when she fought Galatea.
Thirdly the argument wasn't "do you want to give Galatea Powergirl's design" unless you want to argue that Negation's use of Powergirl's image in his initial post linked to the word boobs constitutes as such. There was no commentary on giving Galatea a cape or blue gloves and boots. The topic was always "do you want to give Galatea bigger boobs and a cleavage window". Contrary to popular belief Powergirl's design is not just a boob window. Also you are blatantly making things up at this point.
Here is Negation's original post (sorry for dragging this back up)
Where in this is Powergirl's costume discussed as you claim?
I mean it's iffy. Like really iffy. Yes boobs aren't a sexual reproductive organ so it's not a 1 to 1 comparison of say going "lets give Superboy a bigger penis" but it's pretty clearly a large component in how females can be/are sexualized. It's kind of a body part that is pretty clearly tied to sexualization so talking about enhancing/making that part larger is pretty clearly discussing something sexual.
Not really. She's a minor in most senses of the word. She doesn't think for herself, has no real freedom or independence from her creator and hasn't existed for long enough. The only way in which she is an adult is the physical body. However that basically equates whether or not someone is or isn't a minor to the age of their physical body which has loads of potentially disturbing implications (If you accelerated the growth of a toddler's body but not their mind would it be okay to have sex with them? If bodies are the only standard you use for maturity then your answer is yes and that's gross as all hell).
What? When did torture come into this discussion? The act of cloning is not torture (even if it is done without consent) and I don't know where you dredged up this argument from. Are you referring to Galatea being mentally conditioned as being tortured (also not torture. Immoral yes, torture no)? Can you point out to me where in the conversation torture was occurring or suggested? This honestly sounds like you are misremembering what was written.
As for the whole sexuality triggering and bothering people more than violence, yes it's weird but that's more indicative of the greater culture of the America's (I personally think the puritans had a hand in it). This isn't anything new and in fact I made a post which briefly touched on the subject ages ago as you can see down below
The perspective the mod took (if you really want to stand and die on the hill that the initial post talking about giving Galatea bigger boobs and a cleavage window also included and condoned torture) isn't unusual at all in American culture. Is it right? No, not necessarily but I also wouldn't go as far as to call it wrong either. There are other places to debate the morality of that stuff.
Do I think the mod was right in all of their accusations? No I don't (I don't think the sexual slavery accusation was grounded well unless they wanted to go for a very roundabout argument based on mind control) but I do think they had a point hence why I posted on the subject of Galatea.
Please don't argue there is projection is going on. It's a slightly fancier equivalent of the "no you!" argument and it only makes it look like you are trying to insult the other person. Otherwise your conclusion is fine but "projection" is a god awful term to use unless you want to pick a fight.
My final thing to say on the matter is as follows. Nobody suffered any actual consequences from what happened. I wrote on why Galatea is a really uncomfortable character to sexualize. I also said that you probably shouldn't make in-thread comments about whether or not you, the players, should sexualize Galatea (and yes giving a character larger breasts is sexualizing the character. If you need a litmus test for what is and isn't sexualizing see what porn featuring these characters tends to do with them). I think I didn't condemn anyone for what was probably an honest mistake (you walked through a field and stepped on a landmine. It's not your fault but it's something that should be kept in mind for the future). I've said my piece on the subject matter and while I can elaborate further I do think that this is something that you should think carefully as to whether or not this is the hill you want to die on.
Last edited:
Look mods are so progresive they got Gandhi Bugged and come out on the other end, Do i like it ? Nope but we have to deal with it, I mean how often do those in power make decisions that stick even if they are wrong ? But lets not get into politics, We are gonna to have to suck it up my friend, Im more concerned about the person who reported it and who propably knew the result of that report.
- Location
- Fifth Dimension
I mean...by that logic (everything is deep as you want to make it), any and everything is insulting and offensive. And that's just crazy to me. Especially when one takes one sentence asking a question, and another answering with three words, and extrapolates an essay and so much more from that and claims things that were never discussed.
Supergirl would be a minor in that she was 16 and frozen, but also not because she's legit 16 years older than Clark. And Galatea is then aged up. And we know Supergirl was with the Kents multiple years before she fought Galatea so she can't be a minor. And Galatea's even older.
As for Power Girl, yes the context is there. The link is literally right to Power Girl when it discusses the boobs. Context is everything and I can tell you 100% it's what I was thinking. "Why not go full Power Girl".
And Power Girl is known for her boob window to the point that they've discussed it in verse so...a bit disingenuous on that point.
Well usually (and legally) it definitely is based around the physical body (and basically how long one has existed, and as a clone she gets Supergirl's years, plus her accelerated years). A ton of non-minors don't think for theirself and have no freedom or independence. By your logic, all clones are minors no matter what. So are monsters. Or mindless beasts. And like...no one makes that distinction.
Pretty sure Clones in Star Wars aren't called Child Soldiers.
I mean...that's pretty much the case (though not directed towards you really). When things come from left field, that means it came from the accuser. In this case projecting their feelings that apparently cloning Supergirl and modifying her in such discussed ways is not only 'sexual' but leads right to pimping and sex slavery...which is bizarre.
It's classic projection and it needs to be addressed that an entire moderation was fabricated from mid-air.
I mean...I strongly consider doing so since I was accused of advocating sex slavery and pimping of a minor.
From typing three words that are equivalent to "yes and yes". To a question about a costume and enlarging breasts. That's a huge strike at my character and integrity and I'll go to the ends of the Earth to 'die on that hill'.
Kkutlord
Prince of Breath
- Location
- Indianapolis, Indiana
Okay this is completely different from what was going on, but how do AIs/Robots/etc fall under this? Like if we made an in-quest version of Projekt Melody, would we be violating all kinds of laws/ethics or would everyone just shrug at the (visibly/mentally mature) year-old AI pervert?
Oh, on a less (equally?) weird but similar topic, how close are we to making Vocaloids? Is there anything resembling Vocaloids yet, or could we make bank creating AI Idols? I know they're incredibly popular, and encouraging creative talent in/from the general public is a good idea.
Last edited:
- Location
- Singapore
Which was part of why I wanted Ivo to live. The sucess of his Mind Transfer into A.M.A.Z.O would also raise similar Legal conumdrums for Legal Identies, Clone Rights, Synthetic Intelligence Rights and so forth.
Championing such causes like we help Pamela champion Green causes would make us look good (though probably make us some political enemies in the US Goverment alphabet soup). Red Tornado would also look on us more favourably.
Championing such causes like we help Pamela champion Green causes would make us look good (though probably make us some political enemies in the US Goverment alphabet soup). Red Tornado would also look on us more favourably.
King crimson
Confusion Will Be My Epitaph
- Location
- Los Angeles
So some elaboration and response. This will get very squicky very fast.
Secondly my whole long essay was not a response to your post so much as it was a response to the mods. I didn't comment until after the mod said their bit and I thought things over and decided to give my thoughts on the matter. My whole long writing was to touch on why Galatea is a problematic character to sexualize and why certain things with the topic should be discussed carefully.
Thirdly comparing length of the initial statement (three words and a question) to the response to the statement (an essay and more) is disingenuous. Unless things were ascribed to you in those posts (not going to speak for the mods but I personally did my level best to avoid making any claims about what others have said and only pointing out my own thoughts on the subject matter) then the length of the initial statement and response have no correlation to one another. Simple questions like "Who are you?" can have absolutely massive and complicated answers to them. I'm not going to compare what exactly was said to other statements to attempt to prove that length was warranted or anything like that. What I'm saying is that the length of the call and response are not correlated and attempting to gatekeep responses to a size limit is ridiculous. If something is said and they can write an essay about it that doesn't delegitimize what ultimately was written in their response unless they make something up especially if they bring up outside sources. You can challenge the validity of their outside sources but that doesn't seem to be what you are doing. For example if someone asked me "hey do you think the US will last forever" and I respond "yes I do" (not my actual opinion) and someone writes an essay on why I'm wrong and brings in examples of Rome and Egypt and the heat death of the universe than even though their response is much longer than what came before (a question and three words) the response is still legitimate.
Also Supergirl was unfrozen at age thirteen and stayed with the Kents for three years, making her sixteen at the time of her debut in the show. The samples collected from Kara occurred in roughly the same time period as Superman's debut (a year or so later at best). Yes Supergirl was older when she fought Galatea but that's irrelevant to the actual point being made. The sample's used to make Galatea were taken when she was a minor.
It's like if someone were raped at 16 or 17 but didn't remember it for some reason and then learned of the rape two years later (making them 18 or 19 and thus no longer a minor when they learn of it) they were still raped as a minor. Similarly Hamilton violated Supergirl's body when she was a minor. When she fought Galatea is irrelevant.
Physical maturity doesn't equal age in any way shape or form. If someone stuck an adults mind in a child's body or a child's mind in an adults body that doesn't make the child transform into an actual adult or vice versa. Galatea is not older than Supergirl in any sense of the word besides that some scientists sped up the rate at which her cells divided and matured. In fact the very argument used to declare Supergirl not a minor (the only thing that matters is the actual passage of time) is against Galatea not beign a minor (if all that determines Supergirl's age was the passage of time then Galatea's a toddler).
The standard I use, and what I've found most people use, to declare someone a non-minor is that the identity of the person is fundamentally what determines whether or not they are a minor. As such all of my thoughts on Galatea not thinking for herself or no freedom or individuality is to basically declare her not fit to be considered a minor. I was attempting to demonstrate that Galatea doesn't have an identity for herself outside of what others have declared for her, which makes her mentally not a minor.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a monster" but mindless beasts aren't considered minors because they aren't considered people. A mindless beast isn't a minor or not a minor because the entire category doesn't apply to them. It's like saying no one considers tigers to be minors so discussing the mental capacity of a clone is irrelevant. Things that are not people do not have the same rights or protections as people so they cannot be considered minors (animals and mindless beasts don't have a right to free speech, assembly or really any of the rights we give humans. Thus they do not get the protections of minors). It's wildly out of place in the whole discussion to bring up mindless beasts since they are irrelevant.
The metric I use for if someone is a minor is as follows:
Apparently there are also old Legends novels that call them child soldiers but my five minutes of research didn't find them so take that with a grain of salt.
"Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another person. For example, a husband who has a hostile nature might attribute this hostility to his wife and say she has an anger management problem."
If you are claiming someone is undergoing projection then you are stating that they are the very thing they accused you of being. In this case you more or less accused the mod of wanting to engage in pimping and sexual slavery. Do you see why the specific psychological term "projection" is terrible to use in these kinds of context? It's also terrible because if the person actually is undergoing projection then claiming such a thing will likely only make them double down on you even harder.
Someone projecting/applying their feelings onto something is fundamentally different from the act of projection. You likely were unaware of it but the word you used means something very specific when applied to people.
Keep in mind I'm not super-familiar with Projekt Melody but chances are you'd be violating some kind of ethical line if she passed the person test since she didn't have the capacity to choose to enter an already kind of contentious field. If the year old AI was given the capacity to think for herself and chose to do it, rather than was programmed into think she chose to do it, then it would be different but it fundamentally relies on the AI/robot in questions capability to have potentially made a different choice if circumstances beyond how it was created were different. It's a long issue that fundamentally deals with the philosophy of childhood and adulthood. I don't have a perfect stance on every scenario. If you are interested in the subject I recommend this: The Philosophy of Childhood (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) as a good way to establish a base for the moral quandaries posed
Unless you are going to set clear boundaries on what is and isn't deep (which is difficult) then you have to pick either everything has as much meaning as people ascribe to it (everything is as deep as you want to make it) or it has no meaning beyond what's literally written down (Nothing is deeper than its surface level). I personally prefer the first. I do genuinely believe anything and everything can be interpreted as insulting or offensive if you want it to (for example if you wanted to Lion King could be read as a movie about the divine right to rule and how if any outsider attempts to reform or alter the system everything will go to shit so you should never challenge authority. Such a reading is a little questionable, but it's possible to arrive at without altering or ascribing motives to characters).
Secondly my whole long essay was not a response to your post so much as it was a response to the mods. I didn't comment until after the mod said their bit and I thought things over and decided to give my thoughts on the matter. My whole long writing was to touch on why Galatea is a problematic character to sexualize and why certain things with the topic should be discussed carefully.
Thirdly comparing length of the initial statement (three words and a question) to the response to the statement (an essay and more) is disingenuous. Unless things were ascribed to you in those posts (not going to speak for the mods but I personally did my level best to avoid making any claims about what others have said and only pointing out my own thoughts on the subject matter) then the length of the initial statement and response have no correlation to one another. Simple questions like "Who are you?" can have absolutely massive and complicated answers to them. I'm not going to compare what exactly was said to other statements to attempt to prove that length was warranted or anything like that. What I'm saying is that the length of the call and response are not correlated and attempting to gatekeep responses to a size limit is ridiculous. If something is said and they can write an essay about it that doesn't delegitimize what ultimately was written in their response unless they make something up especially if they bring up outside sources. You can challenge the validity of their outside sources but that doesn't seem to be what you are doing. For example if someone asked me "hey do you think the US will last forever" and I respond "yes I do" (not my actual opinion) and someone writes an essay on why I'm wrong and brings in examples of Rome and Egypt and the heat death of the universe than even though their response is much longer than what came before (a question and three words) the response is still legitimate.
Um no, Supergirl is pretty clearly a minor. When she was frozen both her physical and mental maturity were stopped. So as such the argument made that she is not a minor is "even though she was frozen and suspended in both body and mind for three years, her body existed during that time period so she's actually nineteen instead of sixteen and therefore not a minor despite both her body and mind functioning and appearing as though it were sixteen". Let me apply this same argument to a similar statement, if Supergirl was frozen at age three and it took her twenty years before she got defrosted would she be twenty-three? If so then she wouldn't be a minor by this logic despite mentally and physically being three years old. This means that as someone who is not a minor anymore under most systems of morality it would be okay to have sex with this hypothetical Supergirl. If there is a difference between these two arguments (DCAU is not a minor because of frozen time still existing while the hypothetical three year old version is a minor for some reason) please explain it to me. As of now this argument is not well fought through.
Also Supergirl was unfrozen at age thirteen and stayed with the Kents for three years, making her sixteen at the time of her debut in the show. The samples collected from Kara occurred in roughly the same time period as Superman's debut (a year or so later at best). Yes Supergirl was older when she fought Galatea but that's irrelevant to the actual point being made. The sample's used to make Galatea were taken when she was a minor.
It's like if someone were raped at 16 or 17 but didn't remember it for some reason and then learned of the rape two years later (making them 18 or 19 and thus no longer a minor when they learn of it) they were still raped as a minor. Similarly Hamilton violated Supergirl's body when she was a minor. When she fought Galatea is irrelevant.
Physical maturity doesn't equal age in any way shape or form. If someone stuck an adults mind in a child's body or a child's mind in an adults body that doesn't make the child transform into an actual adult or vice versa. Galatea is not older than Supergirl in any sense of the word besides that some scientists sped up the rate at which her cells divided and matured. In fact the very argument used to declare Supergirl not a minor (the only thing that matters is the actual passage of time) is against Galatea not beign a minor (if all that determines Supergirl's age was the passage of time then Galatea's a toddler).
Usually this sort of thing isn't a problem. Legally it certainly isn't. There's also no law about you using mind control to make people want to have sex with you and we'd still consider it immoral. The thing about "legally" is that it has no bearing on fantastical concepts not found in the real world. We're working in a world of hypotheticals and conjecture here, so "legally" holds very little weight.
The standard I use, and what I've found most people use, to declare someone a non-minor is that the identity of the person is fundamentally what determines whether or not they are a minor. As such all of my thoughts on Galatea not thinking for herself or no freedom or individuality is to basically declare her not fit to be considered a minor. I was attempting to demonstrate that Galatea doesn't have an identity for herself outside of what others have declared for her, which makes her mentally not a minor.
Your statement is correct but it's a little incongruous to things. In the real world we use age as a way to measure thought capability of the individuals in question and it's not perfect. In a world were physical age is no longer the best tell of if someone can think properly then a different metric needs to be used, hence why the necessary metric needs to change and why the comments about Galatea were made with regards to her being considered a minor.
My distinction fundamentally relies on self-identities. All clones that don't have an identity beyond that of their progenitors and don't have self-determination are minors in my world view. I'll probably need to tighten that definition as time goes on but that's what I've found to be the best metric.
I'm not sure what you mean by "a monster" but mindless beasts aren't considered minors because they aren't considered people. A mindless beast isn't a minor or not a minor because the entire category doesn't apply to them. It's like saying no one considers tigers to be minors so discussing the mental capacity of a clone is irrelevant. Things that are not people do not have the same rights or protections as people so they cannot be considered minors (animals and mindless beasts don't have a right to free speech, assembly or really any of the rights we give humans. Thus they do not get the protections of minors). It's wildly out of place in the whole discussion to bring up mindless beasts since they are irrelevant.
The metric I use for if someone is a minor is as follows:
- Is this thing a person/sentient? If so proceed to step two
- Has this entity experienced the passage of time normally for the amount of time passed to legally count them as no longer a minor? If not then proceed to step three
- Does this person have the mental capabilities to line up with what the ideal of someone who is not a minor?
I've heard them called Child Soldiers. Here's a reddit thread calling them child soldiers (I'm just using this as proof that there are people who do call them that and that at the very least it's not an open and shut case) r/StarWars - Clone Troopers were (basically) child soldiers.
Apparently there are also old Legends novels that call them child soldiers but my five minutes of research didn't find them so take that with a grain of salt.
No. That's not projection. Here is what projection actually means:
"Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another person. For example, a husband who has a hostile nature might attribute this hostility to his wife and say she has an anger management problem."
If you are claiming someone is undergoing projection then you are stating that they are the very thing they accused you of being. In this case you more or less accused the mod of wanting to engage in pimping and sexual slavery. Do you see why the specific psychological term "projection" is terrible to use in these kinds of context? It's also terrible because if the person actually is undergoing projection then claiming such a thing will likely only make them double down on you even harder.
Someone projecting/applying their feelings onto something is fundamentally different from the act of projection. You likely were unaware of it but the word you used means something very specific when applied to people.
That's not the hill I was referring to. If you want to defend your character and integrity that's fine. The hill I was referring to was the idea that there are no problematic elements with a discussion about giving Galatea a cleavage window and larger boobs. That I think is the hill that's not worth dying on. At the end of the day it's your call and I'll ask you to separate my own comments on the matter from what the mod ended up saying.
Most robots and AI's first have to pass the person test. They're also weird since unless they can evolve they will always be in one state or the other.
Keep in mind I'm not super-familiar with Projekt Melody but chances are you'd be violating some kind of ethical line if she passed the person test since she didn't have the capacity to choose to enter an already kind of contentious field. If the year old AI was given the capacity to think for herself and chose to do it, rather than was programmed into think she chose to do it, then it would be different but it fundamentally relies on the AI/robot in questions capability to have potentially made a different choice if circumstances beyond how it was created were different. It's a long issue that fundamentally deals with the philosophy of childhood and adulthood. I don't have a perfect stance on every scenario. If you are interested in the subject I recommend this: The Philosophy of Childhood (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) as a good way to establish a base for the moral quandaries posed
A voice synthesizer could be made fairly quickly. Actual AI idols are hard to make and require more work on your AI.
Last edited:
Torgamous
Aspiring Gynoid
- Pronouns
- She/Her
The last update was ten days ago and we've had a few interludes since. It's not been that long, especially for finals season.
- Location
- U.S.
its long for us addicted update druggies that need our fix
Kkutlord
Prince of Breath
- Location
- Indianapolis, Indiana
So overall, general rule of thumb is making sure our artificial people get to/can choose for themselves instead of being programmed/conditioned? Alright, it is better to have our minions/employees/etc willingly work for us, so that way no pesky "hero" can win them over with basic human decency.
Hmm, roughly how much more work? Like would Robert Frost's VR expertise be helpful for constructing simulated worlds for them? Kind of feeling like Robert Frost & Felicity should be the ones working on AI.
King crimson
Confusion Will Be My Epitaph
- Location
- Los Angeles
That's a good way of avoiding ethical quandaries.
No comment.
Potentially yes.
- Location
- Fifth Dimension
Was referring to the mod's essay.
On the other hand, Cap is considered to be like 90-100 years old despite being frozen.
And honestly, by the letter of the law, that 3/23 year old Supergirl would probably be considered a mentally deficient adult. So the 'taking advantage of minor' rules still apply. But at the same time, I don't see them declaring her a minor.
There kinda is...consent laws would probably encompass mind control.
Rape's a bit different and kinda not at all relevant to what we're talking about. Remember, it was 'sexualizing' a minor as I was addressing the mod and their points.
So Supergirl is at least an adult when she fights Galatea. So if the 'boob window' comments are sexualizing her, it's not a minor.
If it's Galatea...well Galatea is literally Supergirl with more age. Like it's what she actually is. So it makes less sense.
And difference with Galatea being an adult/toddler vs. Supergirl being an adult is that Galatea has technically gone through the time needed to be an adult. It's just via scientific mumbo jumbo accelerating her growth. Same reason a 3 year old Lion and a 3 year old human aren't the same. Different rates of growth/maturity.
King crimson
Confusion Will Be My Epitaph
- Location
- Los Angeles
Not really. Cap's pretty much treated as an ambiguous 20-30 something in every piece of media besides the Ultimate Universe comics. People will jokingly refer to him as "an old man" but I can't think of a single character or narrative that genuinely treats him like a 90-100 year old man as opposed to a time traveler.
The law and morality are two separate things. The argument is not on what the US government would declare it is on morality of these things. "The letter of the law" is irrelevant to this argument
Also if we go by what the law dictates, Kara stayed at the Kent's house for three years as she matured under the cover of being his younger cousin so she almost certainly was declared a minor by the government
Firstly not really. Consent laws (and I really don't want to talk about this) talk about being "under the influence" and have clauses against drugging and such. They don't have anything to deal with long term alteration, use of illusions, implanted personalities or any of the many, many ways mind control can mess with the mind.
Secondly that isn't the point. My point was that applying real world law as gospel isn't a compelling or effective argument when dealing with a superhero setting. There would be parallels and the basis should be grounded in reality but in a world like DC trying to match the law 1 to 1 to our own is ridiculous.
I disagree. We cannot get the mods opinion on this before I posted my own thoughts on the matter so we cannot get their opinion prior to when they read it, but I personally have made the statement that the creation of Galatea plays heavily into allegorically being rape. You can't get away from it no matter how much you try.
Hell even the name Galatea brings that up (the original myth of Galatea has the creator making her as his perfect woman and eventually marrying her. Hamilton naming an identical copy he made of Supergirl without her consent Galatea only really furthers the idea of Hamilton having in some way violated Supergirl's body or desiring to do so with elements of romantic attraction). Galatea will always have that baggage tied to her unless she is wildly reimagined (Divine is a Power Girl clone who doesn't have this baggage but "Galatea" fundamentally always will).
No. Again you're ignoring the entire way Galatea was brought about and the thematics involved with her conception. Sexualizing Galatea is not a problem solely because of the age quandary but also because of the rape thematic and the mind control elements.
Galatea is not "literally Supergirl with more age". She is a copy of Supergirl made by Emile Hamilton against Supergirl's consent who he then dressed up and conditioned to behave the way he chose to. An argument can be made for her age based off of mentality (I still don't think the physical body is in any way a good indicator for one's status as a minor or not because bodyswapping and reincarnation are a thing in DC) but the problem becomes one of freedom of choice and consent. If Galatea has gone through the process of "maturing" in a manner that made her agree with whatever her creators wanted from her then it is effectively mind control and all the choices she makes are problematic from the aspect of her being unable to give consent to the actions that are to an extent sexualizing her. All of this is again compounded by her having the whole rape allegory tied to her status as a character.
Even if we ignore the age issue in it's most basic form (which I don't think you've solved), you still are landing in the designer baby moral issues where you are growing a baby to be more attractive once they mature. I don't know about you but I personally am a little uncomfortable by the idea of "lets make a baby that will have large boobs and accept/want a cleavage window in her primary form of clothing as soon as she matures which we will then accelerate to ensure it happens on our own terms".
- Location
- Fifth Dimension
I mean...pretty sure Mind Control counts as 'under the influence'.
And real world law has to be used when real world law words are used. Like 'Minor'. Without laws there's no such thing as a Minor so we can't disregard them completely.
I honestly don't see even a hint of rape. Is it making a clone of someone without consent? Sure. But that's nowhere near as violating as rape is. Especially since the guy's not even having a sexual relationship with Galatea. Is it uncomfortable? Sure. But it's definitely not a rape thing. It's honestly closer to a sperm donor type thing. Except this time, it's a woman instead.
I mean...I disagree with the rape thematic so....
And literally all children are raised to agree with their creators/parents. It's only as icky as you make it sound if you put it in the darkest light. Your description of freedom of choice and consent is basically going for all clones ever AND any kind of minions AND aren't really relevant to the original point.
Remember the original point was cloning and designing the clone to look like Power Girl. The intent wasn't sexual, just aesthetics and thus, it wasn't sexualization unless you force it.
The mind control might be something Galatea is somewhat dealing with (and doesn't really affect the sexualization in any way), but that doesn't apply to the clone we're making necessarily. The only thing that can be judged as 'Minor' or not is her body/picture. And that is 100% adult.
And it's even more bizarre because she ALREADY has the boob window so it's more of a fact, than sexualization.
And people do try to design better looking babies all the time. Some/a lot of people try to procreate based on the attractiveness of their partner. It's not icky or as sexualizing as you're making it out to be.
Also side note, I don't think someone being mind controlled stops or should stop any and all form of sexualization. Something as tame as the actually modded comments especially. Like if someone is mind controlled or cloned should someone get in trouble for saying 'she's hot?' Or 'She has a full figure?" or even more vernacular forms?
Most people wouldn't agree.
Which is why this entire modding thing (which is the main thing I'm discussing) is so weird. Comments tamer than 'she's hot' were ruled as sexualization of a minor when no minors were being discussed in the first place.
- Location
- Singapore
Also keep their anti-virus and firewall up-to-date...
Congratulations Ms Smoak! You are now also Head of Synthetic Life Welfare!
EDIT: Better Living Through Evil should be the core of our HR and Employee Welfare Policy. Union Standards? Union standards is for Gotham cheapskates, here at LexCorp we can do better!
Last edited:
King crimson
Confusion Will Be My Epitaph
- Location
- Los Angeles
We're going in circles right now so I'm going to respond one last time
Secondly the only reason why "minor" was used is because it's easier and faster than typing out "person who is not yet an adult". I think you should disregard laws unless you are talking about laws and instead stick to philosophy when discussing morality (unless you are making a Hobbesian argument that the law is morality). Equating the law to a philosophical statement is actively counterproductive since it doesn't address the actual problem (it doesn't matter "what's legal" so much as "what's right"
I hope you can see why people might think it's pretty obviously alluding to rape
You are right that there is no literal sexual relationship but it ignores any and all subtext and implications and context. Also it is not a sperm donor thing just with a woman. For a start sperm donors choose to donate their genetic material of their own free will. Don't compare people who have had genetic material stolen to people who give it away so blasély. Supergirl had genetic material stolen from her against her will and without her consent. When the event in question had all the elements of a rape save for the most literal part possible (there is no sexual intercourse but genetic material was exchanged, Supergirl was not in a position to consent and Hamilton felt some kind of attraction to her) it's pretty clearly a rape thing. I don't want to have to explain why exactly what Hamilton did was really, really wrong and immoral but the fact that you've just compared what happened to a sperm donor is really unnerving. I hope you are just being hyperbolic and exaggerating here but what happened between Hamilton and Supergirl that lead to Galatea's creation is in no way similar to a sperm donor save that genetic material was taken to make a child. Comparing the two is a little fucked up
Do you understand what I am trying to get at here? I'm not going to pretend like I understand why the mod made the decision they did but I hope you can at least understand why the comments you made within the greater context of the situation might have been problematic.
You're still missing the point. Maybe mind control was a bad example in terms of sexual relations. I will say that the law right now doesn't have any way to deal with people who only committed crimes because a telepathic Gorilla forced them to do so, or a crime for erasing someone's mind. The point is real world law doesn't match up to DC laws.
Secondly the only reason why "minor" was used is because it's easier and faster than typing out "person who is not yet an adult". I think you should disregard laws unless you are talking about laws and instead stick to philosophy when discussing morality (unless you are making a Hobbesian argument that the law is morality). Equating the law to a philosophical statement is actively counterproductive since it doesn't address the actual problem (it doesn't matter "what's legal" so much as "what's right"
Emile Hamilton forcefully made a child with Supergirl without her consent. He then went on to name the identical clone of Supergirl Galatea which implies that he wants to marry her/be in a relationship with her and dresses up his Supergirl copy in a more revealing/sexualized way.
I hope you can see why people might think it's pretty obviously alluding to rape
Again it's allegorical not literal. If two people lie on a bed and then the shot cuts to a train passing through a tunnel there's no literal evidence of them having sex but it's still pretty explicit what just happened. This is similar. There is no way in hell a kids show is going to have actual rape in it so they go for allegorical and metaphorical stuff.
You are right that there is no literal sexual relationship but it ignores any and all subtext and implications and context. Also it is not a sperm donor thing just with a woman. For a start sperm donors choose to donate their genetic material of their own free will. Don't compare people who have had genetic material stolen to people who give it away so blasély. Supergirl had genetic material stolen from her against her will and without her consent. When the event in question had all the elements of a rape save for the most literal part possible (there is no sexual intercourse but genetic material was exchanged, Supergirl was not in a position to consent and Hamilton felt some kind of attraction to her) it's pretty clearly a rape thing. I don't want to have to explain why exactly what Hamilton did was really, really wrong and immoral but the fact that you've just compared what happened to a sperm donor is really unnerving. I hope you are just being hyperbolic and exaggerating here but what happened between Hamilton and Supergirl that lead to Galatea's creation is in no way similar to a sperm donor save that genetic material was taken to make a child. Comparing the two is a little fucked up
They are raised to agree with their creators/parents not forced into it. Children have the chance to be their own person. It's icky if you put it into the most basic terms of what it is. Making your child forcibly be one thing with no chance for them to develop into their own person is pretty horrifying. All children ultimately end up different from what their parents wanted and expected. This idea that its okay for parents to essentially neuter a child's freedom to be their own person is actively horrifying to me on a personal level. I know dozens of people (including arguably myself) whose lives would be worse if they turned out exactly as their parents wanted.
Again it's not a perfect comparison but take for example if there was a decision to give Superboy a bigger penis as opposed to giving Galatea bigger breasts. Yes it can be argued as "aesthetics". It's sexual aesthetics. You cannot simply remove connotations and implications especially over the internet where tone and actual knowledge of who you are as a person doesn't matter. What your intent was doesn't matter except in how people choose to judge you. The comment is still problematic even if the person who made it is not. It's sexualization because that's pretty much explicitly the design is based around.
And if mind control is involved to get her to do the thing it is 100% not consenting. On top of that sexualizing an adult's body with a child's mind is still wrong and is not something you should do.
Yes her design is sexualized. That's irrelevant to the actual point. The problem is when you the quest-goers push to forcibly make Galatea more sexualized. In the original source she was given a sexualized design and there was somewhat of a point to it. Hamilton sexualizing her in story is really creepy but not inherently wrong outside of the story (the fact that there is a story where a character did this is not wrong on its own). If I were to sexualize Galatea (assuming that there was a point to it) it would probably fly over alright so long as I was careful when touching on the character's themes. It's only this very specific situation where the quest-goers are advocating to make a character more sexualized and they have loads of issues involved that it becomes a problem.
Again it's mind control and forcing things along certain paths. Like there is nothing wrong with someone saying "I'd like to date Katherine Kane". There's a lot more uncomfortable things with someone playing a game and forcing Katherine Kane to date the audience insert through mind control. The problem is not saying "I like Galatea more with big boobs and a cleavage window", the problem is saying "Let's make Galatea have big boobs and a cleavage window" when mind control is in play. There is a difference. No you wouldn't get in trouble for saying a character is hot. You will most likely get in some degree of trouble for saying that you want to make a character hot.
Do you understand what I am trying to get at here? I'm not going to pretend like I understand why the mod made the decision they did but I hope you can at least understand why the comments you made within the greater context of the situation might have been problematic.
- Location
- Fifth Dimension
I mean...there are brainwashing precedence and rulings so...mind control laws kinda half exist.
Problem is...'adult' is also by law. Go back far enough and 'adult' is 13. So if we're using the terms that are dictated by law, we kinda gotta go by what's legal or not.
Creepy but I'd still say...nowhere the extent that rape goes.
Yes, but...a lot of parents definitely try to do exactly that. Force their child into something that the parent wants.
I disagree. Bigger penis is only sexual. Breasts are not 100% sexual. And unlike with Supergirl and Power Girl, there is no equivalent. Whereas Power Girl is literally "Supergirl with large breasts and a boob window" there's no Power Boy who's "Superboy with a bigger penis".
So I reject that the bigger breasts are sexual only and I reject the connotations argument because a picture of Galatea and Power Girl were used. Meaning at least half the connotation is that. "Do we want to make a Supergirl clone reference Galatea and/or Power Girl?"
If this were someone without such context and without those versions I could see your point.
But as pointed out, it's not making Galatea more sexualized. It's making a clone of Supergirl (who isn't even Galatea btw) into Power Girl instead of Galatea.
Not exactly sexualizing her.
I mean...difference is Galatea already has the cleavage window. And again, it's less "lets give Galatea big boobs" and more "let's make Power Girl instead".
Hence the picture.
That said...
Yes I do. I just disagree with it. But I do understand.
Kkutlord
Prince of Breath
- Location
- Indianapolis, Indiana
@King crimson: Okay, should I feel paranoid for asking "what if we made Projekt Melody in-quest"? Cause I'm feeling very paranoid about getting slapped with another "no sexualizing minors", even though I wasn't? She was literally just the first example to come to mind for my question.
I already feel like crap for what was suppose to be a meaningless in-character bit... Ahem, anyways, in-quest what's the current/general stance on artificial lifeforms?
If we're going to be creating a bunch of Hero Unit-tier characters and other intelligent artificial life (Genomorphs?), it would be good to know if we're gonna have to deal with dangerous people insisting they're soulless things... which they would start as, so... Huh.
I already feel like crap for what was suppose to be a meaningless in-character bit... Ahem, anyways, in-quest what's the current/general stance on artificial lifeforms?
If we're going to be creating a bunch of Hero Unit-tier characters and other intelligent artificial life (Genomorphs?), it would be good to know if we're gonna have to deal with dangerous people insisting they're soulless things... which they would start as, so... Huh.
- Location
- Singapore
Nah. Homunculi. We have a headstart with Cerise & Rebecca. It can probably work better as high-end bespoke bodies for rich old people to transfer their minds into. Less ethical problems (more legal), also easier to make business contacts.
Of course their (former) heirs would be very unhappy with us since they could no longer inherit due to psuedo-immortality. I expect more retaliatory assassination attempts.