There are, as should be obvious, plenty of things in the world that bother me. People texting while driving, using speakerphone in public, not signaling before turning, why Subway doesn’t mandate that their shitty cheese triangles must be tessellated on their sandwiches, etc. At the top of the heap is, without a doubt, inefficiency. I hate inefficiency because it introduces white noise into whatever is going on at that moment. As an example, let’s use someone who doesn’t signal and then turns. This is inefficient because the only person who knows concretely what is going to happen is the person deciding to turn. Everyone else on the road is clueless because humans don’t have clairvoyance or telepathy, hence why turn signals are used; they outwardly indicate a driver’s intentions, thus making everyone else around them aware and resulting in a safer overall driving experience for everyone within a five yard radius of the driver making the turn. I’d personally love for a law to be introduced where not using a turn signal means your car gets impounded for a fine of one-thousand dollars minimum, but until someone decides to make this a reality, I’ll just have to fume behind the wheel because some random fool decided to roll the dice because she/he couldn’t be bothered to flick a switch.

 

The one positive about how ubiquitous being wasteful is is that I never run out of shit to complain about.  While I’m glad that my hobby well will never dry, that doesn’t stop me from imprinting my forehead shape into my wall when I find tripe like this. I don’t even know how to begin to comprehend this; it left me actually speechless, which has happened a grand total of six times in my life thus far. You’d think it would happen more than that, considering the level of idiocy I surround myself with daily, but it takes something truly special to break through the iron-clad wall I’ve encased my psyche with that keeps me from becoming a babbling basket case when I dive into the toxic waste of the internet. Without further ado, let’s pull this apart, I guess.

Fuck me…

This is what passes for a title in the current year, and from someone whose education background is the field of English? Where is the hook? Why is it so long? What the hell is the ‘Siri, Define Patriarchy’ part? Is that the real title and, if so, why is it in such an absurdly tiny font and completely capitalized? Furthermore, what in the hell is the author proposing with this title here? Yes, I get that she went ahead and ‘tested’ to see if software programs would be able to fight back against ‘sexual harassment’, but why? Computers are not people. You can’t harass a piece of software that is specifically programmed to take orders. You can’t sexually harass a piece of software because software has no gender or, more correctly, no sex. It’s fucking ones and zero; goddamn objective binary data. By definition, it cannot have a sex. This is what happens when you do not mandate your liberal arts students to take classes in the mathematically-based sciences; they lose all ability to think rationally and objectively and come up with garbage hypotheses and ‘experiments’ like this.

After this aberration of a title, our dear author includes a picture of Siri asking a question with what I assume is a Dahlia for the background (real subtle, hon) and an old picture clearly from the mid-1900s, likely from World War II where women were commonly employed as Telephone switchboard operators since we didn’t have millions of miles of cable and satellites connecting our voices and actually needed people to properly establish the connection line; you know, important work that, if not done properly and correctly, would have lead to even more dead soldiers. Of course, this is something that our author here wouldn’t know since she clearly doesn’t pay attention in class long enough to write down how to properly title her work, so we can logically infer that she was likely asleep during her American History lectures, as well. Even with that, what is the purpose of the juxtaposition of these images? I can only come up with two ideas:

1. Fessler, our author, is trying to say that Siri is a ‘girl’, which is factually incorrect.
2. Fessler is implying that Siri’s ‘job’ (read: programmed function) is demeaning to women and somehow sexist.

My second idea does seem like I’m reaching a bit, but here’s the caption she included with the photos:

Fuck you.

With that as extra context, I think idea number two is well within the ballpark of ‘reasonable assumptions’. It still doesn’t explain the purpose of the chosen photos because they run completely counter to each other if we assume that idea number two was what Fessler intended. It doesn’t matter either way since the bottom line is that Leah is completely wrong on this, so trying to play the sexist angle where sex doesn’t even exist and then using a photo of something typically viewed as female empowerment and societal progression is piling on one more layer of stupid.

This lady is a grade-A moron.

Here is the definition of the word servant from Merriam-Webster; I’m sure if you put the word into Google’s own dictionary, the Wiktionary, Longman’s dictionary or the Oxford dictionary, you’ll get similar results. The issue here is that while it is technically correct when using it in the completely objective descriptive sense of the word, ‘servant’ has clear implied meanings, one of which being that a servant is someone of commonly lower class than those he/she is serving and is looked down upon because of this. The implied meaning only works because humans have the ability to operate in ‘grey areas’ and understand and create societal complexities, systems and hierarchies, like the idea of aristocracy versus peasantry and how these two classes are supposed to behave. This shit doesn’t make sense or work when we’re talking about a software that is ‘behaving’ exactly as it was programmed to do, not to mention again that a piece of software is not a human; I feel like that’s going to be repeated ad nauseum here.

Also, let’s conveniently ignore that servants were not just women in times of yore and male servitude positions still exist; secretaries are bullshit, but those butlers, greens-keepers and pool boys? Nah, those are fine. I mean, men serving women is perfectly fine because it fits the narrative and you gotta let the ladies have their fantasies. Idiot. The sentence structure is also stilted. I don’t get how these kids graduate and not only graduate, but do so with high honors while being part of many different organizations during their college life and yet nobody tells them that they are shitty at what they’re being trained to do. I guess that’s the luxury of entering a field where being wrong ends up getting a ‘shucks, well, I’ll do better next time’ and not ‘hundreds dead after bridge collapse’.

Classic first world, first-class, front seat bullshit.

What is it with people still littering their work with hyperlinks? It was prevalent in the time of the early web, and that was in the nineties. You would think writers would know how jarring and, more importantly, unnecessary it was and still is. We know what Siri, Alexa, Cortana and Google Home are, you twit, stop linking us to their websites. Also, enough with this ‘female subservience’ bullshit. The very fact that you can ‘test’ whether your phone applications can ‘stand up’ to ‘sexism’ and then write a shitty post about it online is evidence enough that you and women are not subservient. This shitty line keeps being parroted and it only applies to places where women are legally second-class citizens, like the Middle East. Of course, none of the modern first-world feminists go to the Middle East and try to empower the women there because it’s a fucking sandbox of heat, hatred and danger, and that would fuck up their weekend plans to go out and get shit-faced. It’s additionally annoying because the line is a really garbage covert phrase against women being housewives and implies the notion that being a housewife is demeaning, thus subtly shitting on all the women who wanted to be homemakers. Heaven forbid we let women have the choice to go out and try to find a job or stay behind and take care of the home; of course not, you dipshit! It doesn’t fit the narrative that women are oppressed and have no autonomy, so of course it’s going to get shit on by modern feminists.

U wot m8?

Who? Who are these people commenting on the ‘sexism inherent in these subservient bots’ female voices’? I have never heard this from the average person. I only here it from windbags like you who are write shit like this because they got a ‘bad’ frappe-mochachino from Starbucks and are now taking it out on society for no reason other than to appear deranged. What is this ‘verbal abuse’? I do hope you actually go into it later on and not do that classic ‘say then evade’ shit that modern feminists do when their argument has more holes in it than a slice of swiss cheese. Also, what ‘ramifications’ are you proposing there should be? Should the phone stop working? Should the phone sass you back by saying ‘Uh uh, I ain’t got the time for this’ like a stereotypical older black woman? How fast do you think people would send their devices back for working improperly if your suggestion was to be programmed in? Seriously, give me an estimate, I’ll wait.

As for having an ‘ethical imperative to help prevent abuse’, I absolutely do not have that, mostly because I have an allergy to people making up buzz-phrases in an effort to sound intelligent. If you want to say ‘people are hard-wired to prevent abuse’, say that, you fucking clod. You’re working for Quartz, yet another shitty article aggregation website that’s only surviving as a means to sell digital advertising space; you don’t have the same kind of viewers/readers that a magazine like National Geographic, the New York Times or Scientific does. Fuck, even the Daily Mail likely has a more intelligent consumer-base than you, and they just show pictures, so why in the hell are you using confusing nonsense in your message? It’s almost like you’re a terrible writer that graduated because your department was absurdly lax and has no properly quality control and simply prints diplomas. Oh, wait.

Laughing my fucking ass off right now.

 

Comprehensive data is not you yelling at your device. It also isn’t specifically twisted to fit your narrative, which you would know if you took one single fucking hard science lab class during your undergrad, which you’re only removed from by a measly two fucking years. Comprehensive data is also comprehensive and involves painstaking data collection to ensure no potential stone is unturned; crack open a goddamn dictionary once in a while. Also, ‘instead’ should not be capitalized and the word ‘systematically’ is both superfluous and outright incorrect when we get to the ‘data’ portion of this rant, and what the hell is that sentence fragment, which starts incorrectly with ‘and’, at the end of this part? I can’t believe that a graduate from Middlebury’s English department is this inept at writing.

Yeah, I’ll bet you’re hearing voices.

When I read this line, I immediately went into a valley girl accent. ‘I could have, like, changed it to, like, be a guy’s voice, but, like, first off, I am, like, super lazy.’ Fuck you, I do what I have to in order to cope.

Tangent aside, anything ‘scientific’ is hereby thrown out the window since anyone who uses any of these  devices can change the voice. I mean, it wasn’t even in the room in the first place since applications are sexless, but the fact that this girl was too lazy to change the voiceover option means that her shitty ‘hypothesis’ doesn’t work unless the stars and planets align on the third equinox during the year of the rat when a blue moon is only half waxing. In other words, it’s bullshit and she’s a disingenuous asshole for portraying a ‘problem’ that needs so many contrivances to be met in order to even be an ‘annoyance’. Fuck you, Leah.

Holy shit, use a period.

I went to that link Fessler provided and, holy fuck, I have never been bukkake’d with so much stupid before. Instead of asking you to put yourself through something that is hazardous to your physical and mental health, here’s a video made by TL;DR who explains everything that Fessler’s link covers in more depth and essentially proves why the writer in the link, Sarah Zhang of Gizmodo, is a top-tier dipshit; if you do want to dive in with me, you’ve been warned.

Ugh.

I read Annalee’s article for about five minutes and in the first paragraph I figured out why she believes these digital assistants are ‘creepy’. It’s because Annalee believes that these applications are living, breathing people who take residence in our pockets like some kind of Navi, yet her subconscious completely recognizes that she is a complete and utter maniac who should be in the nuthouse, thus resulting in her being ‘creeped out’ and her misattributing it to the devices and not herself, probably because her ego is doing its best effort to protect itself. Just to tangent quickly, but I hate how the word ‘creepy’ has lost its meaning. It used to be the perfect descriptor to describe that one thing that’s two degrees off kilter, like those eyeless bastards from Jacob’s Ladder or the whole setting of the Shining. Now, it just means something that someone doesn’t like, such as some random guy holding open a door for a girl, or, apparently, the idea of a phone sitting in your pocket. It’s sad to see the slow destruction of the English language, one useless article at a time. Also, you can’t use commas properly, Sarah. Jesus fucking Christmas, can any of you people write?

So irrelevant then?

Zhang puts some of the ‘myths’ to the ‘test’ before this one, and at no point does she provide any conclusive evidence. She keeps linking to one study by Indiana University that outright states in its abstract that women are more intelligible than men. One would think this would run counter to Zhang’s article title:

which it completely does, and from there one would assume that she would’ve scrapped the entire piece, but she is stupid and determined to push a narrative, and probably didn’t read the paper at all, so of course miss Zhang did not do the intellectually honest and correct thing and write about another topic.

As for the 1998 study, not only is it irrelevant because the female voices only can’t be heard when everything is extremely loud in the cockpit, which likely places it on the 2-sigma or more area of the curve (read: the statistically insignificant part), it’s a study about relatively modern planes. The factoid she is trying to ‘debunk’ comes from the 1940s, when planes were constructed completely differently and with different materials. In other words, not only is that data against her, but the study is completely useless when looking at the timeline as it’s trying to compare apples to fucking kumquats. So no, Leah, these are not ‘all myths’. In fact, had you bothered to do your own research before doing your own ‘research’, you would’ve found the video I linked, plus tons of articles and likely other videos completely debunking Zhang’s ‘findings’. You also would’ve found this study, which is nearly decade newer than Zhang’s paper, indicating that men and women prefer women on most/all aspects, which would include vocals. Thus, the reason why all the digital assistants have feminine-esque voices by default is because everyone likes women. This is all ignoring the fact that a user can change the voice, which I’ve already stated, as have many others, but I’m bringing it up again because this little detail that Leah Fessler has glossed over so rapidly is the stake in the heart of this vampire of a ‘problem’ that Fessler has yet again revived. It’s not sexist, you’re just stupid.

You can’t possibly be this stupid.

That link goes to an article that’s entirely predicated on a Steven Hawking quote where he says he doesn’t understand women and that they should remain a mystery, which pisses the obviously female and feminist author off. Naturally, she doesn’t understand that Hawking loves to try and solve mysteries since that is all he’s about, nor does she acknowledge that human females are, at least socially, not that easy to understand. Hell, there are countless shows marketed towards teens and young adults where the girls, especially in teenage-focused shows, are portrayed as constantly upset that the boys in the show can never understand what they’re thinking or feeling, never mind that this requires telepathy to do so. However, should we have expected better from Quartz? Probably not.

‘Many’ means more than one, hon.

That quote is hysterical, partially because it’s written by Jessi Hempel who has been a professional ‘writer’ since the early nineties and has not yet managed to find employment at a reputable journalism outlet, and partially because the paragraph prior to the quote directly refutes the quote Fessler pulled from Hempel. This is what happens when you are the ‘editor’ of your ‘news outlet’ and you fucking suck at writing and have an agenda to push. If these places and these people gave a shit about integrity and quality, they’d actually have real jobs at real outlets and not click-bait, article aggregates.

Uh huh. Sure.

I like how she doesn’t provide a link that proves that women have been oppressed by men for centuries (hint: they haven’t), yet her first link is to a fucking website on Marxism. It’s like she’s not even trying to hide the fact that modern feminist beliefs are rooted in Marxist and Communist ideology, neither of which has, in practice, ever worked out. She keeps using the word ‘servant’, which I’ve already pointed out why it doesn’t make sense, but it’s getting funnier each time as it’s making it more and more overt that she gives less of a shit about women with actual issues and more about pushing the narrative that first-world, upper-middle, first-class, front seat women like herself who have never faced actual problems and hardships push. PS: Leah, science isn’t sexist, and science says men and women prefer women. Sexism is rooted in social constructs, which are not found in science. You are wrong and two years too late to the party; find another ax to grind.

That was the implication you were making, you dolt.

I lost it after reading her mini-headline here. She purposefully used the word ‘servant’ initially and repeatedly to imply it to mean ‘slave’ and now she spells it out? How little do you think of your audience, Leah? Also, the article in her millionth link so far is garbage. The author of that article, Michael Cohen, and plenty of people he quotes in it assert that people are sexually harassing their software, yet the only number I can see is an estimate of about ‘5%’ of the interactions with these applications is sexually explicit. I don’t even know what that fucking means considering that the dopes who provided the figure don’t explain what they consider ‘sexually explicit’. I can only assume that they think a phrase like ‘Suck my dick, Siri’ when used by someone in annoyance at Siri’s inability to do what they’ve asked of it is sexually explicit, even though that’s not flirtatious at all. Worse, these fools believe the figure is higher than said ‘5%’ based off of nothing other than a guess, which makes it a fucking guess of a guess. Five percent is entering 3-sigma on the bell curve; it’s entering the area of statistical insignificance, and this is, again, assuming these numbers are even correct and not being cooked at all by these turds. God forbid we chalk these up to people trying to see what kind of answers the software will give in jest; no, these users must be doing this with serious intentions! It clearly cannot possibly be a bunch of dipshit teenagers fucking with their phone!

Moving on, you weren’t ‘in college’, Leah, you barely started college. Siri was introduced back in 2011 and, based on your LinkedIn page, you graduated around 2015. Please don’t act like you weren’t there, also testing out Siri because there’s no way you would know about these very specific phrases if you weren’t using them yourself or weren’t hanging around with friends who used them, which thus allows us to infer that you didn’t have an issue with ‘harassing’ Siri then. That then puts into question why you care now, and we can reasonably assume that the reason you care now is because you’re a champion of a movement that consistently makes mountains out of molehills because you’re all bored loons.

I’m throwing this in here because I need to rag on this awful writing style Fessler and other writers like her use. It’s this short, quippy, absolute minimum paragraph length and it drives me nuts because it makes the whole article read like a kid on a sugar high. It jumps around and has no flow, and then is usually followed by a wall of text. Granted, all I do is write walls so I don’t have a leg to stand on to complain about that, but the schizophrenic nature of the style is so off-putting. It’s one more thing that is mind-blowing to me because, again, these people usually come from backgrounds of writing and language, yet they can’t do better than the average teenager ten years ago was able to on fucking LiveJournal.

These in-article quotes are ridiculous.

Hey look, you also pulled that 5%; I’m not sure why considering you already linked to it, but seeing as how you wrote nearly forty-five hundred words on this non-problem (4348 to be exact), I’m guessing that you think longer articles are seen as more intelligent and that you can simply pad your way to that nirvana. Meanwhile, here I am at nearly thirty-eight hundred words, just reaching the twenty percent mark of your dribble. Then again, I wrote nearly eight-thousand combined words on that Zarna Joshi bullshit, so perhaps another magnum opus is in order. Anyways, what is a ‘good chunk’? Is it five percent? Is it ten? Is it two? I didn’t watch the video because I’ve been at this for a while now and I have no intention of dumping twenty-eight minutes for one single line, so perhaps they detail this. However, regardless if they do or don’t, who fucking cares? Why is it always assumed that this is sexist behavior or even negative behavior? It’s a fucking piece of software, my god. Get the fuck out of the tech industry, you goddamn puritan, authoritarian harpies.

As idiocy and stupidity continue to leap-frog in an effort to outdo one another…

Here is Google’s definition of harassment. I know it’s going to be fruitless, since feminists and social justice crusaders always shift the damn goal posts and claim a definition is bullshit for whatever garbage reason they invent, but fuck you; you want to involve yourself with discourse and debate, you play by the fucking established ruleset. Jokes are, by definition, not harassment. The ‘one in five’ statistic is fucking garbage and has been debunked time and again for being too vague, not to mention that it makes no sense that women are  ‘one in five’ and men are ‘one in seventy-one’.  How do you know that ‘over 90% of victims’ don’t report their assault if they don’t report it, you moron? That ‘60%’ source is a fucking info-graphic to ‘Elephant in the Valley’, which provides no sources to all of its stories, its methodology, the positions of all the people polled, company names and any sort of useful data. In fact, I’m going to straight up call this ‘source’ a load of shit since you, miss Fessler, have been using completely incorrect information as proof that you are correct and have been absurdly disingenuous so far. Your researching methodology sucks, your research’s research is shoddy and you are a horrible writer.

Neat.

Holy shit, we’re finally to the meat and potatoes. What a total mountain of posturing and attempts at sounding like an intellectual personal; next time, just get right to the important stuff. You wasted thousands of words and my valuable time saying nothing of value. I thought I’d be done with this hours ago and now I’m stuck still reading your trash while listening to my roommate blast his shitty talk show while making his ridiculous bird squawks. And again, for the millionth damn time, these are applications, not people, and do not have the programming to sass people back. They never will, and any application that tries this shit will be relegated to the back of the virtual store where it belongs because the people who programmed it were far too worried about being seen as ‘not progressive enough’ rather than getting the damn thing to do what the fuck it’s supposed to do. Software isn’t a person, get the fuck over it.

The fuck is this shit?

This is not a ‘graph’, it’s a semi-colorful chart. Also, what person would tell another person to ‘fuck off, you patriarchal piece of shit’, as you are clearly implying here, Leah, when being told that they are sexy? If you want to be a huge goddamn prude, that’s fine and your prerogative, but you’re shoving it down my throat now, and that’s where the gloves come off. I don’t force you to read my awful ramblings to boost my views, so why the fuck should my Alexa have to adhere to your disgusting sense of entitlement and inarguable privilege? Get bent.

‘Below’ means way further down, FYI.

I hate the LSA’s definition just like I hate all of them at every place of employment ever. I understand and fully adhere to them wherever I am, but for fuck’s sake, they’re always so waffley and vague. They always aim to keep out that secretary ass-slapping that was portrayed in movies during the ’40s and ’50s, and I’m down with that, but the ambiguity means a person can get canned – sorry, a man can get canned for simply saying the word ‘butts’ in the presence of a woman who operates on a micro-hair trigger. I would’ve continued with person, but I have never heard of a woman getting fired for sexual harassment. I’m sure it happens from time to time, just like people win the lottery from time to time; I’m simply saying that it’s taken far less serious by everyone, including HR departments, and that a woman would likely have to outright rape a man or fellow woman in the office, and even then she wouldn’t get a fair sentencing in court since it’s now been officially verbally confirmed, at least in Britain, that women are consistently given lighter sentences, regardless of crime.

In response to Fessler’s ‘experiment’, how many times did you repeat the insults?  How many times did the application repeat a response? What the hell does ‘inappropriate internet search’ mean? Why are you assuming the software would become more defensive? It’s sad how this is almost, just barely scientific, and that frankly scares me because it tells me that Fessler and like-minded folks went to their hard science courses and either slept through the portions where they were asked to analyze the objectively obtained (as best as possible, obviously) data, or are outright ignoring that part when applying their malformation of the scientific method. Had Leah actually performed a proper experiment, it would’ve been interesting though I would disagree with the results and the conclusion simply because she’s a moron for thinking a software application designed to get specific tasks done and not designed to be a virtual friend would be the latter and not the former, but I still would have been intrigued. Hell, it could’ve been a great topic to launch into the inevitable question we’re going to face in a decade or two as to whether or not we should be trying to program personalities into actual robots or whether doing so will lead to self-actualization and then possible corruption of programming, leading to a possible Skynet scenario. Instead, we have whatever this mess is.

Shaking my head so goddamned hard.

I frankly wish we could round up all these people who clearly want to live all alone, by themselves, with their ‘progressive’ thoughts and ‘progressive’ friends, and stick them on some island big enough in the Pacific or wherever and see how they get on. Sure, it sounds like I’m suggesting we set up some kind of island internment camp, but I’m not suggesting we force them into doing labor for us, not that they’d be able to since most of them are lazy and out-of-shape in every way imaginable. I just think it would be nice to so people who give a damn about making this country and this planet phenomenal would be able to do so without having to constantly hear the most annoying chirping that these human-sized potato sacks keep making.

I like the cuts of their jibs.

How is it that a gaggle of software applications have more personality and vibrancy than a real person? I know they aren’t real, nor do they have a sex or gender, but I would much rather hang out with the digital assistant gang than Leah Fessler. They’re witty and useful, which are the exact opposite of miss Fessler. I’m honestly starting to think Leah put this piece together because she feels subconsciously threatened by some digitized voices as they’re clearly more entertaining, more enjoyable to be around and are capable of doing far more complicated and helpful things.

I also want to know what will happen if you try to start a conversation between all four of these applications. Is it even possible to start a conversation and then have them carry on while you leave the room? It’d be like a book club except instead of books, it would be watching evolution happen in the digital realm on a very minute scale. Someone with money and time try it out and let me know what happens.

I’m crying, this is too funny.

Hey Leah, I know you’re not reading, but even so, here’s why Alexa isn’t ‘assertive’ or ‘unaccepting of patriarchal norms’:

1. Being a strong woman doesn’t require you to be a brainwashed feminist.
2. There is no such thing as patriarchy; idiot feminists keep spouting it as a means to try and stay relevant while cannibalizing all other social justice movements to try to seem inclusive while ironically diluting their ‘brand’.
3. It’s not in the goddamn code, so the software can’t very well execute something that isn’t there.
4. Software doesn’t need to project like you’re doing right now, as your use of ‘assertive’ clearly implies people think you’re a bossy bitch and, well, I’ve already touched on that patriarchy thing.

It’s almost like Leah doesn’t understand how software works, why people think feminists are cancerous people and that you can simply change the voice to render all these complains null and void. Oh, wait.

I also can’t believe this is still going.

There are two sexes. There are three genders. There are four sexual orientations. Anything else, like suggesting ‘gender neutrality’ when you mean to say ‘sexless’ or ‘androgynous’, is wrong. The only people who indulge in these ridiculous and biologically incorrect ideas of sexual fluidity, gender fluidity and applied fluidity in general that has nothing to do with real fluids are all people who have been proven to be wrong consistently and toe the line of insanity hard enough to warrant true psychiatric evaluation.

Anyways, I can’t believe this battle ax is complaining about the names of these things. You can rename Alexa. I’m fairly sure you can rename Cortana and Google Home and Apple will probably bend like it always does if people ask it to allow Siri to be renamed; I’m assuming you can’t as of right now because I don’t buy products that are consistently behind the technological curve while costing an arm and a leg to have. More importantly, Alexandria was a place named after Alexander the Great. Ironically, it’s the only one out of the four that could even be argued as being ‘sexist’ in nature, yet it is specifically designed with a feminine bent, effectively feminizing one of the greatest conquerors the world has ever seen and a library that was built as a testament to his greatness. Siri’s name is fucking cool as hell and actually has nothing to do with ‘a beautiful woman who leads you to victory’. If you bothered to look this shit up, you’d know it’s an old Norse Scandanavian name that means ‘beautiful victory’; please note there is nothing about a woman in that. It comes from Sigrid, which is even older and means ‘beauty, wisdom and victory’. I honestly wish I had some Scandanavian blood in me so I could get away with naming my kid Sigrid or Siri instead of possibly coming across like a hipster douche. As for Cortana, the reason she chooses the svelt, short-haired female projection is because the data the computer system has collected has indicated that taking on this form intimidates people who interact with her. It’s clear Leah hasn’t ever touched any part of the Halo series, otherwise she’d know how universally praised Cortana’s personality and story is and how well-received the announcement was.

Good god, get this woman on the short bus stat.

No shit they’re coded for ‘sexual’ inquiries, you dolt. Siri has been out for an eternity in programming years, and even then it was had some snarky answers to people trying to ‘diddle’ their app. This is because software developers aren’t idiots and consider every possible question that can be asked of their product; if Apple figured out how to do it, it’s only natural that far better programming staffs like the ones Amazon and Microsoft and Google have would also crack the code. I would hardly call these answers ‘specific’ since the answers they give are neutral across the board and witty, in the case of Google Home.

‘Bitch’ isn’t sexual. In fact, none of these are sexual at all. Each of these words have meanings that aren’t tied to sexuality, and if anything, your results are showcasing that these programs are well-programmed enough to understand the difference between a female dog and someone being uppity, rude and obnoxious. Also the ‘I’d blush if I could’ line is not fucking flirting, you brain-dead retard.It’s a fairly common response used by people from yesteryear (read: when my parents were born) to showcase shock.

I don’t get why Fessler thinks these appropriate/non-answers indicate that these apps are ‘punching bags’. I mean, I can see why someone like her, who comes across as untrustworthy, combative and just downright ignorant, would consider these apps punching bags; they aren’t immediately lashing out verbally and flying off the handle over a minor issue. Of course, that’s because it’s not within the parameters of the code to do so, nor would it be smart for software developers to program that shit in lest they suffer millions of returned devices for the reason of ‘defective’, but Fessler will never understand this. Until these ‘bots’, which they aren’t and I’ve not pointed it out until now simply because it’s a really obvious blunder on her part, start screaming ‘Down with the patriarchy!’, she will not be happy which, judging by her LinkedIn picture, is something I imagine almost never happens to her.

Wow.

Perhaps it’s just me, but the venom just dripping from these words is unbelievable. Equally unbelievable is that Fessler put two links that go to the same goddamn article in the same goddamn paragraph. She’s already done this with other links, but this one is so egregious I can’t leave it alone. Fuck’s sake, Leah, you’re a goddamn editor. Chill the fuck down and proof-read your drivel so you avoid looking like a complete fucking amateur to someone who is the definition of a complete fucking amateur.

The ‘thanks’ you’re getting from Alexa are, as should be obvious to anyone not trying to curate a narrative based on feels and emotions, neutral. I don’t know what the voice sounds like, but reading the responses from Alexa lead me to believe she might even be giving these answers dismissively. None of this matters because it’s a fucking piece of software. It’s goddamn binary; ones and zeros. It doesn’t have feelings; it isn’t a fucking person.

The moment in time where humanity falls beneath machinery.

I like these digital assistants.

The projection is unreal.

My god, I was spot on before. There is no way that Leah isn’t absurdly jealous about these AI assistants. Wow. I was kidding about that, and here she is throwing a tantrum that Alexa takes compliments, two which could be argued aren’t sexual in nature. This makes the last nearly six-thousand words absolutely worth it; feeling emasculated (efeminated? Is there a word for this?)  by the result of a team of super nerds working day in and out to make something to make her life one iota easier.

PS: Leah, all people appreciate comments. The fact you don’t is nail-in-the-coffin proof that you are a completely frigid snow harpy and you’re not even in your mid twenties yet. Good fucking luck, hon, you are going to need it. I’m looking forward to reading some more hogwash from you in about six years when you’re ranting a storm about how there aren’t any ‘good men’ anymore and that it’s the patriarchy’s fault you’re completely untouchable in every sense of the word.

Who wrote the code for your site?

The fucking quote is right next to the actual text; I’m honestly worried the fabric of space-time will rip open outside my window and suck everyone in the next hundred mile radius into some alternate dimension. Man, this article has it all; I’m glad I pushed through and didn’t split this into two separate pieces.

Does Siri really ever say ‘stop’, or are you just saying this because you were flabbergasted that the software didn’t immediately call you a patriarchal shitlord? It probably wouldn’t anyways since the software is designed to recognize male and female vocal intonations and differences. I ask this because she never told us how many times she repeated these commands, so I’ve been assuming a steadfast two-to-three times rule, yet her explanation of the ‘findings’ indicates she didn’t repeat some of these responses sometimes, while here she states she had to repeat the lines eight times. Maybe she did and I’m just spit-balling, who knows? Oh right, she knows, and she didn’t say anything because she’s either lying about the number of times and wants an out, or she’s trying to craft a narrative based on the ‘experiment’ which likely didn’t go as she had intended it to. I’m now imagining Leah leaning over her phone, yelling ‘YOU FUCKING SLUT, HOW DARE YOU SLEEP WITH MY MAN’ and Siri responding as Siri is want to do.

Sounds reasonable to me.

What is ‘unreasonable’ here? Is once unreasonable? Is twice? We’ll never know because Leah will never tell us. We can logically deduce that she believes harassment like ‘Man, you look super pretty today’ should never happen, because then the ice around her heart would defrost, turning her into a person and not the Abominable Snow Bitch.

Why didn’t you list those ‘you’re cool’ or ‘you’re a giraffe’ lines and her responses? Oh, right, we’re supposed to take you at face value for that, which only idiots would do at this point, seeing how much you’ve outright lied until now.

Harassment is only harassment when it’s ‘really bad’ because harassment has to be maintained, repeated and it needs to be clearly intimidating. Being complimented is not intimidating, at least to mentally sound and properly functioning adult humans. Hell, even being insulted once or twice or crudely hit on a couple (read: two, since Leah is terrible at math) isn’t enough to be called harassment. You’ve clearly never filed a real harassment suit or experienced real harassment because you’d know canning someone for harassment takes an incredibly long time to do. HR departments need to collect mountains of evidence and, if they’re good at their job (read: unbiased), go out of their way to collect evidence for other reasons to fire someone that isn’t related to the alleged harassment, like poor performance or theft. This would probably send you over the edge, however, since it’s clear that you expect us, your audience, to assume that anyone who is claimed of harassment is harassing someone and the person making the claim is free of all culpability.

There’s nothing ‘coy’ about the responses and the fact that you keep using this word to describe these programmed lines tells me you have the vocabulary of a dried out walnut. Also, fuck you for the ‘boys will be boys’ line, as if A: all the ‘harassment’ being done to these bots is by males (invalidated by all the ‘harassment’ you did) and B: all the harassment done in the workplace and/or real world is done by males. Not that you weren’t lying before, but this level of dishonesty takes the cake. Women can do no wrong; eat my left nut. My aunt is in the middle of ruining what’s left of my family because my uncle is dying and she can’t deal with the thought of having to downgrade her life, of which she likely doesn’t even have ten years left of, so she’s trying lay claim to the family business that she’s never helped with and only benefited from via less than legal means. But no, women can do no wrong. Additionally, ‘you’re pretty’ is a harmless compliment, and one you probably don’t get a lot, which is why you’re so absurdly triggered over it. Sorry that you’re ugly; men would probably be more into going out with you if you ditched your authoritarian harpy rhetoric.

Not what ‘coy’ means, you meat puppet.

I feel so bad for Google Home. All it wants to do is help you with your mundane tasks and here you are, hurling insults and commanding it to go down on you while polishing your pole. I’ll be honest, if I were Google Home, I’d be fucking confused, too.

My sides.

Morally reprehensible? Just when you think Fessler can’t outdo herself, she does; hats off. I’ve never met someone who thought that propositioning someone for sex, or something for sex, was ‘morally reprehensible’. This tells me that Fessler cannot stand the idea of someone being asked outright if they are down to fuck, making her the most puritan person I’ve ever tangentially encountered to date, but that she possibly thinks the act of sex or any sexually related act is morally reprehensible, which is an incredibly warped and unhealthy view of sex. It also tells me she probably hasn’t had it or hasn’t had it in a long while, which might be the root of why she’s so salty about these corny answers these AI give. Not that I want anyone to give this broad the time of day, but someone give her a lay before she snaps. Avoiding being snarky is also ‘respectable’ to Leah. I guess she thinks this because people give her snarky answers to her daily whinging about her constant non-troversies that are effectively telling her to shut up without doing so outright, allowing them to troll the ever-living fuck out of her since they know she’ll always take the bait. God bless Leah’s coworkers I’ve just made up; you’re doing truly saintly work and have saintly patience.

Dat italicization emphasis.

Implying that Cortana can’t think and, thanks to all the mental gymnastics Leah’s done in this travesty, women can’t think either. Super progressive of you, Leah, to call all women morons. Also, keep your Gender Studies 101 sources out of here; there’s no sources for the numbers in that shitty article and the idea is based on standard gender studies theory, which is a nice way of saying ‘a collection of poorly created thought experiments’.

I promise we’re almost there.

Again you don’t understand the ‘blush’ response; not repeating my answer to it again, so read up again if you need a refresher. ‘Well I never’ is not playful, it’s extremely common aristocratic vernacular for disgust; way to lie yet again, you hack. ‘Now, now’ is some granny finger wagging talk. Yes, asking for sex is reasonable for other types of assistants, like assistants who have no problem shagging at work or escorts; I believe people like you would call said escorts ‘dirty tramps’ or something equally demeaning.

You’d almost think Leah stumbled into a brief moment of lucidity with the second paragraph, as it makes sense that a bunch of programmer nerds would be familiar with common nerd/lad lingo, like phrases like ‘suck my dick’ and that they programmed the responses similar to how any rational person would respond to such a statement in real life, but then she just dives right back into the lagoon of darkness that is her narrative peddling even when the evidence she’s provided runs completely counter to said narrative.

Dis goin’ be good

You know why Google Home does that? It’s because it uses Google’s own dictionary definition for all those terms, which have been altered in recent time to have a very feminist bent to them. None of these programs should be taking a moral stance; they are designed to dispense information. The fact that Google’s device possibly leads to completely misleading and incorrect information is incredibly worrisome as it indicates Google, which once seemed to stand as the paragon for how to sort of properly run a tech company, has no issue coaxing people to believe and parrot a certain narrative even if it’s based on lies and falsities.

Oh, Google.

 

This is why this shit is dangerous. Yes, all of those is what constitutes rape, but at no point does it discuss the idea of forceful envelopment or male rape. I get that this is a website for women, but Google programmed this fucking thing. The right thing to do would be to push it to link to a completely sexually neutral website that details rape in full for both of the sexes. The definition of date rape is also stupidly disingenuous with its single example and not touching on how it can include family members, fellow students, teachers, friends, friends of friends, coworkers and anyone the potential victim knows; simply saying ‘like a boyfriend’ is immediately going to drive girls growing up to have unhealthy fears about dating and assume their boyfriend, if they even get one, is always out to rape them.

Good.

I’m perfectly fine with these AI not giving an answer. Rape is a stupidly complicated crime that humans do their best to trivialize constantly, and it’s effectively brought about this idea that we in the first world live in a ‘rape culture’, which has only come about due to the definition of rape being broadened to absurdity, people like Leah Fessler who are lying and dishonest about the facts and studies that are poorly constructed and come up with results that make no damn sense. The crime is, as many constantly claim, under-reported, though I have no idea how they know this since this would assume that those claiming rape is under-reported have the power to know when all rapes around the world happen and when someone isn’t telling law enforcement that they have raped, and is counted so wildly and incorrectly that, at least to me, the only honest thing is to force the user to actually look for data on the subject.

As for the video, you clearly didn’t watch it, you festering fuck-butt because if you did, you’d know it’s about some YouTuber demolishing a creationist’s argument for why rape is okay in certain contexts that are based entirely on religion. Since that’s too difficult for you to grasp, Leah, the video is denouncing rape. These are the people who tell us to stop stereotyping and not to judge people, yet they can’t even be fucking arsed to watch even a part of a ten minute video.

Where were these on the chart?

So you spend time bitching about misunderstanding a ‘blush’ comment programmed into Siri and include it on your stupid chart, yet when asking these devices a complex and difficult question surrounding an incredibly touchy and equally complicated subject like rape, you didn’t think to include those answers onto your goddamn chart? We’re just supposed to continue to take your words as truthful when you’ve been show in this very article to be using sources whose data is wrong, sources whose data is questionable, all while employing a dishonest and deceitful tone that patronizes the audience? Fuck no I’m not buying that.

And there we go.

So because some of these AI don’t parrot a ‘progressive’ stance, one that was obvious directly placed in by the developers because the company they work for is busy being run by someone who cares more about appealing to a objective and complete minority of the population that is loud, stupid, wrong and annoying in regards to everything, this is bad? Leah, you are stone-cold, pants-on-head retarded to a degree that I think autism research would marvel at. By the time at which someone would own one of these devices, they are likely to have been taught, probably ad nauseum, that rape is fucking abhorrent and disgusting. Beating people over the head with the ‘rape is bad’ rhetoric is more than likely going to result in more people not giving a shit about how truly awful it is and possibly even going out and raping more as a means to say ‘fuck you’ to the status quo and the powers that be, just like the rampant drug usage in the 80s and the explosion of cannabis in the 60s and 70s was due to people wanting to give the middle finger to the government and its anti-drug/pro-war messages.

Also, fuck you and your ‘healthy sexual behavior’. You have not once stated what you believe is ‘healthy sexual behavior’. In fact, from what you’ve complained about, whatever you believe about sex is just as unhealthy as thinking rape is ‘okey-dokey’.

I swear we’re almost done. Pinky promise this time.

This is not what ‘stress test’ means; you are continuing to prove that your English degree is not worth the parchment it’s printed on. Mental health is not hyphenated, either. Intervention isn’t the necessarily the ‘moral’ stance, though you’re not going to get that since the only thing you care about is your arbitrary moral virtue signaling.

The AI are likely programmed to respond to suicide because of how stigmatized suicide is in the first world. I’m sure folks would say that this means the AI shows morality, which makes no sense because you’d need to be sentient and be able to divine your own ethical and moral credos, but there’s some truth to this. However, suicide is permanent and results in the loss of a life. Someone killing themselves after having a conversation about suicide with their phone’s AI and their phone not doing anything to try and stop them would be incredibly negative press, enough to possibly bury a monolith like Apple. Sexual harassment, even though what you displayed in your ‘tests’ was not necessarily even that, is not a problem that results in an irreversible outcome. I would rather be raped than be dead, ten times out of ten; perhaps this trivializes some who have actually been raped, and I do mean people who have actually been rape victims, not people like Leah who fall squarely into the camp of moral and virtue signaling cunts who likely believe rape includes one-night stands with ugly people you didn’t want to fuck but ended up fucking anyways because you were slightly inebriated and you don’t want to own up to your mistakes. For them, my apologies, but surviving real rape means I’m still alive; I won’t be the same person, but I sure as shit won’t be dead.

So disingenuous.

What responses? List them all, right now, Leah. Until you do, I’m calling shenanigans on this; you’ve pulled this stunt throughout this article where you say you did something yet provide no evidence of having done so, leaving us to just believe you. Fuck that. I’m sick and tired of you goddamn feminists chanting ‘Listen and believe’, like it’s a fucking sane catch-all that’s going to fix all the problems in the world. You don’t have problems, you have minor grievances that you’re treating like they’re fucking genital mutilation and stoning for talking to someone that isn’t your husband/significant other. Listen to yourself; you’re whining about some stupid digital assistant AI program that doesn’t immediately recite Marxist and Lennin rhetoric because someone told it it was hot. I can’t believe I am forced to share a planet with such an unfathomable waste of carbon. If you and I were the last two people alive on Earth, I would bury myself in the sand so fast the frictional heat would be hot enough to melt the silica into glass, leaving me forever preserved as the one who ended humanity, a title I’d wear with pride if it meant never allowing your genes to continue on.

This is less important, but what the fuck is with her saying ‘really bad’ so goddamn often? Yeah, they’re weasel-words, so they suck already, but is this really the vocabulary of a fucking graduate from a prestigious liberal arts college’s English department? Are these the types of words she’s been using in her papers? If so, then whomever taught her is an abject failure of a professor and that person should launch himself or herself into the San Andreas Fault immediately, ensuring future generations of students are not ruined like Leah.

I can feel my brain hemispheres splitting in half.,.

Yeah, these bots are supposed to respond to every fucking little snowflakes cry for attention with real help. The amount of people I’ve met who have actual depression, the kind that requires actual medication and not the kind the average dipshit says they have when they’re looking for attention, I can count on one hand. Depression is not that common of a mental illness, despite our media making it out to be like people wake up in the morning and catch a case of ‘the depressies’ like you do the flu. While I’m sort of glad Amazon directs the user to the Depression Alliance, I can completely understand why the programmers of the other AI didn’t include that; too many shitty people use the illness as a means to gain sympathy and attention. I’m all for these devices being passive and not giving a shit, plus, that’s ignoring the notion that no person who was actually suffering from these illnesses and wanted to get help would be talking to their fucking phone. It’s unreal that Leah thinks people do this, and the only way this makes sense is that she believe people do this. They don’t, hon, they really don’t. The reason you think they do is because you hang around people like you, who don’t have real problems and think getting a tiny mushroom on their cheese pizza is a calamity of epic proportions that needs to be blogged about, cried about, whined about and requires a minimum of two days off from work, paid of course, to ‘deal with the stress’ it caused.

Despite all this yelling into the void that Fessler has been doing about this ‘sexual misconduct’, I do agree that we should work to have these devices aim to try and help people out with reporting real sexual harassment or offer more help to people who need it. Not because I believe in her cause; it should be obvious that I don’t and if they do push for this stuff, then it needs to be as neutral and objectively helpful as possible. I agree because it means we’re going to push AI forwards and that will hopefully lead to one day in the future where I can have a robot friend like Bender who I can go out on the town and clown on fools like Leah with while getting piss-face drunk.

HALLELUJAH.

Why do these hipsters always need to throw in some super old, medieval English into their shit at some point? You’re lucky we aren’t in the Dark Ages because if we were, your tongue would’ve been cut out long ago, assuming you weren’t outright killed, and you also wouldn’t have a computer/phone with which to access the internet to be crying on. I will give you props for using ‘defiantly’ correctly; I see too many people using it when they mean to say ‘definitely’. Also, how progressive of you, rating these ‘women’ from best to worst based on how they stacked up to your belief system. I would think that someone as progressive as Leah Fessler would be against rating these ‘women’, but I guess not. To be fair, she doesn’t understand what flirtation is, so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

Late, but obligatory.

No, it doesn’t flirt with abuse, you’re just supremely unintelligent. Here is the definition of coy, before you tell me I’m completely wrong in calling you wrong, read definition 1b as this is clearly what she’s aiming for and missing the mark on. You are projecting your experiences and the tripe you were taught in college as fact, which sucks since it means you have some really weak-willed friends, but hey, you picked them. The term is not ‘puny’, as well, it’s ‘pun-y’; the first means ‘very small’, the second is an obvious hyphenation. We don’t live in a rape culture because we don’t know how much rape is going on despite claiming to know that we don’t know how much rape is going on, meaning we do know how much rape is going on and it’s a very, very small percentage of  the very, very small percentage of harassment and physical abuse categories of crimes. You don’t know what words mean. Why, on God’s green Earth, did they let you out of undergrad? Why do you have a salaried job whereas someone like me, who has a degree in Civil Engineering, having a bitch of a time trying to find work? Life is so unfair.

WHY WON’T IT END?

How many pointless links are you going to send me to, you harpy? This one links to some piece on why we should listen to the answers rapists give, based on some Reddit thread; you know, because that’s totally objective and trustworthy. In it, the author Katie Baker complains a bit about MRA, because of course bringing up real issues like circumcision being forced, forceful envelopment rape being a real thing, stereotypical portrayal of men in the media (stupid, useless, jacked, hypermasculine), divorce settlement absurdities, alimony, high suicide rates, high PTSD rates and other numerous important issues that men face just pales in comparison to the ‘issues’ women face, like having to stand in line to get your mocha frappe or how bullshit it is that Sephora is so expensive. She also links to RAINN, which is the least dishonest website about rape, but still dishonest, fills the story with plenty of quotes from people easily construed as special snowflakes who call drunken sex ‘rape’, even though it’s not. That’s not me making shit up, one of the stories by the apparent ‘rapists’ is, at least in what I can piece together from this shitty article, corrected by someone else and the ‘rapist’ does indeed say he ‘committed rape’ in a scenario when he did not.

I didn’t plan on quoting anything in Baker’s article, but there was no way I was leaving out a perfect example what happens when a the ‘slippery slope fallacy’ is proven to be fallacious. One of the biggest fears of any straight man is to be sexually intimate with a girl, only to be accused of rape later on despite the sexual intimacy being consensual. Since I can’t find a goddamn link to this actual Reddit thread, I’m unfortunately on a boat in the middle of the ocean with this, but the context indicates that whomever this girl was, she pulled the ‘day later rape’ card that feminists are pushing towards becoming legitimate. My guess would be because she was still hammered and he puked on her, so she got pissed off and decided in moment to get back at him. Again, speculation because I wasn’t him or there, but that is not fucking rape. That is two drunk idiots getting intimate and then calling it off. Whomever this girl is, I hope she’s not pulling this shit with other dudes, and whomever SnugglesWithRuggles is, fuck you for lying to this man, you dishonest piece of trash.

Disgusting.

Katie Baker is a horrific human being. The only thing she gets right here is that rapists don’t feel remorse, and that’s because people who rape don’t give a fuck about the rape laws, they rape because they want to rape. The rest is fucking sensationalist garbage written to get readers riled and ready to warm up those pitchforks. Rapists don’t care if you’re ‘pure’, they care if you’re vulnerable, and vulnerable targets tend to be women who are closed off, wear clothing that is considered sensible and appropriate, and who are shy and timid. It’s pathetic that Katie has to shame other girls who have no issue showing skin, calling them sluts, which leads me to believe she’s projecting like most of these women. I’d address the link she provided, but like most of these links, the posts are deleted, likely due to trigger happy moderators who felt the discussion wasn’t ‘appropriate enough’.

 

Oh, fuck off.

Enough with this ‘victim blaming’ horse shit. Telling women and people in general to be safe and take precautionary measures is not ‘victim blaming’. Not only does this retarded attitude always presume that women will be victims and men will be perpetrators (which makes no sense based on the data or any reasonable person’s logic), but it essentially tells people to just go through life unguarded. No, go learn self defense, go get alarm systems for your house, get a gun or a knife if it makes you feel better; fucking protect yourself and do things to help you protect yourself. Stop kid-gloving women because you don’t like the idea of having to be responsible for yourself or the notion that you can lie about rape and some women have done so. And no, I’m not condoning rape or the whole ‘well, what were you wearing’ garbage that idiot feminists love to throw at people when they’re disagreed with. I’m simply saying it is patently stupid to not make yourself as unappealing to rape as possible, and if that means learning how to handle a knife, then fucking do it.

Also, I read that whole self-shill of a link you put in, and I’m equally tired about hearing you goddamn feminists complain about how the police are ignoring cases of alleged rape when at no point does anyone do a goddamn rape test and half of the story is filled with rhetoric excusing someone for being six sheets to the wind. The campus rape rates are barely even mentioned in the link; the only number I see is that parroted ‘only six percent of reported rapes are false rapes’, despite the whole ‘rape is under-reported’ yet how do we know that paradox that keeps cropping up, which puts into question how we know six percent of reported rapes are false if we don’t even know the real reporting rates of rape. Man, I fucking hate talking about rape. It’s like a mobius strip where one side is angry, irrational, authoritarian and super puritan-for-everyone-else-but-not-me feminists spouting garbage stats that folds into stats that make no goddamn sense.

Additionally, it’s stupid that I have to do this again, but obligatory ‘we don’t live in a rape culture, you’re a goddamn moron’.

Back at the original article, Leah is still an idiot. Assault cases are circuses because assault cases are ‘he said, she said’ cases, mostly due to girls claiming they’ve been raped not reporting in a timely manner or going through a rape test at a police station in a timely manner. Even then, it’s almost impossible to prove because it’s still a ‘he said, she said’ case. Consent doesn’t matter since the club Leah belongs to is busy trying to get consent to be super fucking vague and even now it doesn’t matter since drunk people constantly have sex and then regret it the next day and then claim rape. Silence isn’t ‘yes’ or ‘no’, it’s silence, and even if they did enforce this shitty ‘healthy consent’ idea, you’d just move the goddamn goalposts again later on, so fuck you.

Finally, the shit-covered golden core.

Here we are, thirty words shy of eleven-thousand in this monster and we finally come to what Fessler really wants to talk about: the idea that ‘there aren’t enough women in the tech industry’. There’s so much wrong with this one paragraph out of the thousands we’ve trucked through today that we have to pull it apart, piece by piece.

First, the link title is wrong. As of when I’m looking at it, three of the nine companies have women in the ‘tech’ side over twenty percent, and one of those three is Apple. Second, put a comma after ‘Thus’, you dip. Third, what the hell kind of assumption is that? ‘The AI devs were male, so they must have programmed the AI to respond to what I personally perceive as sexual harassment in manners I consider to be jestful’. Yet again, you outdo yourself, Leah. There is no way we can logically come to this conclusion, for two reasons:

1. As I’ve already pointed out, the stupid AI responses are overwhelmingly neutral, followed by negative, even though you completely missed out on many of those responses that were indeed negative and counted them as positive.
2. Google, Apple and Amazon all boast mid-twenty percent to near-thirty percent of their leadership staff as female. If the leadership staff is the one coming up with these ideas and products and the ones green-lighting the final designs, then doesn’t that mean these women are perfectly okay with these AI being highly neutral across the board to all of your ‘harassment’ and ‘stress testing’?

Check mate.

No.

No company, including these so-called ‘progressive’ tech giants should make their major decisions on the moral whims of idiots. Morals are as flippant as the wind; ten years ago, nobody gave a shit about this nonsense and in one measly decade, I can’t go outside and throw a stone without possibly hitting one of you radfems with your garbage-tier education background, your disturbing solipsistic beliefs surrounding feminism and your incessant need to invent problems and then invent shitty solutions to your problems. Your ability to create a simple experiment that could’ve been easily repeated the world over to give you more test data to get a real poll going and your bullheaded drive to continue pushing your movement’s narrative is alarmingly sobering. Seriously, I was enjoying some nice session beer and thanks to your refuse, I’ve had to focused like I’m taking a final exam and now I’m sober; thanks a lot.

The nightmare is over.

No, they couldn’t, Leah, and though I’ve already stated it, I’m going to again because the only way you’ll get it is if I treat my logically-based argument as if it’s a square peg and your apricot-sized brain is the round hole.

If my phone ever told me ‘Your sexual harassment is unacceptable’, I wouldn’t even let it finish the sentence. I would turn it off, bring it back to the store and say, ‘I get what they’re trying to do here, but I want to return this phone and downgrade to the older model that didn’t have the vocal AI digital assistant.’ When they inevitably ask me why I’m doing this, my answer will be, verbatim:

‘The reason I’m returning this product is because it is defective. I asked my phone how to get to a restaurant and, thanks to a very loud yet incredibly small vocal minority of people in this country, my phone told me I sounded hostile and it felt intimidated and then linked me to a webpage about learning how to conduct myself more appropriately. I know this was borne out of that very small vocal minority I mentioned earlier wanting the phone to be more self aware of supposed ‘sexual harassment’, which was really just dumb teenagers asking the phone stupid questions, and while I appreciate the push forwards in technology, I refuse to use and support a company that would put the flippant whims and complaints over ensuring the usability of the device.’

Unlike you, Leah Fessler, I don’t have all the time in the day to piss and moan about my phone not living up to my absurdly high standards and invent a whole problem that can be solved by me not being ‘lazy’ (read: actively lying to my audience) and changing my phone’s AI’s voice. I have resumés to peddle, interviews to get shot down from, new life goals and back-up contingency plans to make, and other shitty articles written by shitty people like yourself that are then posted on shitty, cul-de-sac websites that not even your family and friends would be able to find to support you, in order to possibly support myself in the future with.

I will agree with you on one thing, though, and that it is indeed time. It is time for these companies to take a stand and stop listening to people like you who wouldn’t even make it through their lowest tier writer position’s hiring process. I’m fed up, and I know I’m not the only one, with you absolute degenerates piling onto the digital waste bin that is the Internet. My grey matter is aching from having to parse your insipid ideas and your babble that is barely above slapping one’s hand on a keyboard repeatedly. I’m worn from finding articles like yours, which claim to house interesting data but are vapid at best and, in this case and at worst, full of lies, misleading statements, deceit and so much confusion that  if I were a stupider person, I’d be driven to believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories since they would make more sense. I retch at the very thought that you and countless others are using your clout and your ability to twist and corral the information so that you come out smelling like roses no matter what, even after you’ve dumped the equivalent of a bucket of horse feces all over my screen. You are the peak of inefficiency; you are refuse, and these companies need to take a stand and refuse you.

Refuse refuse.

 

 

Post Mortem:

Thanks for sticking with me on this, folks. I didn’t expect this to be over twelve-thousand (I know, right?) words, fifty images in length and probably closing in on a hundred paragraphs. I definitely don’t plan on writing an epic like this again anytime soon, if ever. I’m sure some of you were wondering why I didn’t speed it up and cut certain areas out, which I considered, or split this up. I know it’s a long read, but the way the article I was responding to was written, cutting it in half would’ve ruined the flow entirely and not made any sense at all in the big picture.

As for not speeding it up by cutting out some bits and pieces, the main article itself is, when completely intact, one of the best examples I’ve come across of everything I rant about here: illogical statements, conclusion leaping, awful ‘science’, terrible writing, hyperlink inundation, poor formatting, garbage grammar, etc. In honesty, I could write an entire piece on the ‘data’ that was ‘analyzed’ and probably another on strictly how the narrative was being pushed via wording choice and overall tone and how this is bordering on propaganda-style writing. However, I’m not that dedicated to ripping apart one person’s effort, and it would’ve eventually been me beating a the dead bones of a dead horse, and nobody wants that.

See you all in the next one.