Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Mom's New Apartment.

May's Employment Attempts.

Relationship Issues (take your pick as to whom)

Hanners and her HAAAAAAATTT!!!!

The Band!

Harriet officially joins the cast (with her pet bird YB)

Insert Meme Here (space ham, space tea, waffles, etc.)

Something completely different.

[Soylent Green]

To what means would they be doing that?

To marginalize humans.  To undermine the structure of whatever country the story takes place in.  To bring about the end of humanity.  Because they can.  Any of these reasons could work as an explanation.

[Loki]

Again: Why, why and why? (The fourth one does not beg the question, but Occam's razor speaks against it.)

[ZoeB]

Really, the idea that equal rights would be given to AI is quite a horrifying idea.

Fair enough. I now proclaim you to be an AI. I got access to your medical records - apparently you're a "test tube baby" so by my beliefs, and even in one or two jurisdictions, are not a natural person.

Actually the above is a load of codswallop. Even if I had l33t hxor skils (OK, I do, I taught cyberwarfare at the Australian Defence Force Academy) it would take considerable effort even to identify you. It would break a number of laws. It would also be really, really unethical from a professional viewpoint (and I taught ethics in databases at the Australian National University), as well as being rude and insulting to our hosts here at QC. So rest assured, it's something I'd never even attempt. Nor would I use contacts in Five Eyes.

The "not a natural person" bit is true though. Even Intersex people aren't regarded as such in some jurisdictions. See 63 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 677, 44 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,314 Wilma WOOD v.C.G. STUDIOS, INC. Civ. A. No. 86-2563.nUnited States District Court,E.D. Pennsylvania.

I'm sorry you find the idea "horrifying". You're not alone in your views either. Are there any other kinds of people, different from yourself,  that you would be uncomfortable granting human rights to? And if so, please justify why you should have the power so to do, and even why others should grant you human rights in turn?

I will stipulate that you should have them - because you are a person. Natural or not.

[ZoeB]

Though I wouldn't call it bigotry since the AI isn't even alive in a truly meaningful way.

Interesting assertion. Would you care to elucidate here? As you might guess, my view differs, but then, you'll find a presentation of mine in the Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, so my objectivity is questionable.

I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say, and your reasons. I have no time for "argument by authority" especially when it's my own.

[GarandMarine]

Occam's Razor speaks against a lot of similar theories. Interestingly this all speaks to a real thing we're going to have to deal with with machines. Human beings aren't going to be required for shitty manual labor soon. Hell for shit like station, we already have large teams of humans and computers doing similar tasks, but one station can replace all of those systems.

The nature of work in a post singularity world is going to change and restructure itself completely. Look at Star Trek for an example. It's a utopian society with a very egalitarian lifestyle. Why? We don't see a lot of the "work" of the world of Star Trek in the practical sense, but what glimpses we get of Terra at various points leads one to believe there really isn't that much "work" left in the traditional sense. Machines, computers and motherfucking replicators handle much of the labor, and the latter drastically improves supply. There relationship to work has changed drastically. So will ours in the next century or so as machines grow more intelligent and capable of more complex tasks. Already machines are replacing face to face basic service industry jobs. (What do you think a self checkout is?) It would not be surprising to see a fully automated restaurant in the next few years.

Those of course are all relatively dumb machines. What about an intelligent one? Like Momo or May? Even Pintsize, who isn't purchased but rather matched, more like an adoption or dating service then buying a new "gadget". If a machine is intelligent enough to communicate it's desire for self determination, and understand the deeper implications of that request, what exactly is the justification for telling it no? Remember this is post singularity. Momo, May, Station, Pintsize, even that toaster are NOT AIs in the constructed sense. Their programs had origins in such, but the singularity is specifically the point of critical mass where such programs gain sentience on their own. Sapience isn't, as far as we know, something we can program or construct, but with enough computing power and learning programs, it's not so shocking a thought that it could one day happen.

[Thrillho]

Shopgirl did not deserve that attitude. At all.

This quote made me want to chime in with my tuppence worth.  Having worked in clothing store for a number of years, I feel i should point out that, whilst shopgirl could have worded herself better, May is positively polite and pleasant compared to the usual attitude from 'humans' when they hear something they don't like during a clothes shopping trip.

I know. I also work in customer service. I've worked in goddamn telesales. I know what an absolute prick Average Joe Customer can be with much less justification than what May has. However it being the norm does not mean the girl deserved it. As she says even within the comic we all need to work to you know, not die of starvation. And the world is in recession.

And yeah the girl could've handled it better, but if she is trying to save someone some hassle by observing what a prejudiced piece of shit her boss is, she does not deserve someone screaming in her face about what a prejudiced piece of shit her boss is.

I do not like May.

[Soylent Green]

Let's start from the top then.

Fair enough. I now proclaim you to be an AI. I got access to your medical records - apparently you're a "test tube baby" so by my beliefs, and even in one or two jurisdictions, are not a natural person.

One is a living creature, a biological entity.  The other is a machine and does not qualify as being human. 

The "not a natural person" bit is true though. Even Intersex people aren't regarded as such in some jurisdictions.

That is accurate, as they are not natural people, in the strictest sense.  They are posthuman.

I'm sorry you find the idea "horrifying".

Not a particularly important question, but why did that require quotes?

Are there any other kinds of people, different from yourself,  that you would be uncomfortable granting human rights to?

Things that are not human. I do not believe that inhuman entities necessarily deserve human rights.

And if so, please justify why you should have the power so to do

I never claimed to have that right.  Moreover, I do not have that right.  All I have are opinions, like everyone else here.

and even why others should grant you human rights in turn?

Because I am human.

I will stipulate that you should have them - because you are a person. Natural or not.

That is... a dangerous thought, for humanity at any rate.  Also, not to be too rude, but you don't have the power to make such stipulations.  All we have are opinions.

[GarandMarine]

Do non-terrestrial sapient beings deserve to be afforded the same rights as our much talked about breed of hairless monkey that thinks rather highly of itself?

[Soylent Green]

Though I wouldn't call it bigotry since the AI isn't even alive in a truly meaningful way.

Interesting assertion. Would you care to elucidate here? As you might guess, my view differs, but then, you'll find a presentation of mine in the Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems, so my objectivity is questionable.

I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say, and your reasons. I have no time for "argument by authority" especially when it's my own.

Honestly, I am finding it fairly intimidating trying to explain my thoughts.  I am not a particularly intelligent individual, so I doubt I could properly voice the reasoning behind my opinions.  If that means that my views are worthless then I am sorry that I posted them.  I don't really want to be a bother, I just wanted to voice my feelings on the topic presented.

[Loki]

Please explain the terms "human" and "posthuman".

[Akima]

On top of being literally inhuman, May exhibits other qualities which would be red flags for any intelligent employer

Except, of course, the employer had no opportunity to observe any of her negative traits, since they simply apply a blanket "no robots" rule, so her personal characteristics were not relevant to her rejection. It would be as if I enquired about a job, and regardless of my virtues or flaws, was rejected simply because I am East Asian. If that's OK with you, we are not going to be friends.

Shopgirl did not deserve that attitude. At all.

She's knowingly complicit in discrimination that is apparently illegal in the QC-verse. That is not an "innocent" position, and the "I was only obeying orders" defence is very flimsy. May aimed her abusive remarks at the employer, not the assistant, and pointing out calmly that she was working for a bigot was accurate and fair; everyone is responsible for their choices. And if a shop assistant told me to my face that the shop had a policy of not hiring Asians, I'd walk out too. Not a cent of my money would they ever see again, and I would do my best to discourage my family, friends, and anyone else I could influence from shopping there.

Political correctness is great, for as long as you can sit there feeling smug about about it on your parents' money, or the tax-payers' expense.

I don't live on my parent's money. I work full-time, pay my taxes, help support my family, and the only tax-payers' money I receive is for doing contract IT work in a large public teaching hospital. I mean, it is OK for me to work, isn't it? Or am I stealing a job from a real person? Oh, and I don't read the Guardian, or have twinkly eyes either. I think that covers all of your sneers about political correctness that I can remember.

What you call "political correctness", I find generally amounts to my being accorded the same legal rights as my fellow Australian citizens, and a bare minimum of respect as a human being. Beyond that, the idea that I have the same status as a member of the majority population is laughable. And yet that is apparently too much. Yes, you see, I am one of the immigrants you apparently dislike. I live in something of a Chinatown where about 40% of the population is East or South-East Asian. We're mainly of Chinese descent, many like me first-generation, but with significant Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese populations too. And yes that is "not popular" - with racist bigots. You can make all the excuses you like, but if you reject people, or value them less,  because of their race, you are a racist bigot. You can tap-dance all you like, but in the end it simply comes down to trying to find ways to justify and approve of racism. And if you are going to do that, you will always find me on the other side, without even the smallest twinkle in my eyes.

We all have opinions, and we are wholly, solely, and inescapably, personally responsible for them. No opinion is "just" an opinion. The opinions we choose to hold say a great deal about what we are.

[pwhodges]

The "not a natural person" bit is true though. Even Intersex people aren't regarded as such in some jurisdictions.

That is accurate, as they are not natural people, in the strictest sense.  They are posthuman.

Global Moderator Comment

We do not prevent people in this forum having mistaken views; however, attempts to defend views which we consider indefensible are another matter. There are a number of threads in the Discuss! forum which could help you understand a bit more about human sexuality and gender issues; but until you have studied them, or some equivalent resource, and gained a greater understanding yourself, I advise you to steer well clear of statements of this sort. You may not be aware that your statement that intersex people are not natural pertains directly to someone with whom you are discussing...

[Neko_Ali]

Claiming minorities as inhuman is standard procedure when it comes to discriminating against them. I think that you will find most of your arguments have been used, practically verbatim, against women, LGBT people and especial people who are in the racial minority, doubly so if they are immigrants. "They're coming to take our jobs!" has been a rallying cry against immigration for as long as I know.

AIs are not human. But they are intelligent, self aware, thinking and feeling beings. They might as well be human except in regards to their origins and bodies. And at such time that we can significantly or completely replace a human body with a synthetic android one, their differences will become near pointless.

And finally in regards to the 'they have replaced a human in that job'. No. They haven't. They are the most qualified person for the job. Every time a job position is filled it means that a bunch of people were rejected. Unless there was only one applicant, something that rarely happens. So did that person steal that job from everyone else? What if that person is a minority? I've heard that rallying cry from bigots a lot. "They only got that job because they are a woman/black/disabled." Is basically saying "A normal person should have got that job."

[GarandMarine]

For the record. "Just following orders" is not a flimsy defense. Per all precedents in military and civilian law it is NOT a valid defense of any kind.

[Soylent Green]

Do non-terrestrial sapient beings deserve to be afforded the same rights as our much talked about breed of hairless monkey that thinks rather highly of itself?

Do they deserve to be afforded the same rights as a hairless monkey in a society that belongs to the hairless monkeys and is created for the benefit of the hairless monkeys?  Not necessarily.

Please explain the terms "human" and "posthuman".

Human: a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.
synonyms: person, human being, personage, mortal, member of the human race; man, woman; individual, soul, living soul, being; Homo sapiens; earthling

Posthuman: "According to transhumanist thinkers, a posthuman is a hypothetical future being "whose basic capacities so radically exceed those of present humans as to be no longer unambiguously human by our current standards."

Intersexed individuals are a fairly soft posthuman concept, I will admit, but they do fit some of the criteria.  As a transhumanist, I find the phenomenon to be endlessly intriguing.

[pwhodges]

"They're coming to take our jobs!" has been a rallying cry against immigration for as long as I know.

The Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who protested against newly developed labour-saving machinery from 1811 to 1817. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.

Of course, if you then demand your jobs back, you're taking the jobs from the people who now have them.

[Soylent Green]

We do not prevent people in this forum having mistaken views; however, attempts to defend views which we consider indefensible are another matter.  There are a number of threads in the Discuss! forum which could help you understand a bit more about human sexuality and gender issues; but until you have studied them, or some equivalent resource, and gained a greater understanding yourself, I advise you to steer well clear of statements of this sort.  You may not be aware that your statement that intersex people are not natural pertains directly to someone with whom you are discussing...

What's wrong with being a posthuman?  It's an amazing transformation that humanity is undergoing!

[pwhodges]

Can you truly say that without a trace of irony?

[Neko_Ali]

Even by that description, intersex people do not at all qualify as even 'soft posthuman', which is just a way to try and stretch the term. Intersex people have been a part of the human species as long as medical history stretches back, and probably since we existed as human. You are just trying to find some way to divide and isolate them from what you consider 'normal humans', ie: unambiguously male and female. This is not a true statement. Intersex people are just as normal and natural as anyone else. Society has placed a strong emphasis on conformity though, which demands that they be 'fixed' or hidden. This is a horrible thing, and a way to force people into pre conceived roles and positions, rather than let those pre conceptions be challenged by real life and facts.

[TheBiscuit]

I know. I also work in customer service. I've worked in goddamn telesales. I know what an absolute prick Average Joe Customer can be with much less justification than what May has. However it being the norm does not mean the girl deserved it. As she says even within the comic we all need to work to you know, not die of starvation. And the world is in recession.

People you call while doing telesales are not your customers.

[GarandMarine]

Do non-terrestrial sapient beings deserve to be afforded the same rights as our much talked about breed of hairless monkey that thinks rather highly of itself?

Do they deserve to be afforded the same rights as a hairless monkey in a society that belongs to the hairless monkeys and is created for the benefit of the hairless monkeys?  Not necessarily.

So in short, you find it acceptable to discriminate against sapient individuals who are different then you are. Why should a sapient xenobiological not be afforded the same rights as a human being? Or a sapient AI for that matter? If a being can think and feel, whether it's circuits are biological as ours are, or electronic is it acceptable to hold it in chains and force it to labor for you?

"They're coming to take our jobs!" has been a rallying cry against immigration for as long as I know.

The Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who protested against newly developed labour-saving machinery from 1811 to 1817. The stocking frames, spinning frames and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.

Of course, if you then demand your jobs back, you're taking the jobs from the people who now have them.

Didn't the Luddites form a religion out of the concept of being too stubborn to advance with the rest of the species?

We do not prevent people in this forum having mistaken views; however, attempts to defend views which we consider indefensible are another matter.  There are a number of threads in the Discuss! forum which could help you understand a bit more about human sexuality and gender issues; but until you have studied them, or some equivalent resource, and gained a greater understanding yourself, I advise you to steer well clear of statements of this sort.  You may not be aware that your statement that intersex people are not natural pertains directly to someone with whom you are discussing...

What's wrong with being a posthuman?  It's an amazing transformation that humanity is undergoing!

Further thought, while I find the concept of transhumanism interesting, intersex people have been around for a long time. Like since recorded history long. So I don't think they really count as being post-human or transhuman for transhumanist thinking for one, and for two the implication that such individuals are not natural human beings can be incredibly offensive to those individuals, especially when that status has been regularly used against them in a legal sense.

[Soylent Green]

You are just trying to find some way to divide and isolate them from what you consider 'normal humans', ie: unambiguously male and female.

What's wrong with not being normal?  I am considered different because of my autism but that doesn't make me any less of a human being.  I'm still a biological entity derived from the human race.

Can you truly say that without a trace of irony?

That I like the idea of posthumans?  The fact that I ascribe to the Transhumanist intellectual movement implies it. So, yes, I am capable of saying it without irony.

[Neko_Ali]

Because when most people say 'not normal' they mean 'less than' or 'not as good as'. Even if you are saying 'better than' that is still a division, and treating people differently because of some arbitrary factor is still a form of bigotry. Saying someone is inherently better than other people because of some aspect of their biology is the same excuse bigots use. The fact that you are using it to apply to a traditional minority group doesn't make it any better.

edit: I would like to clarify here, that I am not trying to engage in personal attacks on anyone. And I do apologize if I am offending anyone. What I am trying to do is challenge these ideas that one group of people is inherently better than another group because of reasons. Every living, thinking, feeling being regardless of origins or configuration should have equal rights, equal opportunities and equal treatment. It's how each person acts as an individual that we should be judged upon.

[Soylent Green]

Further thought, while I find the concept of transhumanism interesting, intersex people have been around for a long time. Like since recorded history long.

I actually didn't know that!  When and who was the first recorded case of a true intersex individual?  I'm really interested in reading about it!

especially when that status has been regularly used against them in a legal sense.

Bah! Small minded people will always try to stifle human advancement. 

Because when most people say 'not normal' they mean 'less than' or 'not as good as'. Even if you are saying 'better than' that is still a division

That... isn't what I was trying to say.

Still, reading what I said, I can see how it would be rather inflammatory to people.  I still think intersexed individuals present an amazing transformation of what traditional society considers as a normal representation of humanity.   But I digress, I am sorry.

[Mr. Doctor]

Shopgirl did not deserve that attitude. At all.

She's knowingly complicit in discrimination that is apparently illegal in the QC-verse. That is not an "innocent" position, and the "I was only obeying orders" defence is very flimsy. May aimed her abusive remarks at the employer, not the assistant, and pointing out calmly that she was working for a bigot was accurate and fair; everyone is responsible for their choices. And if a shop assistant told me to my face that the shop had a policy of not hiring Asians, I'd walk out too. Not a cent of my money would they ever see again, and I would do my best to discourage my family, friends, and anyone else I could influence from shopping there.

Even if I agree with you. None of this makes it ok for the girl to receive that attitude.
This is probably me though, but if I'm going to call people on their B.S. or in this case... The B.S. they are related to: I'll gladly do it calmly.
To me, curses and attitude will always stain all the right things you are actually saying.

[Jazzmaster]

May is no more surly nor belligerent than people can be. Hell, look at any forum or social media page, and you will see instances of rudeness that border on sociopathy.

You mean like a certain "Georgia Peach" in the comic that we all "love"? 

And come to think of it, I work with somebody who is very abrasive, and even threatened me with physical violence ("I'll beat your little skinny ass").  She's still employed here.  I wouldn't want her to be fired, but I've worked with some folks who have a real attitude and it doesn't seem to affect their employment status very much.  They'll get a "talking to" and then we go back to things as normal...them having an attitude with everyone else, including the manager. 

Do they also not deserve the same rights to employment? They do, but they need to pull their heads out of their asses if they are going to be dealing with people on a daily basis (although, once they're promoted to manager or something...).

Once they're promoted to manager or something...?

On comic: it's the same sort of inflection when people say "I'm not racist/sexist/homophobic etc., but <insert derogatory comment about aforementioned group here>".

On point.

[Ben]

Some of this is becoming completely incomprehensible. That's what happens in self-defined debates with no fixed points if reference. Facebook managed to generate 56 descriptions of sexual orientation by the same process.

If AIs, immigrants or any other external category are introduced into a situation in which employment and thereby, resources are in finite supply, and demand generally exceeds that supply, then those newcomers will be impacting adversely on SOME group within the original population. That's basic arithmetic.

If those immigrants, AIs or whatever go on to exist within significantly self-defined groupings, be it mosque, Chinatown or anythung else, then integration is not taking place. That's basic demographics.

It doesn't matter that supporters of multi-cultural political correctness insist that this is untrue, because ideology so dictates; the situation remains. The late Robert Heinlein described this as "collective solipsism" which seems to me to be an expressive, if strictly contradictory term.

[GarandMarine]

Thread relevant maybe? http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/135126-Can-Machines-Think-Eugene-Passes-Turing-Test

[Northern Light]

The "not a natural person" bit is true though. Even Intersex people aren't regarded as such in some jurisdictions.

That is accurate, as they are not natural people, in the strictest sense.  They are posthuman.

We do not prevent people in this forum having mistaken views; however, attempts to defend views which we consider indefensible are another matter.  There are a number of threads in the Discuss! forum which could help you understand a bit more about human sexuality and gender issues; but until you have studied them, or some equivalent resource, and gained a greater understanding yourself, I advise you to steer well clear of statements of this sort.  You may not be aware that your statement that intersex people are not natural pertains directly to someone with whom you are discussing...

Oh, I see, this is a special clubhouse and dissenting opinions are not allowed. How intelligent of you. I'll show myself out.

On that parting note: ARTIFICIAL Intelligences are NOT people, they do NOT deserve to be treated the same as people, just as there are varying degrees and calibers of human who deserve to be treated differently. The idea of treating every single person equally is, frankly, unnatural, and as little as 50 years ago voicing that opinion would have you labelled a radical. I knew this forum was going to be liberal, but some of you are just plain deluded.  There appear to be a few lit bulbs in here, though. Keep it up.

I'll now take my leave.

[Barmymoo]

Let me provide some fixed points of reference then.

Transgender people, intersex people, people of any and all skin colours, people with only one leg, people who require a life support machine to remain alive, people with such severe disabilities that they cannot function without 24 hour care, people who like to dress up as rabbits and eat raw carrots, people who believe in one god or no gods or multiple gods, anyone at all deserves to be granted the same rights, respect and dignity as every other person. If you are in doubt about whether someone is human or not, you grant them those rights, respect and dignity anyway just to be safe.

This isn't political correctness. This is the forum rules, and anyone who isn't prepared to abide by them is very welcome to leave before they are banned.

Northern Light, our posts crossed and this was not intended to be a direct response to your post, but by happy coincidence it doesn't need amending as a result of reading what you wrote.

[Ben]

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that May, or any other AI us not "thinking" within the terms if the Turing Test. However Turing never claimed that a thinking machine was "human" in any sense, and an assertion of that nature would be incomprehensible in tne lexicon of the time.

It's a common problem with modern "relativist" thought, that two plainly incompatible properties or identities are flatly asserted to be equal, and the whole discussion follows  the course of that well-known avian wonder, the Oozlem bird. This is because having begun from a false premise and proceeded in a false direction, denying that things which appear different do so because they ARE different, and that things may be large or small but not both simultaneously, there is no way to progress and a futile, self-driving process of infinite sub-division is inevitable

There is a classic example of this, immediately above. The writer appears to be equating physically disabled persons with persons who enjoy dressing up as rabbits and eating carrots. This is clearly invalid, because one is a physical disability while the other is a deliberate affectation. I see no contradiction in holding that a person physically disabled and requiring specific assistance should be assisted with as much dignity as can be accorded, while someone who dresses as a rabbit for reasons only they can explain, can hardly be surprised if small boys make fun of them in the streets and I see no reason why anyone else should concern themselves. They do, after all, have the option to refrain from doing so, while the amputee or paralytic has no such choice.

[St.Clair]

The idea of treating every single person equally is, frankly, unnatural, and as little as 50 years ago voicing that opinion would have you labelled a radical.

The fact that this is no longer the case is, to me, an indicator of progress.

Ben:  So, to be clear, would it be your argument that entities which are provably (with the tools available to us) "sapient", but not necessarily "human", should not be accorded the same rights as humans?  That humans are a special category of sapient(s)?

[Ben]

Up to a point, Lord Copper. The daily press contains regular and distressing evidence that a major religious and cultural grouping holds no such views.

[St.Clair]

(If that was addressed to me - my apologies, but your form of response was unclear)

Up to what point?  And on what basis do you make the distinction, that one sort of sapient is accorded certain rights, privileges and protections, but another sort is not?

[Is it cold in here?]

Global Moderator Comment

A. We are on private property. Said property belongs to someone committed to equal rights and who should not be put in the position of providing a soapbox for the opposite.B. Real-world politics should only be in Discuss. It is bad for the comics thread.C. Do not mistake a long fuse for approval by moderators. Said long fuse has burned way, way down.

[jwhouk]

D. The OP wants to keep his "no thread locked" streak going.

[Is it cold in here?]

(regular user)
Remember classic science fiction where we were all supposed to be freed from toil by machines? Suppose robots take all the jobs. Tax them and use the money to support humans making music or writing or helping others.

Being carbon-based or silicon-based is not the difference between being alive and being dead.

Charlotte says she's alive. Her life is artificially produced. It's equally real, just as a lab-grown diamond is as real as a mined diamond.

Rights and responsibilities are inseparable. Long ago, Pintsize and Winslow rejected the idea of equal rights for robots because it would have meant taking on responsibility. Momo, in contrast, has stepped up to meet the duties of citizenship. From a conservative point of view, if they're willing to pull their own weight, they should be treated equally.

[Thrillho]

The idea of going toe to toe with Akima on anything is shitting me up, but fuck it, let's do this thing.

She's knowingly complicit in discrimination that is apparently illegal in the QC-verse. That is not an "innocent" position, and the "I was only obeying orders" defence is very flimsy.

What option does she have? Go out and get another job, when there may not be one available? Report her employer, which will likely lead to him being put in jail and as such her losing her job? We don't know this character's situation. She could be a single mother, she could be supporting an unemployed husband or boyfriend. I'm not saying it's okay to just be following orders, I'm saying we do not know enough about this character's situation (or indeed the economy situation in the QCverse) to judge her in such a way.

I know we'd all like to be able to find out our employers were prejudiced in some way and walk out with our heads held high, but the fact is it just isn't that simple for everybody. I have a co-worker who is horrifyingly racist and homophobic, but somewhat ingeniously manages to bury that under remarks that are usually said only to one person at a time and just near the knuckle enough as to be debatable so that you know he couldn't lose his job over it. Life is not as simple as 'they're a racist, so fuck 'em.' I wish it was.

May aimed her abusive remarks at the employer, not the assistant

She aimed them at the employer through the assistant. I don't know how many customer service jobs you've had (genuinely don't know, not wanting to seem patronising) but especially if you're new at the job, the customer may well be mad at your employer for any number of things, but they're still pretty much screaming at you, and so the fact that they're not mad at you really isn't very much comfort; at least no in the early days. It is simultaneously a positive and a negative for me that I can shield customer rage behind my professionalism and awareness of who the anger is really aimed at, but when you start out in a job like this it really doesn't help to think 'oh she's just mad at my boss.'

and pointing out calmly that she was working for a bigot was accurate and fair;

This is a webcomic so we can't actually read tone of voice, but the swear words alone to me do not read as calm.

everyone is responsible for their choices.

And if the choice is working for a racist until you find another job while still being able to pay rent (particularly in a recession), I'd stick with that choice. Especially if you didn't know it until you already worked there.

And if a shop assistant told me to my face that the shop had a policy of not hiring Asians, I'd walk out too. Not a cent of my money would they ever see again, and I would do my best to discourage my family, friends, and anyone else I could influence from shopping there.

That is absolutely fair and I would do the same when I'm not even Asian. I'm not arguing with May taking her business elsewhere. I still wouldn't throw swear words at the shopgirl on the way out though.

People you call while doing telesales are not your customers.

Actually they frequently are. One of my telesales jobs was selling large amounts of debt to pre-existing customers, a decision so terrible that a good 50% of my successful sales were cancelled because the customer failed the credit check having already bought such debt before and failed to pay it. NICE.

Quite apart from which, telesales is not the only customer service job I have done, and I work in customer service now which isn't in telesales.

[Ben]

If the assistant had the least modicum of sense, she would give May an application form and forget the whole issue. May might, or might not be invited to interview, probably abuse or offend the boss and be turned down for cause

[Thrillho]

Except if her boss is, as already established, prejudiced against AIs, she might well get yelled at and/or fired for such a thing, ignoring the fact that May already walked out and seemed pretty enthusiastic about not forgetting the issue, and like so many other things, being dumb does not equal 'deserves verbal abuse.'

[St.Clair]

"Anything you do in retail can get you in trouble, including nothing."

[GarandMarine]

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that May, or any other AI us not "thinking" within the terms if the Turing Test. However Turing never claimed that a thinking machine was "human" in any sense, and an assertion of that nature would be incomprehensible in tne lexicon of the time.

I don't think anyone is suggesting a true AI is human. Merely that a sapient being be they from somewhere else or having arisen from the works of man can and should be treated as our equals. Which is an altogether entirely different position.

[Is it cold in here?]

One of fiction's more thoughtful inquiries into AI rights was the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Measure of a Man". It showed both sides, each presented to the limit of the advocate's ability. Recommended.

[Mlle Germain]

Wow, this thing blew up!
I just came here to say that while I agree with Gareth in that I do not like May's personality and find her mostly annoying as a person (there is no question to me that May is a person), I sincerely congratulate May on her decision to go shop somewhere else - upholding principles like this immediately makes her more likable to me and apart from the swearing, this was precisely the right thing to do!

I don't see how getting a little annoyed at the sales girl as the public representative of the store is wrong either - this was not against her personally, but against her in her position as public representative of the store. May stayed comparatively polite (compared to how we've seen her before, that is), but told the sales person in clear terms why she doesn't want to continue to shop there. And that is what you have to do. If you don't agree with the store's policies, noone is going to take any heed of your criticism if you play nice. The only reason why this sales girl might take the incident to her manager is because of May's clear rejection of the store policy and this is the only way he will reconsider it. (Okay, "scumfucker" was maybe not necessary, but I don't see any problem with the rest.)

[Thrillho]

Wow, this thing blew up!
I just came here to say that while I agree with Gareth in that I do not like May's personality and find her mostly annoying as a person (there is no question to me that May is a person), I sincerely congratulate May on her decision to go shop somewhere else - upholding principles like this immediately makes her more likable to me and apart from the swearing, this was precisely the right thing to do!

I don't argue this.

I don't see how getting a little annoyed at the sales girl as the public representative of the store is wrong either - this was not against her personally, but against her in her position as public representative of the store.

I do argue this, and refer you to:
'She aimed them at the employer through the assistant. I don't know how many customer service jobs you've had (genuinely don't know, not wanting to seem patronising) but especially if you're new at the job, the customer may well be mad at your employer for any number of things, but they're still pretty much screaming at you, and so the fact that they're not mad at you really isn't very much comfort; at least no in the early days. It is simultaneously a positive and a negative for me that I can shield customer rage behind my professionalism and awareness of who the anger is really aimed at, but when you start out in a job like this it really doesn't help to think 'oh she's just mad at my boss.''

May stayed comparatively polite (compared to how we've seen her before, that is), but told the sales person in clear terms why she doesn't want to continue to shop there. And that is what you have to do. If you don't agree with the store's policies, noone is going to take any heed of your criticism if you play nice. The only reason why this sales girl might take the incident to her manager is because of May's clear rejection of the store policy and this is the only way he will reconsider it. (Okay, "scumfucker" was maybe not necessary, but I don't see any problem with the rest.)

There's a difference between sternness about the store and harshness that the employee will feel is directed at them.

[Mlle Germain]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you disagreed with me about the first part, just thought we should celebrate our kinship representing the minority of people that do not like May as a person on this forum - reading the comid thread, it sometimes looks like such people don't exist. 

I guess we just disagree about how impolite we think May was. I think it was (apart from the two or three swearwords) an appropriate reaction and she stayed surprisingly calm - she didn't actually scream and throw a fit and insisted on discussing it or anything. She had a brief upset, realised it wasn't really the employees fault, collected herself and went away. Overall, handled well.
I feel this is something that the employee is able to handle without being personally hurt so that she can report the serious displeasure of the customer to the manager. May didn't even push the fact that, yes, the employee is actually helping to uphold a shitty policy (although she probably isn't to be blamed for that, because for her it's an economic necessity).

[Is it cold in here?]

Notice that May saved all the name-calling for the discriminatory boss and didn't direct it at the clerk.

Do AnthroPCs record things? May has evidence for a lawsuit if so.

I still don't like May as a person but am slowly warming up to her and she was far more right than wrong in this encounter.

[Thrillho]

Notice that May saved all the name-calling for the discriminatory boss and didn't direct it at the clerk.

*headdesk*

[celticgeek]

"I know that you are not supposed to shoot the messenger, but sometimes the messenger is the only one you can get a good clean shot at."

[Is it cold in here?]

May actually said "Yeah, I understand" to the clerk and saved "scumfucker" for the boss.