Like was it a meaningful debate or a flat out flame war? And what was the main theme you were arguing over?
Sigh. That under Swedish law, it’s entirely probable that Julian Assange did rape that woman (reddit fanbois are a special kind of special).
That Elon Musk is not a real-life Tony Stark, but is in fact a slightly autistic narcissist who insists on inserting himself into the public eye and has an excellent PR team (reddit fanbois are a special kind of special).
That covid is real, and is bad, and is in fact deadly; and that vaccines are good, not a government conspiracy, and may save not just your life, but the lives of your families and friends.
Probably one of those three.
I feel like generally the POV of Musk being a narcissistic freak is now the default tbh, very few see him as the genius eccentric anymore
I would like to believe that, and in the social spaces I frequent Musk’s star has certainly fallen, but the number of people who sunk a ridiculous amount of cash into the SpaceX IPO speaks to there still being a lot of believers in his purported genius.
I know some who dislike musk but are like “he’s just the cash cow that spacex are milking dry, you can support spacex and hate the guy”
Unfortunately a lot of people still see him as an outsider tech genius who is standing up to the wealthy liberal elite. This is despite the fact that he is, on paper, the richest person alive. A lot of people I know, family even, curse Bloomberg and Gates as antichrists pulling the strings of the government puppet, despite the fact that Musk, Thiel, Kushner, etc. are literally doing that shit in the open
Sorry, I don’t know much about Assange but how can it be probable he raped someone “under Swedish law”? Do you just mean Sweden has different definitions for rape and that he might have done something fitting one of those definitions (but we cannot be sure of it because of lack of evidence)? Or something else I’m missing?
There are claims and counterclaims. Both sides sound convincing, but that’s what prosecutors and defense attorneys are supposed to do.
is in fact a slightly autistic narcissist
SLIGHTLY???
I stated that in a democracy fascist, racist, neo-nazi political parties should not have the right to form, campaign or run for government because - other than the obvious reasons - they are inherently undemocratic. I also added that this is not a paradox of democracy and that claiming otherwise is apologist bullcrap trying to justify fascism, racism or other institutional, totalitarian forms of oppression.
I got death threats.
Edit: maybe this doesn’t apply here since there was no arguing really? 🤔
Yeah, Lemmy is a bit more sophisticated and civil compared to other social media. That is why I always come back.
and that claiming otherwise is apologist bullcrap trying to justify fascism, racism or other institutional, totalitarian forms of oppression.
That’s just making a statement and refusing any challenge to it. Debate means searching for the truth and acknowledging you might be wrong. Now you’re just turning it into a personal attack toward anyone who disagrees with you. It’s intellectually dishonest and in bad faith.
If lemmy counts as social media in the context of this question: In one direction it was meaningful, but all I got back was flaming and brigading. But I’m sure they are convinced I have it the wrong way around. I was calling out a tankie for being objectively wrong in their statements, and that their defense of stalinism was stupid.
Seems legit. I hate arguing about politics. I avoid like the plague.
I think as many people as possible should be as well off as possible, with as much freedom as possible, at the expense of as few as possible. I dare you to challenge this standpoint. Sure, how we weigh and balance each of those is up for debate (A debate I am sure neither of us are interested in participating in), but as an outline, I find that only weirdos object to the premise as a whole.
I agree.
I don’t remember exactly what it was that I said that I got absolutely dog piled on and told I was wrong repeatedly but it had something to do with fire hydrants. 30+ replies telling me I was wrong and stupid and didn’t know what I was talking about.
For the record, I work in water and fire hydrants are very much part of my work. But, a bunch of random people on reddit definitely know better than me. 🤷♀️
Charitably, could there be some kind of regional difference where people living in certain places truly have something different? Over the winter, I came across a thread asking for radiator repair advice, and people from parts of the world with water radiators were very casual “open it up for investigation” while people from parts of the world with steam radiators were like “do not open anything you will die”. Lots of confused comments, too, until someone figured out the disconnect.
I think the thread was region specific but this was a long time ago so I could be misremembering.
They will argue with anyone because there is no consequences behind an anonymous account.
Truth.
did you say that fire hydrants can be other colors than red?
Lmao no but my camera roll proves that. I used to know towns boarders by their hydrant colors before I moved 🤣
Way too many people think trans people’s right to exist is a debate.
The reading comprehension and overall common sense on this website is piss poor.
I struggle to recall any “meaningful” debates.
There is no debate. Everyone has the right to exist. How could someone argue against that. They are just shouting idiocy.
how dare you say we piss on the poor
That all genocides are bad and if you deny Ukraine or the Uyghurs in China being genocides then you’re bad too.
The term genocide implies the intent to eradicate a people. While Russia has definitely used genocidal language in the past, I wouldn’t necessarily go as far as to claim that this is what they’re actually intending to do. As far as I can tell, they just want to conquer the land and rule over the people there.
If you look at what they did in some of the territories they have now left, like Bucha, and at their abduction of Ukrainian children to then be russified, there are definitely genocidal aspects to the war.
The purpose of the whole war is not genocide, but within it are acts constituting genocide.
Stealing Ukrainian children and re-educating/raising them as Russians is definitely genocidal.
There is a meaningful difference between:
- Russia committing specific acts that could legally qualify as genocidal, and
- The war as a whole being accurately described as a genocide.
Under international law, genocide requires the specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. This is a very high bar. It’s not enough to show that terrible things are happening to a group. You need to show that the perpetrator’s goal is the destruction of the group.
Under international law, genocide requires the specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Yes, and stealing their children and forcing them into your culture fits that description as it has several times in human history, including with Residential Schools in North America.
It’s cultural eradication.
I’m honestly not sure if I would call the overarching conflict a genocide, but Russia is absolutely doing genocidal things with the intent of eradicating Ukrainian culture from the contested regions.
Who believes a genocide could be good? That’s ridiculous.
Go ask the people who love Mao over on ml
I believe a genocide of mosquitos would be good.
Nope. If the mozzies went away, nature would probably collapse. They’re important food sources for a lot of animals
Just the one species that carries disease is enough.
Do you deny that there is white genocide in South Africa? Or that Europeans are being genocided through “the great replacement”? Or is it possible genocide is a serious accusation that requires serious proof and questioning shoddy proof is not bad?
What makes questioning the holocaust (much like the genocide in Gaza) so heinous is the fact that it is so incredibly well documented that the only possibile explanation for questioning, downplaying or denial is pure hatred. On the other hand in Xinjiang, a tourist hub with millions of tourists every year, in an advanced country where almost everyone has smartphones there is essentially 0 evidence of genocide. Unless you believe the Chinese government has secretly developed teleportation or invisibility or some such nonsense that merits questioning that in all these years no reremovedble organisation has called what’s happening a genocide that there is no real proof and that the 2 biggest faces of the movement pushing for the classification are American intelligence linked Christian evangelical “on a mission from god to destroy china” (Adrian zenz) and a Guantanamo bay torturer (Rushan Abbas).
Or that Europeans are being genocided through “the great replacement”?
You’re a fool. Europeans are deciding on theur own to not have kids due to a variety of socioeconomic factors, but those countries still need labor to keep things running so they use immigration to bring people in. That’s all there is to it.
If European countries would actually address the issues leading to younger people deciding to not have kids, then there wouldn’t be a problem.
But they won’t do that, because then the economy wouldn’t be build to cater exclusively to their version of the baby boomer generation.
That’s the point I’m trying to make dumbass. Just because someone calls something genocide does not make it genocide if you don’t have some serious proof to back it up.
I get it now. You’re just a tankie/wumao that’s salty about someone mentioning the Uyghur Genocide.
Fuck off
Or I am someone who thinks German evangelicals on missions from god to destroy countries and Guantanamo bay torturers are bad sources of information while first hand reports from delegations, the OIC and the UN are more reliable.
have you watched any vlogs from tourists in xinjiang?
I have been there personally
The skewers alone made it worth the train journey.
Since 2014, the government of the People’s Republic of China has committed a series of ongoing human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslim minorities in Xinjiang which has often been characterized as persecution or as genocide. There have been reports of mass arbitrary arrests and detention, torture, mass surveillance, cultural and religious persecution, family separation, forced labor, sexual violence, and violations of reproductive rights.
In 2014, the administration of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) general secretary Xi Jinping launched the Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism, which involved surveillance and restrictions in Xinjiang. Beginning in 2017, under Xinjiang Party secretary Chen Quanguo,[2] the government incarcerated over an estimated one million Uyghurs without legal process in internment camps officially described as “vocational education and training centers”, in the largest mass internment of an ethnic-religious minority group since World War II.[3][4] China began to wind down the camps in 2019, and some detainees were transferred to the penal system, while others were transferred to forced labor and factory work programs.[5][6]
In addition to mass detention, government policies have included suppression of Uyghur religious practices,[7] political indoctrination,[8] forced sterilization,[9] forced contraception,[10][11] and forced abortion.[12][13] An estimated 16,000 mosques have been razed or damaged,[2] and hundreds of thousands of children have been forcibly separated from their parents and sent to boarding schools.[14][15] Chinese government statistics reported that from 2015 to 2018, birth rates in the mostly Uyghur regions of Hotan and Kashgar fell by more than 60%.[9] In the same period, the national birth rate decreased by 9.7%.[16] According to CNN, Chinese authorities acknowledged that birth rates dropped by almost a third in 2018 in Xinjiang, but denied reports of forced sterilization.[17] Birth rates in Xinjiang fell a further 24% in 2019, compared to a nationwide decrease of 4.2%.[9]
The Chinese government denies having committed human rights abuses in Xinjiang.[3][18] International reactions have varied, with its actions being described as the forced assimilation of Xinjiang, as ethnocide or cultural genocide,[19][20] or as genocide. Those accusing China of genocide point to intentional acts they say violate Article II of the Genocide Convention,[21][22][23] which prohibits “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part”, a “racial or religious group” including “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and “measures intended to prevent births within the group”.[24]
At the United Nations, several countries, predominantly in North America and Europe, signed letters condemning China’s policies. On the other hand, several countries, predominantly in Asia and Africa, signed letters supporting the policies as an effort to combat terrorism in the region.[25][26][27] In 2020, a case brought to the International Criminal Court was dismissed because China is not a party to the Rome Statute, meaning the ICC could not investigate them.[28] In 2021, the United States Department of State declared China’s actions as genocide,[29][30] and legislatures in several countries have passed non-binding motions doing the same, while other parliaments, condemned the policies as “severe human rights abuses” or crimes against humanity.[31] In a 2022 assessment, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) stated that China’s policies and actions in the Xinjiang region may constitute crimes against humanity, though it did not use the term genocide.[32][33][34] In 2026, the OHCHR described China’s policies toward the Uyghurs as potentially amounting to “forcible transfer and/or enslavement as a crime against humanity.”[35]
I could dive deep on the issues of sourcing for this article (like the very first source being Guantanamo Bay torturer and US intelligence asset Rushan Abbas) but I think a more interesting question is why this article’s title was changed from genocide of to persecution of? Why does the OIC say there is no genocide? Why does the UN refuse to classify the situation as a genocide?
The better question is why do people deny genocides?
So you think there is white genocide in south Africa and white people are being genocide in Europe through the great replacement? Or is it possible that questioning things not backed by conclusive evidence is not bad but in fact the good and normal thing to do?
Your whatsboutism is transparent and looks foolish.
It’s not whataboutism. If simply calling something a genocide makes questioning the basis of the claim evil then it only makes sense you believe all accusations. You must clearly stand with white South Africans and white Americans and Europeans against their genocides.
Or maybe questioning claims that are not backed by conclusive evidence is ok.
The treatment of those with disabilities or who are just down on their luck, by the mostly apethic “I’m alright jack” public. I’ve had many arguments with those who thought that just because somebody needed benefits that they were milking the system.
The most disgusting and revolting thing I can read on the subject from somebody is “if I’ve managed to get by fine without state help and support, so can/should they”… And yes many do actually think this way, sometimes even to those who need wheelchairs or other aids.
Sometimes I’ve managed to convince them to care about somebody other than themleves for a change, sometimes I’ve caused them to go away thinking about it, and other times I’ve caused them to double down on their stance.
Either way, the engagements were meaningful and eye opening and I’ll defend this position until the day I die because nobody has any business being that disgusting towards other human beings.
I agree. Sometimes people who value equality forget about equity. That is helping others to achieve their own level of equality. A person in a wheelchair needs a ramp, a person with an invisible illness needs accommodations, too. Equity is almost always overlooked but it is necessary for true equality to occur. I wrote a whole paper about this in college.
Buying a Pixel to install GrapheneOS is not the only reasonable alternative to mainstream Android.
Each person has their own threat model. My priorities will be very different from a journalist in China, a whistleblower, or even my own mom. Some are more at risk of ransomware and a device with root is risky. For myself, I’d incur that risk as a power user and would rather my phone can be backed up so I don’t have to worry about it breaking. GrapheneOS devs/followers believe that security is the only thing you must ever want, nothing else matters, and everything else is irrelevant, as though Google or street thugs will come to your house and exploit your bootloader if you don’t give them data voluntarily. They just don’t realistically question the statements the project makes, like what threats are worth mitigating (ubiquitous tracking? Who cares, I’ve got security patches and a locked bootloader!) and what options they’re giving up by using GrapheneOS that’s about as locked-down as the average Samsung phone. The marketing game is super strong because it’s hard to argue against at scale: everyone’s situation is different and “don’t you want to be safe?”
AI usage. People who blindly hate it fail to realize you can use AI locally without empowering the shitty corporations that are buying up all the RAM/storage and being irresponsible with their water usage for cooling. Data centers suck, but AI is awesome.
Where did the training data come from?
Oh yeah, shitty corporations that scraped the web.
Where do artists inspiration come from? Oh yeah, shitty people scraped all the other art.
As we know, this destroys the original art and is stealing to boot. Only the blind and deaf are truly creative.
You know that’s not even slightly similar, don’t be trying to do “Behold! A man!” this isn’t fucking Ancient Greece
Thanks for your opinion, even if it is incorrect.
You are obviously “good” at arguing. You have made a clear point. I didn’t mean for this post to generate arguments .
I’m attempting to educate. There are literally people on here that believe that AI is “a database with auto-complete.”. It’s so ignorant that it would be funny, if they hadn’t organized into an angry mob out to slander anyone who dares use neural networks to boost their productivity.
It’s a classic case of ignorance breeding hatred, and the only way to resolve it is for them to understand the technology. Unfortunately most seem unwilling to incorporate understanding into their worldview and cling to misconceptions.
I don’t enjoy arguing, I just can’t abide misinformation causing derision.
I mean I am not against AI. I pay for ChatGPT plus. My brother and I have gotten rogue type AIs off the dark web and mess around with them locally. I use Gen AI for reference images to look at when I draw. They are also for inspiration. I just feel it is an injustice to artists. If it were somehow possible for Gen AI to credit the sources of its generations, which I don’t believe is possible since the training is baked into the AI. That would be advantageous. Regardless, I don’t have any real strong opinions for or against it.
Wow it must feel so good to “win” every discussion, huh? Who knew that the secret was to just never ever thoughtfully consider what anyone else says and to cling to your argument no matter what.
Because who cares about being right when you can make yourself feel good about the thing you believe, right or wrong? Genius!
What argument? They didn’t argue anything. They just said I was wrong. You’re a hoot.
An artist stealing in the way Pablo Picasso argued is not the same as a company using copyrighted material to train its AI. Companies are held to a much higher standard than an individual artist who steals a few elements from other artists to create their own style. Machine’s don’t have these rights. They must comply with what companies have to comply with. There is no debate.
That’s your opinion, Orc. Your opinion does not settle debates.
We can agree to disagree.
Agreed.
That’s a pretty blind take that ignores the other reasons people hate AI. Also, good lord tech bro logic.
It’s fine to personally hate AI, but a lot of people dog pile others for using it for themselves. I despise corporate AI, but if someone is locally hosting their own, not using it comercially, and not stuffing it down other people’s throats through their “artwork” they “made” or other nonsense I don’t see the problem of making the best out of a bad situation.
Care to enumerate them? I’ve yet to read a valid reason to hate my using an open weights model, powered by solar energy, on my personal hardware. Doesn’t stop the hate, but I’m always open to hearing why it exists.
“My GPU runs on solar” is a great answer… to a question nobody asked. Hosting locally cuts server energy use. It doesn’t magically erase the training data issues, copyright, scams, misinformation, hallucinations, or the broader social impacts. You’re arguing against one criticism while pretending you’ve answered them all.
It was a response to “AI ruins the environment.” Humans have the same training data issues as AI, so therefore there are none. Copyright can be addressed in the same way as humans. Scams? What does that even mean? What scams do AI do that humans don’t? Misinformation? Because humans are infallible and always give correct info? Hallucinations? Right, I forgot humans are perfect and always give the right info.
Broader social impacts is a new one. You hate AI because of broader social impacts? You got me then. There’s no answer for that. Alright, everyone, pack Pandora’s Box back up, Tenniswaffles hates AI because of the broader social impacts so we have to abandon the technology.
Every one of your rebuttals boils down to “humans do it too,” as if that settles anything. It doesn’t. Humans can lie, plagiarize, scam, and spread misinformation. AI makes all of those faster, cheaper, and infinitely more scalable. That’s the entire point, and you keep pretending scale is irrelevant because acknowledging it wrecks your argument.
Your “Pandora’s Box” rant is just a straw man. Nobody said AI should be abandoned because of its social impacts. You asked why people dislike AI beyond data centers. You were given several reasons. Instead of addressing them, you built a ridiculous caricature so you could dunk on an argument nobody made.
At this point, you’re not refuting the criticisms, you’ve just downgraded every objection to “humans do it too.” By that logic, we’d never regulate anything. Humans steal, so why have laws? Individual humans pollute, so why regulate industrial pollution? Humans commit fraud, so why care when AI lets fraud happen at industrial scale?
At this point, you’re not rebutting the criticisms, you’ve replaced them with a lazy thought-terminating cliché. “Humans do it too” is what people say when they don’t have an answer but still want to sound like they won.
No, you’re missing the point entirely. AI is a tool, and with any tool the person responsible is the user. There are already laws in place for people who produce forgeries, plagiarism, scams, etc. If someone uses AI to accomplish something dishonest there is already a process in place for addressing that. We don’t need special considerations for AI any more than we need to to determine what to do when someone burns a building to the ground with gasoline versus just matches. The crime is still arson, so hating on gasoline because it made the fire burn faster is just stupid.
There are plenty of people on here saying AI should go away. There’s an entire community on Lemmy called fuck_ai who would disagree with you. Pretending they don’t exist doesn’t make the analogy a straw man.
The only criticism I’ve seen is regarding data centers, because haters are too moronic to separate the two. It sounds as though you fit into that category, as well.
But no, I’ve realized I can’t change anyone’s mind so I don’t care anymore. Enjoy your hate parade. There’s your thought-terminating cliche. I don’t care anymore.
In the future I’m just going to decline to self-report as someone who uses AI. People can’t tell anyways, which is why self reporting is necessary. Admitting it is just volunteering for punishment. So no, I don’t use AI, never have and never will. Go argue with someone who uses AI, because that’s not me and never has been.
You keep changing the question.
You asked why people dislike AI. I gave you reasons. Now you’re arguing whether AI users should be legally responsible for misuse. That’s a completely different conversation.
And your gasoline analogy falls apart because gasoline isn’t designed to generate persuasive text, images, voices, or code at scale. AI is. The concern isn’t that it’s “a tool” it’s that it’s a tool that dramatically lowers the cost and effort required to produce plagiarism, scams, misinformation, and deepfakes. Society has always treated technologies differently when they massively change capability and scale. That’s why we have regulations for cars that don’t apply to horses, and aviation laws that don’t apply to bicycles.
As for the “fuck_ai” crowd: congratulations, you’ve found some extremists on the internet. They aren’t representative of everyone who criticizes AI. You asked why people dislike it, not whether literally every critic wants it banned.
The irony is that you’ve spent this entire discussion asking for reasons people hate AI, then dismissed every reason as either “humans do it too,” “it’s already illegal,” or “those people are morons.” You didn’t come looking for reasons you came looking for excuses to ignore them.
If you ascribe non validity to every argument you dislike, it’s a matter of course that you’ll only find your viewpoint the only valid one.
So: no. You’ve got nothing, just blind hatred.
No. I’m calling you out because you already know the theft arguments, and are intentionally calling them bullshit.
Yeah, we’re all thieves. Only the blind and deaf are not. Great argument. You win.
This is precisely why I called your bullshit from the first comment.
Ho boy
My guess is that the great bulk of the anti-AI stuff originates with people who are scared of losing their jobs in some way.
Yeah, probably. That’s on the shitty fascist governments, though, that should implement Universal Basic Income and tax the companies profiting from AI to fund it. Their anger is severely misplaced and it’s incredibly frustrating as someone who went to university for years to study AI.
Probably 15 years since I had more than a 5 or so back and forths about anything. I lose interest and just stop replying.
That historical events can be approached and assessed without contemporary extrapolations. But to boil down years of internets, including old ezboard forums, I’d say it’s been over the Clean Wehrmacht theory/myth.
I used to be really into WW2 history communities and I would routinely approach things objectively and piss a bunch of nerds off who pervert history and just want to obsess over how Hitler could’ve won.
So I have argued far too much with people who hate Hitler just because he lost the war to Stalin. Like, primary sources would mean nothing. I’d have correspondence transcripts from commanders and diplomats, and they’d have their latest Hearts of Iron game run.
those folks aren’t interested in history, they are interested in fantasy.
for a lot of folks, that’s all history is, or why it’s fun, it’s the fantasizing about it. It’s not the boring staid work of a true historian who is looking at boring crap like cargo manifests to piece together the reality of history.
They’d sure extrapolate into conclusions for contemporary society and modern politics from those fantasies, which was the usual source of contention to start arguing.
For some reason they’re ceded the right to call what they’re doing history and not fantasy. Hence things like the Clean Wehrmacht theory become more than fantasy to folks.
That nun-chucks don’t follow Whip physics
Do they?
No. Nun-chucka are a solid equal cross section, whips taper, so with a whip the force in the first section passes more speed to the next thinner section as mass decreases the speed increase per conservation of energy.
That’s an amazing distinction.
Doesn’t the intervening chain allow for the whip mechanics?
No because the chain then goes back to another nun-chuck nullifying anything that the chain could do in between.
Nah. If you’re able to get nunchucks to break the sound barrier you’re either doing something very wrong or very right.
I would say it’s mostly topics I’m not actually arguing about.
I tend to point out false statements or false assumptions. I do it regardless of the topic or my position on an issue, but usually it’s taken as general opposition to whatever the person was saying. So they call me a shill or demand that I prove a ridiculous point of view they imagine I must hold. It’s like only The Enemy is expected to care about the accuracy of what The Right Side says.
I always hate when someone I agree with makes a stupid argument. Then if I point out their bad argument, I look like I’m arguing the other side
i hate it when someone argues with me by telling me i made a stupid argument by making a stupid argument.
usually my falsely attributing a fallacy to me, which they themselves perform in their counter-argument.
and then they basically go ‘no, you were illogical first, if you don’t admit it you are stupid and I am smart’.
OK, really big-brained logic there.
Same.
I used to go out of my way to argue with people on Facebook about vaccines and about representation of minorities in media. I liked to yell at antivaxxers and bigots
Easily trump
