[johnnyanmac]

> I also am wearing machine-fabricated clothing and enjoying a host of other products of automation.

I'm not really a fan of the "you criticize society yet you participate in it" argument.

>I understand that one day this era will be history and society will be as integrated with AI as we are with other transformative technologies.

You seem to forget the blood shed over the history that allowed that tech to benefit the people over just the robber barons. Unimaginable amounts of people died just so we could get a 5 day workweek and minimum wage.

We don't get a benficial future by just laying down and letting the people with the most perverse incentives decide the terms. The very least you can do is not impede those trying to fight for those futures if you can't/don't want to fight yourself.

[Wyverald]

>> I also am wearing machine-fabricated clothing and enjoying a host of other products of automation.

> I'm not really a fan of the "you criticize society yet you participate in it" argument.

It seems to me that GP is merely recognizing the parts of technological advance that they do find enjoyable. That's rather far from the "I am very intelligent" comic you're referencing.

> The very least you can do is not impede those trying to fight for those futures if you can't/don't want to fight yourself.

Just noting that GP simply voiced their opinion, which IMHO does not constitute "impedance" of those trying to fight for those futures.

[johnnyanmac]

>GP is merely recognizing the parts of technological advance that they do find enjoyable.

Machine fabrication is nice. Machine fabrication from sweatshop children in another country is not enjoyable. That's the exact nuance missing from their comment.

>GP simply voiced their opinion, which IMHO does not constitute "impedance" of those trying to fight for those futures.

I'd hope we'd understand since 2024 that we're in an attention society, and this is a very common tactic used to disenfranchise people from engaging in action against what they find unfair. Enforcing a feeling of inevitability is but one of many methods.

Intentionally or not, language like this does impede the efforts.

[soulofmischief]

> I'm not really a fan of the "you criticize society yet you participate in it" argument.

Me neither, and I didn't make such an argument.

> You seem to forget the blood shed over the history that allowed that tech to benefit the people over just the robber barons. Unimaginable amounts of people died just so we could get a 5 day workweek and minimum wage.

What does that have to do with my argument? What about my argument suggested ignorance of this fact? This is just another straw man.

> We don't get a benficial future by just laying down and letting the people with the most perverse incentives decide the terms. The very least you can do is not impede those trying to fight for those futures if you can't/don't want to fight yourself.

What an incredible characterization. Nothing about my argument is "laying down", perhaps it seems that way because you do not share my ideals, but I fight for my ideals, I debate them in public as I do now, and that is the furthest thing from "laying down" and "not fighting myself". You seem to be projecting several assumptions about my politics and historical knowledge. Did you have a point to make or was this just a bunch of wanking?

[johnnyanmac]

>Did you have a point to make or was this just a bunch of wanking?

The way you "debate" is exactly a patt of the problem. You come in deflecting and attacking instead of understanding and clarifying.

You didn't even give me a point to respond to that doesn't derail go way off topic. If you can't see it then I hope someone with more patience can help you out. But no point having a conversation with someone who approaches it like this (against site guidelines Good luck out there.

[soulofmischief]

1. I never asked to "debate" with you.

2. You decided to leave a comment on one of my comments, except it contained multiple straw man arguments and a gross mischaracterization, arguing in bad faith from the start.

3. I pointed out the issues with your comment, and asked if you had an actual point to make, or if it was just straw man arguments. I had no intention of continuing a discussion with you and do not need to provide you "points to respond to". I agree, when I have to stop and explain why your argument has issues, it derails the thread. That's the problem with straw man arguments.

4. It is your problem if you take issue with criticism and think it means I need to be "helped out" by "someone with more patience". That's quite a condescending response.

I can see that you didn't have a point to make, and instead elected to just take a bunch of negative jabs at me as retaliation for pointing out the errors in your argument.

So yes, let's end the conversation. It's quite ridiculous.