[robbiewxyz]

This rephrasing is directly unhelpful to the goal of empathy for the humans caught in the change. If we come off as insensitive we will have no hope of influencing people. Also if you see a specific fallacy, please do name which one so I can improve.

All that said, I personally unequivocally agree with each of your points. I hope you are channeling this rage not only into comments sections but also into the hard work of tearing down & replacing the many incumbent systems that plagerize, denigrate, steal, oppress, monopolize, waste, & enslave. I certainly am.

[Joel_Mckay]

"This rephrasing is directly unhelpful" is an Informal fallacy.

One does not need to "unequivocally agree", as facts should be verifiable. =3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ

[robbiewxyz]

Sorry to ask again but which informal fallacy does it seem to you that I am using in my first statement? There are several [0]. In the interest of understanding, maybe I can make my passive phrasing a bit more active: when I say "this rephrasing is directly unhelpful [to] empathy", I could also say "if I tended to use the phrasing you did I am confident I would find myself with a reputation for being unempathetic i.e. rude". If you disagree with the statement it'd be great to hear your argument, but again disagreement does not imply fallacy.

Your second statement strikes me as using two specific fallacies while also being severely out of touch. First, a moralistic fallacy [1] where you assert what facts "should" be while making a statement about what is or is not needed. Second, a false equivalence fallacy [2] where you imply without explanation that verifiability & not-needing-agreement are equivalent. I'm open to argument, but it seems to me that the two describe independently varying spaces: facts describing the space of reality with agreement describing alignment in the space of conviction. Finally, your overall statement is very strange to hear in the big 2026 when so many important & verifiable facts are so widely & disastrously disagreed upon. See the ongoing USA vaccine safety scare & measles outbreak as an example [3].

Finally, pointing to general & easily-accessible resources in response to a specific question is normally understood to be condescending & a form of insult. I'm not sure if you meant it that way but graciously declining to answer is almost always a better alternative.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy, see paragraph 2.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy#Moralistic_..., the last example specifically names should-is equivalency.

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_resurgence_in_the_Unit...

I hope to hear from you but either way this will be my last reply here.

[Joel_Mckay]

That is an unfortunate detractor, as I normally do hold well-reasoned arguments in high regard.

Generally, being flippant with others pAIn while ignoring their legitimate grievances is not kind. We should also not get emotional over discounted GPU hardware when the LLM bubble inevitably collapses. =3