Ok so we’ll have to go over a few points then.

• If you consider that calling Israel fascists or genocidal is “throwing labels”, then eitther you have no clue what these words mean, or you are supporting Israel. They are, factually, fascists currently committing genocide. Calling them nazis is just a quick and dirty way to point it out, because in the end there is little difference in the ideologies and methods.

• If a venue is obstructing free speech in an illicit way, then Ed Sheeran could have sued them. He didn’t, followed along, and then made a statement that plays in the hands of the fascist genocidal government. Which makes him guilty by association.

• Supporting criminal things is not free speech. Just like he wouldn’t (in theory) be allowed to say that hitler was right, he shouldn’t be able to defend Israel. That’s out of the bounds of free speech.

• Not making a strong stand on some things is, definitely and without a doubt, something that can deserve getting “beat up for”. If I ask you what your stand of rape is, and your answer is “I think it’s hard for both sides”, then you are a piece of shit. The idea that everyone can just have whatever opinion they want is already not a good one ; the idea that everyone should be able to say whatever they want is absurdely stupid.

You dared criticize my stance, but yours is just a wishy-washy “we should let everyone do whatever they want” which totally has been working in the world up this point, considering what the world became.

Well please share with us your extremely unique, interesting and enlightening opinion on Ed Sheeran then. Because you’re trying very hard to sound clever but you’re just saying meaningless sentences.

And what are you trying to make me reveal, then?

What is it, you just have nothing to say? You were hoping for an attack surface but didn’t find one?

“I don’t have any argument so let me build a strawman, it will make me look smart”

That when you try to play the middle between the nazis and the victims of the nazis, you are just a nazi.

When you are a fucker who says “the suffering and pain on both sides is a tragedy”, it’s like saying “the suffering on both the nazi side and the people the populations they were genociding during WWII is a tragedy”, that’s something only a nazi (and a cowardly one) would say.

Is that what you were hoping for?

Generally, atheism is about denying the existence of god, and agnosticism is about not believing or disbelieving. It’s just a matter of definition in the end, what actually matters is the meanings behind the words.

It’s also not a clear line, you can for example have a slight belief that god doesn’t exist, but this belief is superseded by the rational thought that there is no evidence of it nor the opposite, and ending up effectively having an agnostic conclusion. That’s why words like that are always clearer when explained further in details.

Yes, and we’ll all be left behind if we don’t join the sect, and LLMs are here to stay and replace the world as we know it.

You might not be an intentional political statement, but your code is colored by politics. You don’t give a shit about the perception of people, that is infused in politics. My point is, your stance within society transpires through your actions, and this has an effect on society.

And typically, the stance of refusing to acknowledge the political part of things, whether it is in software or not, is loved by the far-right. In this current sociopolitical context, doing that is picking a side. And also showing that you’re privileged enough to afford to “ignore” politics, which is not the case for everyone.

–

Atheism is about believing in the absence of god, what you’re describing is indeed agnosticism. God is a belief, which doesn’t require any proof or evidence since it’s just a belief. You can then disagree with the consequences or implications of such beliefs, but evidence is not really in question since there can be none. The day there is evidence of god, it won’t be a belief anymore, but science.

However, hit on religions as much as you want, because those are not beliefs, they’re more akin to sects, with a whole set of (bullshit) rules on how reality works that are based on nothing.

As such, religions and software are both real world and are both linked to politics. They are having an effect on how society is structured, and how people live their lives. Also, note that many beliefs are very much political, it’s not what I was saying. My point was that believing in god doesn’t have as much of an impact as supporting “AI”, as believing in god is a personal belief, while LLMs are having a pretty bad impact on the world already.

Ah ok, full on cultist then

I mean that politics is essentially about power. To know how to gain power over others is to practice politics.

Sure, if you start with a nonsensical definition you can conclude what you want.

Politics are about the structure of society, it’s not a question of power. Anarchy is political because it aims to change the way society works.

When I say “Hi” to my best friend Aly, and she says “Hi” back, are we engaging in politics? Yes, I identify as male; and she, female. I also have more money, and she has less. However, does she reply to me with a kind hello because I am empowered over her?

And this followup argument is pretty obviously bullshit, but it’s easy to conclude bullshit when you define key concepts of the argument in a nonsensical way.

Software is very much political, especially open source software. It is taking a stance on social subjects, whether it wants it or not. I maintain that I never saw arguments refusing to admit the political aspect of things, that weren’t built on a fascist basis.

The only times I’ve seen software (or other places) try to be “no politics” it was from clear fsscists wanting to avoid “woke” subjects.

Everything is political because everything is done through a context of society and the perceptions of the people behind it. When you deny that, you are just trying to shut down conversations about the ethics of things, and generally people with morals don’t try to avoid talking about morals.

Also, religion and atheism are two unrelated things, since a religion is a social group and atheism is a personal belief. A proper comparison would be between, let’s say, theists and atheists, and both are beliefs.

Moreover, it’s quite a bad faith argument to compare beliefs, which are an unprovable, personal opinion, and things like software and politics, which are real world matters.

It’s not the same to believe in god or not, or to believe that minorities need to die or not.

Overall, fuck off with your “not political” bulcrap.

So the fact that LLMs are having a negative impact on already collapsing environment, are leading to people like Trump and Musk to become even richer and destroy society at a massive scale, while also killing individuals by literally making them go insane, is “not making anything worse”? All of that so a bunch of dumb fucks can go and generate garbage “pictures” and broken code?

“You don’t like Trump? Well maybe you should go back to the middle ages. Or just go and make a new country, see if that’s so easy, huh”

Since when is the argument of “other things are even worse so we shouldn’t care about something becoming worse” a thing?

Nevermind, don’t answer that, as usual the answer is “Since the rise of the ‘AI’ cult”