• Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    I don’t think OP thinks they are actually equivalent though, it’s just a satirical comparison.

    Another comparison could be vegans. Environmental impact of meat consumption is huge and it also has the more obvious harm and ethical issues.

    Vegans get a lot of shit anyway, but imagine if every comment or post about meat, regardless of where it was or in what context got a barrage of abrasive comments from vegans?

    You will never convince someone of your cause if you’re a dick to them. It’s a huge internet trait to just go full meltdown at everything rather than talk with some you don’t agree with to aim for a better outcome.

    https://piefed.social/post/1067555

    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I get that, and the vegan comparison is good. But I get why vegans act like that, even if I don’t share their opinion.
      In both of these cases you’re arguably pushing for a better world.

      But the difference is that veganism is changing the status quo and isn’t popular, while opposing AI is maintaining the status quo and is popular.

      You’re never going to convince a true believer even if you’re kind to them, so there is no point being kind. A mean message to an AI supporter isn’t actually to the AI supporter, it’s to their audience, establishing a zeitgeist.

      AI is bad, and if we let up the vocal opposition, that’ll make its way into more popular forums and we’ll lose the zeitgeist, and policymakers will notice it, and then we’ll start losing shit like workers rights.