you can just disagree with reasons rather than this performative rhetoric. your post makes me realise i was wrong to tease people about rust the other day -- apologies for that.
edit: changed "ad hominem" to "performative rhetoric", think its more fitting in this case but it all seems borderline
>you can just disagree with reasons rather than this performative rhetoric
This is such a bizarre trend that seems to have gotten much worse recently. I don't know if it's dropping empathy levels or rising self-importance, but many people now find the idea of someone genuinely disagreeing as a completely foreign idea. Instead of meeting a different viewpoint with some variation of "agree to disagree" many more people now seem to jump to "you actually agree with me, you're just pretending otherwise".
Non-tongue-in-cheek discussion of the Mandela Effect is a parallel phenomenon. "My memory can't possibly be wrong, this is evidence of our understanding of physics being wrong!"
Just a couple small things that make me worry about the future of society in the midst of a discussion about one huge thing that makes me worry about the future of society in AI.
As a variant, I recently stumbled upon a post that basically sums up to "people who disagree with me on AI are clearly blinded by their prejudice, it's so sad."
Your argument is dumb because it's objectively better to optimize x conditioned on y than optimize y conditioned on x.
Maybe the worst variant of this is where people don't realize they're actually arguing for different things but because it's the same general topic they assume everything is the same (duals are common). I feel like this describes many political arguments and it feels in part intentional...
edit: changed "ad hominem" to "performative rhetoric", think its more fitting in this case but it all seems borderline