A huge amount of people on social media are conditioned to hate everything AI to the point where even asking a genuine, non-critical question gets you downvoted. A large part of this is people who haven’t really thought deeply about the subject - they’ve just absorbed the popular sentiment from the spaces they hang out in. AI is often seen as a symbol of big, greedy, unethical corporations, so any engagement with it is treated as suspect by default.

On top of that, there’s also a kind of tribal signaling at play. Being anti-AI has become a way for some to show they’re on the “right side” of issues like workers’ rights, art ownership, or tech overreach. So even curiosity can be read as siding with the enemy.

LLMs have way more empathy and respect than humans do

LLMs are almost certainly unable to feel either of those emotions. Their responses are definitely more empathetic and respectful than those of your average social media commenter, but that doesn’t imply they have any subjective experience of such emotions.

I pay almost no attention to the scores on other people’s posts, but admittedly, I do sometimes feel disheartened when I see what I consider an extremist view getting heavily upvoted. As for downvotes, I have those hidden, so in that sense, they’re a non-factor for me. But you’re asking whether I care. Of course I care and anyone claiming otherwise is lying. We’re social animals - we care what others think of us. That’s why I hid the downvotes in the first place: so they wouldn’t affect me. Mean comments are enough to deal with; I don’t need to hear the audience booing too.

My perhaps unpopular opinion is that while the voting system itself should remain, the scores should be hidden for everyone - and I mean both upvotes and downvotes. Downvotes don’t mean you’re wrong, and upvotes don’t mean you’re right. They’re just indicators of how popular your opinion is with the audience. That dynamic encourages people to self-censor unpopular views and, conversely, to post meaningless one-liners just for the applause.

I have the amounts and cooking time written under the lid of each food item so that I don’t need to ever think how much I need.

I cry watching space rockets launching.

I understand that what I’m about to say might come off as cold, but this is how I see the conflict: the overwhelming reason for the high number of civilian casualties isn’t the IDF - it’s Hamas. That’s not to say the IDF or the Israeli government is without guilt, let alone individual soldiers who’ve committed atrocities that absolutely match what Hamas has done. But there’s so much Hamas could have done to protect their own civilian population, and instead they’ve consistently chosen the opposite - to use them as human shields.

If we now decide that the civilian death toll is intolerable and use that as a reason to pressure Israel into ending the conflict, to me, that’s equivalent to paying ransom to kidnappers. It shows the tactic works - and it encourages more of it. I want us to do the opposite: make it clear that it doesn’t work. If you fight from among civilians, then civilians will get bombed, and the responsibility for that will be placed on you. That’s how Hamas should be treated, and honestly, how their own people should come to see them too.

I just don’t buy the narrative that Israel is intentionally bombing civilians as part of some ethnic cleansing campaign. If that had been the goal, they could’ve pursued it decades ago. But they haven’t. Hamas, on the other hand - I genuinely believe they would if they could.

Fuck. Abandon ship!

I’ve had no issues with adblocker for over half a year. Works flawlessly on both browser and mobile browser.

And this is why I keep making new accounts before people start recognizing me.

This doesn’t address the core issue - Hamas. They have no intention of living peacefully next to a Jewish state. They’ve openly stated that they want to destroy Israel and kill Jews. After the IDF withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Hamas didn’t use that time or international aid to build infrastructure or improve life for civilians - they used it to dig tunnels and stockpile weapons in preparation for the ongoing conflict.

I genuinely don’t believe a two-state solution is viable as long as Hamas exists. If one were established tomorrow, it would likely just return to the same cycle - with rockets being fired indiscriminately at Israeli civilians, and the rest of the world expecting Israel to just take the hits without fighting back.

My apologies for not being good with dates. Typical of an ignorant idiot like myself.

Can’t really name a specific one so I’ll go with:

Ice Cream Truck In The 'Hood

Are you refering to the state of Israel as a whole? Where do you suggest they go?

Honestly, her family being Muslim is one of the more understandable reasons for not telling them. The doctrine of Islam quite directly prohibits a Muslim woman from dating a non-Muslim, or “infidel,” so the fear of backlash isn’t exactly unfounded.

What should Hamas do? Deradicalize or die. Israel isn’t going anywhere - so either they both learn to live in peace, or they don’t live at all.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re asking here. I do sympathize with Hamas in the sense that they’re fighting a vastly superior enemy, and fighting fair would likely lead to their defeat. But deliberately sacrificing their own civilian population as martyrs and human shields doesn’t seem like the way forward either.

It is vague.

Gaza is a city, not a country. Telling Israel not to strike where there are civilians is effectively the same as telling them not to fight back at all. Hamas operates from among the civilian population - often dressed as civilians themselves. They don’t not-strike where there are civilians. It’s an enemy that doesn’t fight fair and deliberately exploits the rules of war for strategic advantage. They could relocate their civilian population into one part of the city and engage the IDF in another - but they don’t, and I’d argue that’s deliberate.

You don’t just “drop it” after 1,200 of your civilians have been brutally murdered.

Okay, but this doesn’t even begin to address my question.

Nobody forced you to engage with my question. It’s you who chose to. It’s pointless to get frustrated with me for your failure to come up with an aswer.

I agree but I still don’t think it’s fair to make their civilian population pay the price for it.

actually fight Hamas instead of the Palestinians as a whole.

You do see how extremely vague this “alternative solution” you’re offering is, right? I think the fact that people struggle this much to give anything resembling a concrete answer when this question is posed highlights just how impossible the situation is that Israel is facing.

I’m extremely sympathetic to the reluctance of going door to door looking for terrorists who are hiding among civilians - often dressed as civilians themselves. While I can’t defend bombing an entire city into rubble, I also don’t feel comfortable telling them not to when I have absolutely no idea what they should be doing instead.