If you know the post is AI and you don’t delete the post, that is tacit endorsement of using AI as a propaganda tool. You seem unbothered by that.
I do ignore the message if the medium is artificial. I won’t bother to read the image’s text or attempt to process the intent if I know the delivery is not genuine. I’m not going to waste my time or sully my brain by valuing and evaluating something posing as human expression.
You want me on your team? Don’t send a robo singing telegram as a recruiting tool. Convey your message like we’re humans instead of speaking through a fundamentally false impersonator. I don’t ask you to be a perfect human — I ask that you and your messages are genuine if you want me to listen. Trickery isn’t used to gain allies; it’s used to exploit the unwitting.
A message isn’t a genuine message, because the choice of instrument to prepare it is disliked.
Even if the text is the same, it’s the product of a “false impersonator” & “trickery”.
Here neither: merely pointing out your argument is invalid (which it is), is not an argument that your conclusion is false, which I simply didn’t bother to claim.
Would bothering to claim & argue it’s false (reusing your words) “waste my time” & “sully” my attention with an invalid argument?
Reusing your language even more
You know the comment is invalid and you don’t delete it, that is tacit endorsement of fallacies.
You seem unbothered by that.
I do ignore the message if it is irrational.
I won’t weigh your ideas further than necessary if I know the reasoning is poor.
I’m not going to waste my time or sully my brain by valuing and evaluating something posing as good reasoning that isn’t.
You want me on your team?
Don’t disrespect my attention with your poorly reasoned demands.
Convey your message like we understand logic instead of abusing our attention with a pretense of a well-thought argument.
I don’t ask you to be a perfect human — I ask that you and your messages respect logic if you want me to listen.
Flawed reasoning isn’t used to gain allies; it’s used to mislead & exploit the unwitting.
While I don’t completely agree with that argument, either (especially the first paragraph), insisting on reasoning/substance seems way more compelling than that original argument (rejecting a message over superficial considerations).
You absolutely can, but reasons that it’s right or logical are lacking or conflicted.
Rejecting a message is worthy of consideration over style is something an irrational person does.
It’s a classic fallacy.
Anything digital, electronic, or mechanical is artificial.
They want “genuine” human expression, and the printing press is impersonal, mass-produced schlock.
Gotta go full quill & parchment on this, hand delivered.
You’re absolutely right: reed stylus & clay tablet all the way.
Gotta brush up on that Sumerian to leave something for archeologists to unearth 1000s of years from now, so they too will know of our pragmatism in building stronger movements.
If you know the post is AI and you don’t delete the post, that is tacit endorsement of using AI as a propaganda tool. You seem unbothered by that.
I do ignore the message if the medium is artificial. I won’t bother to read the image’s text or attempt to process the intent if I know the delivery is not genuine. I’m not going to waste my time or sully my brain by valuing and evaluating something posing as human expression.
You want me on your team? Don’t send a robo singing telegram as a recruiting tool. Convey your message like we’re humans instead of speaking through a fundamentally false impersonator. I don’t ask you to be a perfect human — I ask that you and your messages are genuine if you want me to listen. Trickery isn’t used to gain allies; it’s used to exploit the unwitting.
That good ol’ purity spiral.
A message isn’t a genuine message, because the choice of instrument to prepare it is disliked. Even if the text is the same, it’s the product of a “false impersonator” & “trickery”.
Genetic fallacy & non sequitur.
Edit: specifically, style over substance.
deleted by creator
The fallacy fallacy is thinking that just naming fallacies discredits an argument. Literally what you just did in your post.
Definition doesn’t fit.
Here neither: merely pointing out your argument is invalid (which it is), is not an argument that your conclusion is false, which I simply didn’t bother to claim.
Would bothering to claim & argue it’s false (reusing your words) “waste my time” & “sully” my attention with an invalid argument? Reusing your language even more
While I don’t completely agree with that argument, either (especially the first paragraph), insisting on reasoning/substance seems way more compelling than that original argument (rejecting a message over superficial considerations). You absolutely can, but reasons that it’s right or logical are lacking or conflicted.
Rejecting a message is worthy of consideration over style is something an irrational person does. It’s a classic fallacy.
Noted
Alright now get back to the drawing board, and don’t come back until you have a meme you made in Krita
Nah, didn’t you read?
Some royal majesties
and will not have their attention sullied with
Anything digital, electronic, or mechanical is artificial. They want “genuine” human expression, and the printing press is impersonal, mass-produced schlock.
Gotta go full quill & parchment on this, hand delivered.
CUNEIFORM YOU PEASANT
You’re absolutely right: reed stylus & clay tablet all the way. Gotta brush up on that Sumerian to leave something for archeologists to unearth 1000s of years from now, so they too will know of our pragmatism in building stronger movements.