It's odd that someone would think "I espouse all these awful, awful ideas about the world. Not because I believe them, but because other people don't like them."
And then build this bot, to try to embody all of that simultaneously. Like, these are all right-wing ideas but there isn't a majority of wingnuts that believe ALL OF THEM AT ONCE. Many people are anti-abortion but can see with their plain eyes that climate change is real, or maybe they are racist but not holocaust deniers.
But here comes someone who wants a bot to say "all of these things are true at once". Who is it for? Do they think Gab is for people who believe only things that are terrible? Do they want to subdivide their userbase so small that nobody even fits their idea of what their users might be?
It's a side effect of first-past-the-post politics causing political bundling.
If you want people with your ideas in power then you need to also accept all the rest of the bullshit under the tent.
Or expel them out of your already small coalition and become even weaker.
Gab is for the fringiest of the right wing. And people often cluster disparate ideas together if they're all considered to be markers of membership within their "tribe".
Leftists, or at least those on the left wing of liberalism, tend to do this as well, particularly on social and cultural issues.
I think part of it is also a matter of not so much what people believe as what they will tolerate. The vaccine skeptic isn't going to tolerate an AI bot that tells him vaccines work, but maybe generally oblivious to the Holocaust and thus really not notice or care if and when an AI bot misleads on it. Meanwhile a Holocaust denier might be indifferent about vaccines, but his Holocaust denialism serves as a key pillar of an overall bigoted worldview that he is unwilling to have challenged by an AI bot.
leftists do this too
So you've never met anyone left of Ronald Reagan. None of us agree on more than like five things. Adding cheese can start like ten different arguments.
Apparently you ain't, either
Leftists, or at least those on the left wing of liberalism, tend to do this as well, particularly on social and cultural issues.
Wtf
Have you seen lemmy.ml?
I have literally been banned for simply stating that Russia shot down a civilian airliner over Ukraine.
They'll tolerate arguments over precise economic policies that amount to discussing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, but hold far tighter to what amount to cultural arguments. "USA bad" means "Russia good" because Russia is against USA so if Russia does bad then it's good actually or else no it didn't happen.
I enjoyed reading it for the most part but couldn't get through it all. Thanks for the link.
I mean you live in a world where people paid hundreds of dollars for Trump NFTs. You see the world in vivid intellectual color. These people cannot even color within the lines.
It's odd that someone would think "I espouse all these awful, awful ideas about the world. Not because I believe them, but because other people don't like them."
And then build this bot, to try to embody all of that simultaneously. Like, these are all right-wing ideas but there isn't a majority of wingnuts that believe ALL OF THEM AT ONCE. Many people are anti-abortion but can see with their plain eyes that climate change is real, or maybe they are racist but not holocaust deniers.
But here comes someone who wants a bot to say "all of these things are true at once". Who is it for? Do they think Gab is for people who believe only things that are terrible? Do they want to subdivide their userbase so small that nobody even fits their idea of what their users might be?
It's a side effect of first-past-the-post politics causing political bundling.
If you want people with your ideas in power then you need to also accept all the rest of the bullshit under the tent.
Or expel them out of your already small coalition and become even weaker.
Gab is for the fringiest of the right wing. And people often cluster disparate ideas together if they're all considered to be markers of membership within their "tribe".
Leftists, or at least those on the left wing of liberalism, tend to do this as well, particularly on social and cultural issues.
I think part of it is also a matter of not so much what people believe as what they will tolerate. The vaccine skeptic isn't going to tolerate an AI bot that tells him vaccines work, but maybe generally oblivious to the Holocaust and thus really not notice or care if and when an AI bot misleads on it. Meanwhile a Holocaust denier might be indifferent about vaccines, but his Holocaust denialism serves as a key pillar of an overall bigoted worldview that he is unwilling to have challenged by an AI bot.
So you've never met anyone left of Ronald Reagan. None of us agree on more than like five things. Adding cheese can start like ten different arguments.
Apparently you ain't, either
Wtf
Have you seen lemmy.ml?
I have literally been banned for simply stating that Russia shot down a civilian airliner over Ukraine.
They'll tolerate arguments over precise economic policies that amount to discussing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, but hold far tighter to what amount to cultural arguments. "USA bad" means "Russia good" because Russia is against USA so if Russia does bad then it's good actually or else no it didn't happen.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
I enjoyed reading it for the most part but couldn't get through it all. Thanks for the link.
I mean you live in a world where people paid hundreds of dollars for Trump NFTs. You see the world in vivid intellectual color. These people cannot even color within the lines.