Perspectivist

It literally isn’t. It’s a Large Language Model - an AI system designed to generate natural-sounding language.

The fact that it gets any answers right at all isn’t because it knows things - it’s because it’s been trained on data that contains a lot of correct information. Its answers are based on statistical probabilities. It’s physically incapable of looking at a word and counting the letters in it.

If a person climbs onto a stage to make a statement, and instead of getting on stage to make a counterpoint someone just shouts “booo” from the audience, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand that person to show their face. There’s a certain level of cowardice in simply downvoting without explaining why you disagree. There’s no option to post anonymously here, so it’s not obvious to me that voting should be anonymous either. If people upvote or downvote, they should be willing to stand behind that - and if someone asks for an explanation, you have three choices: ignore them, block them, or explain. I guess there’s also the option to simply not vote at all.

If it were up to me, I’d hide vote counts from users entirely. It’s not all bad, but I’d argue the net effect is negative. Visible votes encourages toxic behavior. When someone makes a controversial claim, you can first downvote them, then dunk on them in a reply - and now they’re being downvoted into oblivion while you get applause for your smug comment. It feels like you've won the debate when in reality, nobody’s mind changed. Heavily downvoted comments also prime readers to dislike them before they even read them, instead of approaching with a neutral mindset and then forming their own opinion - or reading further to see other perspectives. As it stands, the system mostly trains people to recognize what’s popular on a platform so they can self-censor to avoid downvotes, and feel validated for shouting down people who voice unpopular opinions.

So, if someone asks me to explain why I downvoted something, I might explain or I might not - but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable thing to ask. On the other hand, if someone makes it their personal mission to follow me around and harass me because I downvoted their comment, I think it’s unreasonable to demand the system be changed just so I don’t have to deal with it. There’s already a solution for that: blocking them.

Thank you!

No, I haven’t - I’m a plumber by training. I credit my autism for my precision of speech, and as for my philosophy and the vocabulary around it, I’d say that’s simply the result of a few decades of debating these topics online, combined with thousands of hours of podcasts and YouTube videos covering these topics.

It’s rare that I say anything completely original. If something I say comes across as well-crafted, it’s probably because I’ve said the exact same thing a dozen times before.

His name is Marshall Mae Rogan and he has almost 900K followers on Instagram.

There’s no real cost to stopping drunk driving. Putin, on the other hand, has gone all in on the war in Ukraine. “Just pull your troops from Ukraine” is about as realistic as “just shoot yourself,” because from his perspective, the outcome is basically the same in both scenarios.

Sure, it would be nice if Russia simply left Ukraine, but put yourself in Putin’s position - it’s a complete non-solution. You don’t fold after going all in. It’s an incredibly naive thing to say, and it ignores the reality and complexity of the situation entirely. It’s a thought-terminating cliché - a feel-good slogan people toss around to avoid critical thinking, while fishing for upvotes from like-minded people.

If someone starts to harrass you due to your voting habits (which I've never heard of happening) you can just block them and move on with your life. The difference between someone saying mean things to you and someone writing them is that you can just stop reading.

You’re still making a guilt-by-association argument. Saying affiliation with a “Zionist organization” is “Zionism-neutral at best” still assumes that any association is inherently an endorsement - even if partial - of its politics. Affiliation doesn’t automatically mean ideological alignment, and if you think it does here, you still have to show why.

You’re also collapsing “Jewish affairs” into “Zionism” without explaining why those terms should be treated as inseparable. That’s the leap your Nazi analogy skips over - it only works if you’ve already decided the affiliation is inherently culpable.

By your “10 Nazis at a table” standard, Daryl Davis - the black musician who’s convinced dozens of KKK members to leave the group - would be “white supremacy neutral at best.” That’s the problem with that analogy: it assumes all association equals to approval, and it ignores contexts where the association has nothing to do with endorsing the ideology.

Do you have any evidence that supports the claim that Ga'ava is a zionist group?

To me, this just sounds like moral contamination fallacy - the belief that if X is connected to Y, then X must share full moral responsibility for everything Y does.