To have a moral stance on AI is to be an outcast, and it sucks

Re:To have a moral stance on AI is to be an outcast, and it ... by michaelt on Saturday May 30, 2026 @01:21PM (#48338607)

> Look at the issue of public drug use by the unhoused in PNW cities, as an example. If you state any opinion other than silent acceptance of the issue, you get called a far-right nutjob.

Are you having these conversations about politics in person? Or are these conversations happening on Twitter/Reddit/HN/whatever?

In my experience, online forums don't really work for political discussion for a bunch of reasons.

If you change to getting your fix of politics from long-form articles and radio-style scripted podcasts by professional journalists, you'll probably find there's a lot more room for nuance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To have a moral stance on AI is to be an outcast, and it ... by bluefirebrand on Saturday May 30, 2026 @01:33PM (#48338723)

> Are you having these conversations in person?

I can't speak for the other poster but I've had the experience they described in-person, when I was living in Victoria

I rented an apartment downtown Victoria and had pretty frequent run-ins with addicts on the streets. My friends who lived and worked further out away from the downtown core had very strong opinions about it any time I had anything negative to say about the experiences

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:To have a moral stance on AI is to be an outcast, and it ... by intended on Saturday May 30, 2026 @01:55PM (#48338943)

However your experience isn't necessarily where the other poster is coming from.

As a counter point, I have more nuanced conversations in person and am able to do it online; however I have also moderated a community for several years and learned how to do it.

From what I can remember of research, is that there is a difference in how people express themselves online vs offline.

[ Parent | on HN ]