The problem isn’t opposition. It’s spreading misinformation, framing critics as luddites, refusing to acknowledge their misunderstandings about the relevant technologies and how they impact others. There’s no “two sides” to it when one of the sides thinks 2 + 2 is 5.
Recently, a thread cropped up about indie devs putting “No GenAI used” stamps in their pages, and the amount of people questioning the value of the initiative or outright criticizing it is absurd.
People saying disingenuous things like “It’s just another tool, I didn’t hear anyone complaining about the brush on photoshop”, and “games already used AI, are you also against procedural generation?” or the ridiculous “I need AI to make things. Why are you all against me learning and growing as a person?”
There is a vocal, often severely technically-uninformed crowd that strongly likes GenAI, doesn’t care about and refuses to understand the harm it causes, and needs everyone to be like them so they can stop receiving backlash for contributing to creator exploitation.
And why does it fall on the consumers and workers to figure out how to not exploit people, instead of the companies currently doing it?
No need to apologize, I’ve been getting worse as of late.
Re: being from the US, it feels like maybe you think I am, or I implied you were. I’m not seeing the latter, so I’ll use this comment to mention I’m not from there either.
One other place I’ve seen it used is autism communities when someone is describing their feelings about fitting in, or not.
I’d hope they’re not using your version of it, then.
I feel like that terminology could be updated, over time. First alternative that comes to mind is neurotypical, which I last saw in a blog post about the struggles of an autist dealing with office politics and implicit expectations. Very relatable. Conveniently, it doesn’t define a side as normal.
I feel like 4chan is a US-centric thing. And a niche one at that. So it’s a very niche US-centric thing to assume about random strangers on the world wide web.
“Reeks of 4chan” doesn’t mean I think you use it. Sorry if that’s how it came across, as I don’t think charitably of the site. To make a crappy analogy, if Mom and friends used a term that is also used by an infamous group, I wouldn’t think, “Everyone uses it differently.” I’d tell her, “Gee, ma, that’s not the bestest word, how 'bout this one instead?”
And if she’s like you,
Yeah honestly it’s not that serious for me.
That’s probably where the story would end, eh.
So it’s a vague term, often used as an insult, shared with uncool people, that has alternatives… Sounds like more reason to drop it? I’ve said too much already, so I’m dropping the thread, thanks for the talk.
what y’all don’t seem to get is it’s a way to other someone who othering you. to describe a person who hasnt been through it and lacks the experience and context to understand a joke or perspective or struggle.
Wow, I have so many questions. Who othered you, why must you other them, and why is that relevant here?
you sit here and say it “reeks of 4chan” like everyone who uses 4chan should be ashamed of it. You are othering an entire community.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize othering a group known for its toxicity and harmful effects on users and society was bad. Truly, those who’ve been shunned by all deserve a place to gather, and I’m glad 4chan is there to offer a home to the innocent racist/incel/transphobe and co.
That’s some lacking imagination you’ve got there, then.
To me ‘normie’ has always been a little bit of an insult on top of just describing the ‘average person’.
When is this insult useful, though? In this post’s context, talking about users one wishes would join their platform, insulting them isn’t the most inviting of ideas. Can’t help but laugh every time I see a fedi user say stuff like, “Why aren’t normies coming to Mastodon? You gotta be stupid to think Bluesky is any better than Twitter.”
“Normie” is for when you’re describing people that clutch their pearls and their bible when a goth walks past.
I doubt your definition is the common interpretation. For any particular context, there are probably countless better ways to (insultingly) refer to people. Fascist fucks? Folks have been workshopping names since the 30s. Religious nuts? Ask an atheism community, they’ll give you lists bigger than the goddamn bible.
Doesn’t have the same vibes though.
It might be subjective, but I agree with OP: those vibes reek of 4chan.
It doesn’t, that’s not my point. Bad faith implies they’re lying despite knowing better, which isn’t what I described. I never claimed bad faith, I said they’re factually wrong in this instance, and that their discourse is harmful regardless of their beliefs.
Just as not all anti-vaxers argue in bad faith, but are wrong nonetheless. Like many other groups who honestly and earnestly defend(ed) everything from racial segregation to genocide. I’m not saying these groups and the harm they cause are equivalent—this should be obvious, but I’m saying it anyway.
When one being wrong hurts innocent people, something has to be done. I expect folks in aforementioned groups to stop being wrong about those things at some point. Otherwise, it’s up to the rest of us to act to protect the victims, not the moral standing of the aggressors because they’re sincere.
That’s a gross misrepresentation of my position, which I hope is born of misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the topic. I tried to clear up any misunderstandings. If you don’t think they’re wrong or causing harm, I’m willing to have a conversation about this to explain it, if you want.