I think people should be allowed to make political statements outside of a work context without risking their jobs—but with our current societal norms siding with corporate image concerns, this does seem in-line with the norms of that approach.

Define "political statement".

Because it looks like you're putting "this is just like beginning of the holocaust", "non-whites don't deserve human rights" and "let's seriously consider not having a secret police" in the same bracket here.

A statement being a political position doesn't (or rather shouldn't) automatically shield you from the other meanings of that statement and writing that off as all being "corporate image concerns" is insidious.

I didn’t say i didn’t like it, i said it wasn't mandatory to use it.

Your comment (and the context of this post) implied active usage, which is what i was responding to.

If you want to come at it from a "there is no ethical consumerism" point of view, you might be right that it is, or will be, everywhere.

There is still a distinction between the choice to actively use it and the pseudo-passive background knowledge that it might have been used as part of something in your daily life..

Like the knowledge that modern consumer electronics supply chains have a prominent core of slavery and exploitation doesn't make buying a phone the same as owning a slave.

"It's already everywhere, so you might as well use it" isn't a good catch-all policy and i don't think it's a good approach to this specific scenario.

But you do you.

AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away, unless there is no more electricity on the planet. So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.

Or choose not to, just because it's there doesn't make it mandatory or even a good idea.

Treat ?

Tu quoque fallacy

huh, i didn't know there was a formalised name for this, TIL

Im not sure of the general context here, but in the UK gypsy was mostly used to ( derogatorily ) refer to the Romani.

Also commonly called "travelers" due to their nomadic nature.

As with a lot of derogatory colloquialisms its usage has mutated/changed over time and differs between geographic areas.

Modern usage is generally aimed at the groups of people who nomadically move around in large caravan convoys, they may or may not descend from (or identify as) Roma.

They have a poor reputation.

If you've ever seen the movie Snatch , the group that brad pitt is a part of is one example of "gypsies".

Best I can tell, they are "Irish" gypsies but many different variations exist.

If you're struggling with the distinction between pointing out hypocrisy and a claim of moral superiority then you're going to spend a lot of time being confused and/or upset.

Thats an interesting not-quite-straw-man .

Pointing out that someone isn't following the teachings they are claiming to follow doesn't require the accuser to be an adherent to those teachings.

I could call a self professed vegan a hypocrite if I saw them eating a steak, regardless of whether or not, I myself were a vegan.

Im all on the "listen to the medical experts" train.

There are however some medicines and treatments that legitimately started as "alternative".

A lot of it is horseshit though.

Also modern medicine isn't infallible(nor the people that practice it).

Statistically though, it's fucking high magic compared to most internet sourced diagnoses.

Other than this hot take

Ivy League college students are, by definition, intelligent.

It's an interesting read.