Re-reading the thread, I understand better what you were saying. This is different, though: the AI thing is kind of sudden, in a cultural sense, and it’s harder to imagine someone having married a person already knowing they would be into this extremely anti-human parenting style beforehand.
Like, you’re suggesting that a Republican guy probably has a Republican wife, and yeah that’s true, but I don’t think that it follows that an AI-absentee-father would probably be married to an AI-absentee-mother.
And that’s broadly why people are blowing up at you. Rhetorically speaking, it sounds a bit like you’re just being spiteful.
I’m basically being told I cannot form an opinion based off an assumption while they are doing the exact same thing. It’s hypocritical.
We were not discussing the percent chance of one situation over another, I am just being preached to that only one thing can be true. “I would leave him” isnt evidence that she would.
I think it makes perfect sense to predict she wouldnt leave him over this, just in the same way she would. We also dont know how long they have been together, or how old their child is. There’s so much we dont know and that is all I pointed out. But apparently the echo chamber decided it was that the wife will leave, so any other input was going to be met in this way.
Right, but there’s something about this that you’re not understanding. The people in this thread are not talking about a real woman, they’re talking about a hypothetical woman. A “reasonable person” kind of woman.
Yes, we could talk about how it’s technically possible that his wife is on disability and is circumstantially incapable of leaving him, therefore she wouldn’t, QED—but it’s just not that interesting.
People are saying “she would leave him,” but what they actually mean is “she should leave him.” You don’t realize that you’re arguing with this second sentence, that’s why you’re chafing against everyone here. There’s subtext that you’re missing.
!!! I am talking about a hypothetical woman too! It’s literally no different! My hypothetical woman just doesn’t align with the preference that the wife would leave him over this. That’s it! I’m so confused on how something so simple has been so confusing for you all!
I am just being trolled at this point. I fell for it. I’m gonna leave this here, I don’t know if its the effects of the echo chamber or a lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking, but it’s just going to go around in circles, I can’t explain it any further. Good luck out there.
Speaking of reading comprehension, though, I feel like it might be good to go over this. Like, as a self-reflection excercise.
My wife: Can you read our baby a book?
Me: I can just play an audiobook from my phone.
Two lines of dialogue, and yet you can infer a lot of information about what kind of character he is just from this one answer to this one question. He doesn’t value human connection. He views the baby merely as a problem to be solved. He might consider it a nuisance. He doesn’t really like being a parent. He thinks technology can solve the human condition.
In one line of dialogue, he has established himself as a villain to anyone who understands why an audiobook is fucking absurd to even suggest.
Now one more:
My wife: But then it won’t be in your voice.
In just one further line of dialogue, now we know that the wife does understand and value human connection, and is the one urging him to get it himself. In this story, to an audience of people who don’t want to see the husband’s ideology become more popular, she has made herself a hero. She stands in stark opposition to everything I just said we could infer about him.
It would be uncharitable of us to assume she’s a bad person when the only information we have about her is that she values good things and is urging her husband to as well. It’s not uncharitable to say the same of the husband because he has already demonstrated that he doesn’t get it and doesn’t want to.
The problem you’re running into is that you’re trying to impose, maybe not definitely, but even so, that she is a bad person as well with no evidence from the story that was told. You’re being uncharitable to this woman, and for seemingly no reason. And a lot of people, if they see you being uncharitable to a woman for no reason, are going to assume you’re doing it either because you agree with the husband’s villainy, or generally that you’re just being spiteful because you have problems with women. Neither look good.
Like I said before, it is possible that the wife is a shit person too, but there’s no reason to assume that. There are reasons to assume the opposite, actually. And the technicalities that might allow her to be evil in spite of what we already know about her just aren’t that interesting to talk about.
Re-reading the thread, I understand better what you were saying. This is different, though: the AI thing is kind of sudden, in a cultural sense, and it’s harder to imagine someone having married a person already knowing they would be into this extremely anti-human parenting style beforehand.
Like, you’re suggesting that a Republican guy probably has a Republican wife, and yeah that’s true, but I don’t think that it follows that an AI-absentee-father would probably be married to an AI-absentee-mother.
And that’s broadly why people are blowing up at you. Rhetorically speaking, it sounds a bit like you’re just being spiteful.
I’m basically being told I cannot form an opinion based off an assumption while they are doing the exact same thing. It’s hypocritical.
We were not discussing the percent chance of one situation over another, I am just being preached to that only one thing can be true. “I would leave him” isnt evidence that she would.
I think it makes perfect sense to predict she wouldnt leave him over this, just in the same way she would. We also dont know how long they have been together, or how old their child is. There’s so much we dont know and that is all I pointed out. But apparently the echo chamber decided it was that the wife will leave, so any other input was going to be met in this way.
Right, but there’s something about this that you’re not understanding. The people in this thread are not talking about a real woman, they’re talking about a hypothetical woman. A “reasonable person” kind of woman.
Yes, we could talk about how it’s technically possible that his wife is on disability and is circumstantially incapable of leaving him, therefore she wouldn’t, QED—but it’s just not that interesting.
People are saying “she would leave him,” but what they actually mean is “she should leave him.” You don’t realize that you’re arguing with this second sentence, that’s why you’re chafing against everyone here. There’s subtext that you’re missing.
!!! I am talking about a hypothetical woman too! It’s literally no different! My hypothetical woman just doesn’t align with the preference that the wife would leave him over this. That’s it! I’m so confused on how something so simple has been so confusing for you all!
I am just being trolled at this point. I fell for it. I’m gonna leave this here, I don’t know if its the effects of the echo chamber or a lack of reading comprehension and critical thinking, but it’s just going to go around in circles, I can’t explain it any further. Good luck out there.
My guy, I promise, I’m not trying to hound you.
Speaking of reading comprehension, though, I feel like it might be good to go over this. Like, as a self-reflection excercise.
Two lines of dialogue, and yet you can infer a lot of information about what kind of character he is just from this one answer to this one question. He doesn’t value human connection. He views the baby merely as a problem to be solved. He might consider it a nuisance. He doesn’t really like being a parent. He thinks technology can solve the human condition.
In one line of dialogue, he has established himself as a villain to anyone who understands why an audiobook is fucking absurd to even suggest.
Now one more:
In just one further line of dialogue, now we know that the wife does understand and value human connection, and is the one urging him to get it himself. In this story, to an audience of people who don’t want to see the husband’s ideology become more popular, she has made herself a hero. She stands in stark opposition to everything I just said we could infer about him.
It would be uncharitable of us to assume she’s a bad person when the only information we have about her is that she values good things and is urging her husband to as well. It’s not uncharitable to say the same of the husband because he has already demonstrated that he doesn’t get it and doesn’t want to.
The problem you’re running into is that you’re trying to impose, maybe not definitely, but even so, that she is a bad person as well with no evidence from the story that was told. You’re being uncharitable to this woman, and for seemingly no reason. And a lot of people, if they see you being uncharitable to a woman for no reason, are going to assume you’re doing it either because you agree with the husband’s villainy, or generally that you’re just being spiteful because you have problems with women. Neither look good.
Like I said before, it is possible that the wife is a shit person too, but there’s no reason to assume that. There are reasons to assume the opposite, actually. And the technicalities that might allow her to be evil in spite of what we already know about her just aren’t that interesting to talk about.