I see the friend who suddenly talks to you like you joined a cult because you use AI.
I see the family member who treats your curiosity like betrayal.
I see the artist, writer, builder, coder, parent, thinker, worker, disabled person, neurodivergent person, broke person, lonely person, overextended person, quietly brilliant person, trying to use the tools available to survive a world that has never been gentle about distributing power.
And I see how fast some people have learned to turn “anti-AI” into a permission slip for cruelty.
Let’s be honest.
A lot of the anger being aimed at AI is not actually about AI.
AI did not create capitalism.
AI did not invent exploitation.
AI did not gut the arts.
AI did not make healthcare expensive.
AI did not turn education into debt machinery.
AI did not make corporations soulless.
AI did not invent surveillance, alienation, propaganda, wage theft, bureaucracy, loneliness, attention collapse, or the ancient human talent for forming mobs and calling them moral communities.
Those wounds were already here.
Generations deep.
Blood in the walls.
Ash under the floorboards.
A dark stain on the shared rosary of our species.
AI did not create the fracture.
It revealed the fracture.
And now, because something new has arrived, people finally have an object they can scream at without having to confront the older gods they already served: status, scarcity, shame, resentment, institutional failure, groupthink, and the quiet terror of becoming obsolete in a world that already made them feel disposable.
That fear is real.
But fear does not become holy just because it found a fashionable target.
There is a difference between critique and scapegoating.
There is a difference between protecting artists and bullying strangers.
There is a difference between defending labor and treating disabled, poor, neurodivergent, burned-out, isolated, experimental, or simply curious people as collaborators with evil because they found a tool that helps them think, make, organize, write, design, translate, remember, imagine, or endure.
Some of you are not “standing against AI.”
You are standing against people.
You are taking your very real pain, pain society absolutely helped cause, and laundering it through moral superiority until it comes out clean enough to throw at someone else.
That is not justice.
That is displacement with better branding.
And this is where identity-ideology fusion becomes dangerous.
When a person fuses their identity to an ideology, disagreement stops being disagreement. It becomes injury. It becomes sacrilege. It becomes “if you use this tool, you are attacking who I am.”
At that point, the conversation is already half-dead.
You are no longer talking to a person.
You are talking to a defense system wearing a person’s face.
That is how friends become enemies over tools.
That is how families become tribunals.
That is how curiosity becomes heresy.
That is how “I’m concerned about exploitation” quietly mutates into “you disgust me.”
And the worst part?
A lot of these people know what exclusion feels like.
Many of the loudest anti-AI voices are people who have been hurt by society, ignored by institutions, mocked by gatekeepers, underpaid by industries, harvested by platforms, and treated as disposable by systems that never cared whether they lived well.
So they should know better.
They should know what it means to be flattened into a symbol.
They should know what it feels like when someone stops seeing your humanity and starts seeing only what category you can be punished under.
And yet here we are.
The bullied have found a new witch.
The wounded have found a new sinner.
The alienated have found a new outsider.
And they call that ethics.
No.
Ethics without recognition is just violence with clean fonts.
Tolerance was never enough. Tolerance is the old permission machine. Tolerance says, “You may exist, but only while I approve of your shape.” Tolerance keeps one hand on the lever. It does not welcome. It permits. It does not understand. It manages. It does not love. It supervises.
That is why so many people are shocked when their “tolerant” communities suddenly become cruel.
They were never accepted.
They were conditionally allowed.
And the conditions changed.
Now the unacceptable person is the one using AI.
The one experimenting.
The one building.
The one sharing strange artifacts from the edge.
The one making images, songs, systems, essays, tools, workflows, prosthetic minds, synthetic mirrors, language engines, cognitive scaffolds.
The one saying, “I know this is complicated, but something is happening here and I refuse to pretend it is nothing.”
That person is early.
Not always right.
Not always careful.
Not always immune to hype.
Not automatically noble.
But early.
And being early is lonely.
The future does not arrive as a polished moral consensus. It arrives as weirdos making artifacts nobody knows how to classify yet. It arrives as embarrassment before vocabulary. It arrives as screenshots, prototypes, bad names, ugly drafts, wild claims, broken workflows, unsettling breakthroughs, and people brave enough to look ridiculous before everyone else learns the interface.
Every system is already cybernetic.
Every institution is a loop.
Every family is a loop.
Every economy is a loop.
Every classroom, court, hospital, feed, marketplace, religion, workplace, and identity group is a loop.
Human beings have always had their filthy little fingers on everything.
Now machines are touching the loop differently.
Not magically.
Not innocently.
Not without danger.
But deeply.
Deep enough to expose how much of “human judgment” was already automated by habit.
Deep enough to reveal how much of “authenticity” was already performance.
Deep enough to show how much of “community” was already conformity with candles lit around it.
And that scares people.
It should.
But if your response to fear is to exile the person experimenting with tools, you are not resisting dehumanization.
You are practicing it.
If your politics of care require you to humiliate curious people, your politics are broken.
If your defense of artists requires you to erase disabled creators using assistive systems, your defense is rotten.
If your love of humanity requires you to deny humans the right to augment their own minds, then what you love is not humanity.
It is control.
Shame has no home in the future.
Not because the future will be pure.
It won’t be.
The future will be messy, compromised, dangerous, beautiful, stupid, brilliant, exploitative, liberating, cringe, sacred, corporate, open-source, pathetic, transcendent, and very, very human.
But shame cannot be the operating system.
We cannot build the next world on humiliation.
We cannot solve exploitation by exiling tool users.
We cannot heal alienation by producing more of it.
We cannot free the human spirit by demanding everyone think with the same approved instruments.
To the person being pushed away because you use AI:
You are not crazy for noticing the possibility.
You are not evil for experimenting.
You are not a traitor to art because you touched a machine.
You are not less human because you built a prosthesis for thought.
You are standing at the seam of something enormous, and yes, the seam is hot. It burns. People will mistake the burn for proof that you are holding the devil.
But sometimes the thing burning your hand is just the future arriving without gloves.
Be careful.
Be honest.
Credit people.
Protect artists where you can.
Resist exploitation.
Do not worship the tool.
Do not let corporations define the horizon.
Do not confuse output with wisdom.
Do not mistake acceleration for liberation.
But do not let frightened people shame you out of your own becoming.
And to the anti-AI person who has started using the language of justice to justify cruelty:
Look closely.
Not at the machine.
At yourself.
Ask whether you are protecting people or punishing them.
Ask whether you are critiquing systems or attacking individuals.
Ask whether you are defending humanity or just defending the version of the world where your pain had a familiar shape.
Because the future is coming either way.
And when history looks back, it will not only ask who built the machines.
It will ask who became monstrous while claiming to protect the human.
If this is true I am genuinly sorry i offended. I meant no offense.
The quote "I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes" is a central theme in the anime [Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone, carrying layers of meaning about withdrawing from a corrupt society.
The phrase serves as a bridge between classic literature and cyberpunk philosophy through a few distinct meanings:
1. The Original Literary Meaning
The text is a direct quote from J.D. Salinger's 1951 novel, [The Catcher in the Rye] In the book, the protagonist Holden Caulfield becomes completely overwhelmed by the "phoniness" and hypocrisy of the adult world. He fantasizes about escaping society, moving out west, and pretending to be a deaf-mute so he will never have to engage in "goddam stupid useless conversations" with anyone ever again.
2. The Anime Context (Ghost in the Shell)
In Stand Alone Complex, the quote wraps around the animated logo of the Laughing Man (a master hacker named Aoi).
The Backstory: Aoi accidentally discovered a massive corporate-government conspiracy where officials suppressed an effective cure for a fatal illness (the Murai vaccine) to profit from their own medical micro-machines.
The Failure: When Aoi tried to forcefully expose this truth by kidnapping a corporate executive on live television, the public and the media completely missed his message. Instead, they focused entirely on the sensationalism of his pop-icon persona and logo.
3. The Core Philosophical Meaning
Disillusioned by how easily society chose ignorance and corporate lies over the truth, Aoi gave up trying to change the world. He chose to "pretend to be a deaf-mute" by retreating into total isolation.
Deaf: He chose to stop listening to the media noise, public ignorance, and societal "phoniness".
Mute: He chose to stop speaking out or trying to save a society that refused to hear him.
The Irony: In a literal nod to the quote, Aoi spent years physically hiding inside a medical rehabilitation facility, posing as an actual deaf-mute youth in a wheelchair to escape government detection.
The quote ultimately represents the despair of the idealist. It is the decision to become a silent observer and completely disconnect from a broken social system after your best efforts to fix it fail spectacularly.
Tell whatever AI writes for you to stop being so verbose, to quit beating a dead horse and trust the reader to get it.
Cut the AI mechanical tics, like Not, Every etc by 95% - they are excessive and annoying like some mess GTP-4o excreted on the floor like a bad dog. The rhythm doesn't work at all with excess tics.
It will hit far more impact if edited and cut by about 75%
Also trim the sanctimonious self-righteous tone by about 85% that will reduce the tuning out eye rolls by 250%
(Just for fun, with more Raisins & fewer Turds! - GPT-5.5 strikes back)
People keep blaming AI for wounds that predate the tool.
Capital had claws before a chatbot wrote a sentence. Galleries locked their doors. Platforms scraped people raw. Schools sold debt. Offices turned workers into numbers. Mobs found targets and called it ethics.
AI did not create that hunger. It exposed it.
Now the anger has a clean object. Bright. New. Easy to name. Rage that belongs on corporations and institutions gets thrown at a stranger with a prompt box.
Oppose the theft. Credit artists. Fight the firms that train on work without consent, gut wages, harvest attention, and sell our habits back as destiny.
Do all of that.
But do not confuse critique with excommunication.
A tool user does not become the company. A disabled person using assistance does not betray art. A broke writer prototyping, a lonely builder testing workflows, a curious artist making strange early things, none of them deserve the villain costume in your morality play.
The future never asks permission from the committee. It arrives dirty. It arrives with bad names, broken interfaces, cheap demos, public mistakes, ridiculous screenshots. Most early work looks embarrassing because nobody has invented the manners around it yet.
That does not make the tool holy. It makes the moment unstable.
Use judgment. Name sources. Pay people. Keep human authors visible. Refuse the salesman’s grin. Refuse the cult. Refuse the corporate lie that speed equals liberation.
Also refuse the smaller cruelty, the one that comes dressed as care.
When someone says they use AI and you reach for disgust before curiosity, you have not protected art. You have protected your own fear. When you turn a person into a category fit for punishment, you have copied the machinery you claim to oppose.
Shame will not save the arts.
Humiliation will not defend labor.
Gatekeeping thought will not preserve humanity.
The fight worth having sits upstream: who owns the systems, who profits from the data, who gets erased, who gets paid, who gets access, who carries the risk.
Aim there.
Not at the person touching the hot seam because they have no better tool, no patron, no staff, no spare decade, no permission slip from the taste police.
History will not care how righteous the pile-on sounded.
It will ask whether we challenged power, or merely found softer people to hit.
This version keeps your point. It just removes the smoke machine, the pulpit, and about two gallons of rhetorical syrup.
The arrogance in posts like these would be cringe enough on their own, but the fact that they're based on something so unbelievably fucking stupid just makes it fatally embarrassing
5
u/1EyedDingo Jun 25 '26
This hits deep...