> "I find it quite interesting that you categorize non-coders the same as quacks, analphabets, and lies."

I categorized them not as "the same", but as examples of concept-delineating polar opposites. This as answer to somebody who essentially trotted out the "but they're just labels!1!!" line, which was already considered intellectually lazy before it was turned into a sad meme by people who married their bongs back in the 90s.

> "I would never consider myself a coder - though I can and have written quite a lot of code over the years [...]"

Good for you. A coder, to me, is simply somebody who can produce working programs on their own and has the neccessary occupational (self-) respect. This fans out into several degrees of capabilities, of course.

> "[...] but you called someone who claims to have written plenty of code themselves a coding-illiterate just because now they'd rather use an LLM than do it themselves. "

No. I simply answered this one question:

> “If I’m not the man who can [...] build working programs… WHO AM I?”

Aside from that I reflected on an insulting(ly daft) but extremely common attitude amongst sloperators, especially on parasocial media platforms:

> "As it turns out, writing code isn’t super useful."

Imagine I go to some other SIG to say shit like this: As it turns out, [reading and writing words/playing or operating an instrument or tool/drawing/calculating/...] isn’t "super useful". Suckers!

I'd expect to get properly mocked and then banned.

> "You basically took some people talking about their own opinions on what they find enjoyable, [...]"

Congratulations, you're just the next strawmen salesman. For the last time, bambini: I don't care if this guy uses LLMs and enjoys it... for that was never the focus of my argument at all.