I think that someone interested in discussing facts would not write the phrase "immoral technofascist life". If I took the discussion at face value, I might respond asking for examples of how e.g. Dario Amodei is a "technofascist", but I think we can agree that would be really obtuse of me.

> but I think we can agree that would be really obtuse of me.

I would disagree.

Dario Amodei? You're making it too easy:

- Dario is CEO and Co-Founder of an LLM company ("techno-")

- Said LLM company is working with both public and private security companies

- The policies and actions these organizations are taking, often utilizing the technology provided by said LLM company, reflect that of a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, and the forcible suppression of opposition. ("-fascist")

Public:

https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/19/the-pentagon-says-ai-is-sp...

https://www.ft.com/content/e75e3388-4700-413d-ab67-778410c2d...

Private:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46794365

Wouljya look at all those facts!

Haha, my experience is people making those sorts of pronouncements will argue literally anything so I definitely wouldn't assume they are uninterested in arguing facts. Though I agree though that arguing with some people is obtuse and you arguing with the original post seems one of those cases.

More my confusion is the person I was responding to complaining about people arguing morality, which seems incredibly important to discuss. Lack of facts obviously makes discussions bad but there's definitely not some dichotomy with discussing morality (at least not with the people I know. My issue has not nearly been as much with people arguing morality, which is often my more productive arguments, and more people with a fundamentally incompatible view on what the facts are).