Perspectivist

Nobody claimed it was a reliable source. However, the fact is that people use it to answer questions anyway - and in cases like this, I think it’s good to let people know where you got the info so they can take it with a grain of salt. The same applies to your friend Kevin, who’s just as likely to confidently spread false info as the truth.

I don't think that shaming people for using chatGPT is useful. They're not going to stop using it - they'll just not tell about it then which is worse.

It's more of a slang word. I think it's a variation of the word "pippeli" which means the same thing.

There's nothing wrong with asking chatGPT and you should mention it as the source for your information. It's far better than the alternative where people omit this information because of online bullies.

In Finnish "pili" means a small dick.

How about in hopes of it enhancing an activity you're about to partake in, as it did a decade ago when your tolerances weren't sky-high yet?

If a person climbs onto a stage to make a statement, and instead of getting on stage to make a counterpoint someone just shouts “booo” from the audience, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to demand that person to show their face. There’s a certain level of cowardice in simply downvoting without explaining why you disagree. There’s no option to post anonymously here, so it’s not obvious to me that voting should be anonymous either. If people upvote or downvote, they should be willing to stand behind that - and if someone asks for an explanation, you have three choices: ignore them, block them, or explain. I guess there’s also the option to simply not vote at all.

If it were up to me, I’d hide vote counts from users entirely. It’s not all bad, but I’d argue the net effect is negative. Visible votes encourages toxic behavior. When someone makes a controversial claim, you can first downvote them, then dunk on them in a reply - and now they’re being downvoted into oblivion while you get applause for your smug comment. It feels like you've won the debate when in reality, nobody’s mind changed. Heavily downvoted comments also prime readers to dislike them before they even read them, instead of approaching with a neutral mindset and then forming their own opinion - or reading further to see other perspectives. As it stands, the system mostly trains people to recognize what’s popular on a platform so they can self-censor to avoid downvotes, and feel validated for shouting down people who voice unpopular opinions.

So, if someone asks me to explain why I downvoted something, I might explain or I might not - but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable thing to ask. On the other hand, if someone makes it their personal mission to follow me around and harass me because I downvoted their comment, I think it’s unreasonable to demand the system be changed just so I don’t have to deal with it. There’s already a solution for that: blocking them.

His name is Marshall Mae Rogan and he has almost 900K followers on Instagram.

If someone starts to harrass you due to your voting habits (which I've never heard of happening) you can just block them and move on with your life. The difference between someone saying mean things to you and someone writing them is that you can just stop reading.

You’re still making a guilt-by-association argument. Saying affiliation with a “Zionist organization” is “Zionism-neutral at best” still assumes that any association is inherently an endorsement - even if partial - of its politics. Affiliation doesn’t automatically mean ideological alignment, and if you think it does here, you still have to show why.

You’re also collapsing “Jewish affairs” into “Zionism” without explaining why those terms should be treated as inseparable. That’s the leap your Nazi analogy skips over - it only works if you’ve already decided the affiliation is inherently culpable.

By your “10 Nazis at a table” standard, Daryl Davis - the black musician who’s convinced dozens of KKK members to leave the group - would be “white supremacy neutral at best.” That’s the problem with that analogy: it assumes all association equals to approval, and it ignores contexts where the association has nothing to do with endorsing the ideology.

Do you have any evidence that supports the claim that Ga'ava is a zionist group?

To me, this just sounds like moral contamination fallacy - the belief that if X is connected to Y, then X must share full moral responsibility for everything Y does.

The question was about what you want to do - not what would have the biggest impact or look best on your resume.