3 ms·

> False Equivalence or whatever So is claiming "if people don't keep learning the absolute basics about everything they'll be stupid and useless" Bruh we don'

> False Equivalence or whatever So is claiming "if people don't keep learning the absolute basics about everything they'll be stupid and useless" Bruh we don't know shit about farming, how to milk an animal, we don't know how to mine, how to smelt ore, yet every day we enjoy the benefits of other people or machines doing those activities. None of those people go around chastising us the way "real coders" are doing now. Though when automation entered their profession they probably grumbled similarly too… or did they? or were they glad of having to do such jobs a little less often?

latexr 15d ago
> So is claiming "if people don't keep learning the absolute basics about everything they'll be stupid and useless" That’s not a false equivalence, there’s nothing being compared there. Also, I have no idea who you’re quoting, but it sure as hell isn’t me and I can’t find a match online for that phrase. Looks like a straw man argument. > Bruh we don't know shit about I’m not your “bruh”, and when you say we you mean you. Either way, you’re just rehashing the same false equivalence despite saying “so is” (implying you do think the first argument is indeed a false equivalence) so I have no idea why you’re back to that.