Your comment makes me sad, its clear you've fallen into the "blind left" rabbit hole. You take a comment like "catch you when you say something they don't like" means and assume they are "far right". On a spectrum of 1 to 10 where 1 is right and 10 is left. You can be at 6-7 and the people are 8-9-10 will shout your head off. This is a well documented issue in this day and age. Plenty of left thought leaders complaining about the ultra left.

No offense, but if they're having so much trouble maintaining connections with the people around them that they believe that they have no more need for other humans altogether, something has gone wrong.

The far right was from looking at their comment history and a little bit of reading between the lines. Maybe my read is wrong, but if you don't at least see the parent comment as a cry for help I don't know what to tell you.

Its well documented that online people will scream their heads off because there's no relationship worth maintaining, everything is temporary, but IRL a much wider range is tolerated.

If you had read what you're replying to, you'd have noticed the user based their "far-right" mention on the GP's "comment history," which does bear out.

Why are you going out of your way to defend "humans are unnecessary, we can self-actualize using only machines" as some sort of 'center-right' virtue? If anything I would hope and expect right-wingers to value human connection (quite the venerable tradition, mind you) even more than the left.

> you've fallen into the far right rabbit hole, and this is what "catch you when you say something they don't like" means

It might be true for this particular person, but people being a live minefield waiting to blow up in your face is more general experience. Regardless of your views, no matter how benign and out of mainstream controversy you perceived them to be, they will be taken as a reason to view you negatively by someone you know and sever or at least degrade the connection. People can mostly tolerate each other because they share very limited slice of themselves.

If you trip on such snag with AI you can just start another chat session. With people you basically need to find and befriend another person.

> Regardless of your views, no matter how benign and out of mainstream controversy you perceived them to be,

No, not regardless of the views. The views themselves matter.

Yes, views do matter, but if you are not an utterly boring person you have variety of them and your similarly interesting friends also have a variety. If you fully exposed the entire variety of your respective views to each other you wouldn't be friends with most people you know.

I don’t think that’s true. Most people are willing to extend a good bit of grace, especially if there’s already a relationship worth preserving.

As in, if I just met someone and I know nothing about them other than they don’t like unions then we probably won’t be friends but if that came up later I’m not going to blow up a year of friendship over something like that.

OTOH if a friend started preaching white supremacy that would do it but I’d give a good shot to talking them out of it first.

Yet that risk and that complexity is itself what makes something real. Realness is persistence, the fact of there being a system behind the surface -- the more that that's true, the more real something is. Once you lose that, reality drains away -- and all its benefits with it. Think of how much less satisfaction people get from beating a game with cheats than from doing it 'the real way'; or even how much more satisfaction people get from building a real house, with their own two hands, than they do from doing so in Minecraft (itself pretty satisfying, just less so).

I think desire for "real" is just a form of masochism. This real that people talk about is just suffering in sufficient amount to silence their restless brains. Most people aren't like that. Most prefer to use pleasure instead of pain to calm their brains. They don't care if a thing is "real" as long as it does its job. For the 'real' afficiandos pleasure doesn't work. That's why they disparage things that bring joy and peace to other people. Because those things simply don't work for them. The only thing that works is appropriate amount of suffering to make their brain accept the stuff they are doing, that's not any more real or interesting for the average person.

Have you noticed how a huge variety of things can be "real"? And the only unifying factor is the suffering? I think it's because it's all about the suffering, not the narrations and the details.

Extremely myopic take. "Real" things can be just as pleasurable as not-"real" things, and not-"real" things can be just as painful. I don't even know by what criteria you're making these distinctions, but it has the smell of an embittered person.

Just trying to understand what is this craving for "real" I never had and what it even is.

Well said