Goodness this is exhausting. I was not talking about literally being allowed to do something, that's why it is in quotation marks. I was responding to you making assertions about my online "debate footprint" and how you attempted to use my relatively lower rate of discussing the impact of the meat industry online as a way to debunk my assertion. My (rhetorical) question was, how would my online behaviour have had to change for you to be satisfied upon trawling my posting history that I am not against AI for "trending" reasons?

Many claims may or may not have been debunked about AI water usage. My assertion is that its value provided to society is absolutely dwarfed by its footprint. Same can be said of the meat industry, fast fashion, etc. I maintain that stance even at your proposed value of 1% of the total water usage of the US. 1% is a lot when you are talking about the entire country's consumption vs a single industry.

Your edit is wild. I'm "following trends" because I am selective about where I spend my time and energy based on where I am making the most impact? Would my stance somehow be more valid if I were arguing with brick walls online about other matters and not contributing at all to the causes I care about with that time and energy expenditure? Even if that wasn't a wild take, its just a genetic fallacy and doesn't serve to actually move the discussion forward.

Anyway, speaking of spending my time and energy in places I feel I'm actually accomplishing something, we've been talking past one another for a while now, so I'm gonna stop replying now. Have a good life.