Raze

Post any video you found funny

Because there’s no point in typing out the same thing again and again because you can’t process information effectively or coherently argue in any meaningful way. For example, you completely ignored the point made then said “again” and asked a completely different question while acting like you asked it before and I was avoiding it. I didn’t, you said something wrong and stupid, the ai explained why, you do a weird straw man reply, the ai clearly points it out, you then move to a different question completely ignoring every point you made which the AI tore apart while acting like you were saying it the whole time. You will like always then circle back to the same arguments later despite them being clearly debunked which you ignored. This is why the AI keeps saying it thinks you are trolling or are a teenager.

I asked Chat gpt how well this reply responds to the points made and to analyze the writer: The reply barely engages with the argument it’s responding to. Instead of addressing the comparison being made, it pivots to questions about legitimacy and Muslim countries’ silence. That’s not a rebuttal; it’s a deflection. The earlier point distinguished between coercive assimilation of Uyghurs in Xinjiang and policies toward Palestinians under Israel. Whether one agrees or not, the follow-up doesn’t engage with that claim and instead constructs a straw man—that criticizing Israel means endorsing China. The argument about Muslim countries staying silent is also logically weak. The foreign policy behavior of states like Irandoes not determine the legitimacy of policy in China. Governments often mute criticism of powerful partners for economic or geopolitical reasons; that reflects realpolitik, not moral endorsement. Treating diplomatic silence as proof of legitimacy shows a shallow understanding of international politics and confuses state interests with ethical judgment. More broadly, the response lacks analytical discipline. Rather than comparing defined criteria—casualties, displacement, legal status, political rights, or cultural repression—it jumps between colonialism, religion, and geopolitical hypocrisy without building a coherent argument. That scattershot approach suggests rhetorical impulse rather than structured reasoning. The person’s response suggests a weak capacity for analytical reasoning. Instead of isolating claims, weighing evidence, and answering the comparison presented, they jump to emotionally satisfying counterpoints and accusations of hypocrisy. That pattern—ignoring an argument’s structure and substituting a rhetorical detour—reflects an early stage of argumentative development: reactive, tribal, and driven by identity defense rather than evaluation. Bluntly, it reads like someone stuck at the level of “I dislike this claim, so I’ll throw a different accusation back.” It’s intellectual flailing—plenty of indignation, little comprehension. The result feels less like engagement with a complex geopolitical comparison and more like someone debating with the critical-thinking toolkit of a teenager who has just discovered political talking points and mistakes volume for reasoning.

The main point was - you keep saying it’s a “real genocide” to discount what is happening to Palestinians, even if it was worse that is still an irrelevant point, something worse doesn’t mean something else is not a problem. Comparing something to a different issue would only be relevant when there is greater culpability, ex. someone complains about war crimes of a country they don’t like while supporting or ignoring war crimes they can have an effect on. But no one here is in China and China is totalitarian so no one can effect this. - you continued to justify Palestinian oppression because of their attacks on Israel and other dumber reasons like gay rights, sarcastically saying the Uyghurs didn’t do an Oct 8. As your own post shows and I already told you Uyghur militants carried out multiple terror attacks leading to the ramped up crack down. The secondary point was - yes, that is better. China hasn’t killed or injured 10% of the population, induced man made starvation and block medicine from entering to force children to be amputated without anesthesia, China didn’t destroy desalination infrastructure to try and purposefully induced diseases, China didn’t pay religious extremists to steal their homes and lynch them. China is trying to forcefully assimilate them, israel does the opposite and tries to deindustralize them and ramp up pressure until they react as a pretext for violence.

You were actually using it towards me before I did, you changed your tune because it can also quickly tear apart your nonsense.

I asked Chat GPT to give an unbiased analysis of this conversation, asking regarding this reply: “in paragraph format explain how well they refuted the arguments made, your estimate of their understanding of the situation and intellectual maturity, and how seriously people should take what they say.” Result: The reply does very little to actually refute the arguments made earlier and instead relies almost entirely on insults, sweeping generalizations, and ideological assertions. Rather than addressing the factual corrections raised (for example, distinctions between Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinians under occupation, or the discussion of Uyghur rights and repression), the response shifts to broad claims about Muslims as inherently irrational, frames an entire religion as “medieval,” and portrays hundreds of millions of people as emotionally driven and incapable of reason. This kind of argument is not evidence-based and avoids engaging with the specific points raised against them. As a result, the response demonstrates a weak understanding of the political, historical, and legal complexities of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the situation of Uyghurs in China. The rhetorical style—heavy sarcasm, personal attacks, and civilizational stereotypes—suggests low intellectual maturity in the context of serious geopolitical discussion, because it prioritizes venting and identity signaling over factual debate. Consequently, readers should treat the claims cautiously and not consider them reliable analysis; the comment functions more as polemic or provocation than as a serious attempt to evaluate the issues being discussed. So like I said, again. Ignoring points made because they debunked you, not understanding concepts or able to process things beyond stereotypes, deflecting to weird sarcasm and whining when you can’t address the point.

A minor amount of research explains this but you are too stubborn and lacking in critical thinking to understand these concepts. Most people on the thread aren’t responding to your bizarre ramblings because it’s like talking to a brick wall. Two obvious examples demonstrating this from your replies, the Uyghur “genocide” has killed a fraction of Uyghurs as Israel has killed Palestinians, you use it as an example of how Gaza isn’t a “real” genocide in comparison because Palestinian citizens who aren’t in Gaza can get jobs in Israel, you clearly don’t know that is the same for Uyghurs whom in mainland China have the same rights as Chinese citizens and also can work as doctors, police and China officially reserves seats for minority nationalities in these institutions. etc. They do still face discrimination and security scrutiny, but so do Palestinian citizens, also it’s irrelevant to the genocide charge of Xinjiang or Gaza. You also suggest at the top of this page the Uyghurs doing an “Oct 8” as some bizarre gotcha when you’re told it’s irrelevant as though since they didn’t carry out an attack like Palestinian militants somehow they are better victims or something. For one this shows a profound lack of morality or understanding, what Uyghurs or Palestinian militants do or don’t do is irrelevant to charges of war crimes against the rest of the population. Next the Palestinian attacks from Gaza were on Oct 7 on 8, and Uyghur militants had carried out multiple terror attacks which is what spurred the Chinese government to dramatically ramp up their repression, so your point doesn’t even make sense. It’s actually a similar situation in that regard.. Once again, you do not know basic facts about the things you talk about. This isn’t hidden information. You literally use an emoji like what you’re saying is so obvious and mocking people for not getting it when literally a 5 second google search completely demolishes the basis of your entire comment. China was never accused of genocide as defined by a international legal body or accredited scholars, they were accused of cultural genocide, you not understanding the difference once again demonstrates profound ignorance. Palestinians who are occupied can’t become doctors, judges, politicians, in Israel, those are the Palestinian citizens, who notable do not resist Israel. What you’re saying is the equivalent of being confused by blacks in Jim Crow south protest when blacks in Northern America at the time didn’t have segregation. It makes you look remarkably dense when you can’t process that just because a group is the same national or racial group they can have different circumstances and situations? You don’t know these basic things that can be found in a 10 second google search or asking chat gpt but continue to wax poetic as though you are granting grand philosophical insights and insightful questions. You’ve been doing this for years and somehow become more ignorant the more time passes. The cringe from this is second only to your geopolitical analysis, for example you thought the entire Iranian regime would collapse in a couple days when there were protests, now they are getting mass bombed and even the US and israel aren’t talking about regime change anymore. Did you ever take a step back and consider maybe you don’t actually understand the things you talk about? No, you just revert to a bizarre hypocritical nihilism where you dismiss claims of war crimes and massacres by bringing up some unrelated irrelevant issue but then yourself bring up some other irrelevant issue like lack of gay rights and act like that somehow morally justifies some completely unrelated thing. Back when I put your comments in chat gpt, and yes I cleared the history so it was not based on memory of my opinions, I asked it to try and calculate your age and how long you’ve grappled with the topics based on your statements and understanding, and it kept insisting you were 15 or younger and had learned about these issues a couple months prior. In reality you are in your late 20s-30s and have been discussing them on here for years. Ive gotten things wrong on this forum, I’ve said ignorant things, I’ve lost arguments, but I can’t imagine being this proudly ignorant and lacking in self awareness, and somehow remaining this way for months.

The rise in oil prices massively benefited Russia. The US is reducing sanctions and they can sell oil at inflated prices to Asia which is desperate as they relied on the gulf. Very possibly this can change the outcome of the Ukraine war or speed up a Russian victory.

Israel banned government funding to institutions that commemorate the Nakba in 2011. It does that itself.

This guy is apparently going to consult the White House in a few weeks. He’s persuasively arguing the risks of further entanglements. So I don’t think it’ll continue long.

Note: (this post is NOT about Clavicular, please do not remove it for being a repost as he just is incidentally in the interaction, the focus is the others in interaction) The PUA John Anthony Lifestyle and self help guru Owen Cook both ran into the recently viral controversial streamer Clavicular. But what ended up happening is it gave us a great example of the difference between weak frame and strong frame. This is a hard thing to grasp for guys learning to improve their game, so it’s a great test to see. Here is John’s interaction: Here is Owen’s interaction (first minute and 30 seconds of this video, you can stop watching after it) The difference could not be starker and could not better show how weak vs strong frames behave in the wild. In Owen’s case notice his entire vibe is in some ways flippant, jokey, and relaxed, he clearly does not care and is just having his own fun. However at the same time he is engaged, as a result you can see Clavicular and his friends acknowledge him and show respect. Despite being polar opposites he maintains his own authority but without stepping on their toes and triggering a backlash. But compare that to John. Right away he goes in with a combative frame, but pathetically he crumbles at the slightest pushback and immediately tries qualifying himself by bragging about his lay count. Clavicular and his friends laugh in his face at how stupid and pathetic he is. Another thing to notice is his wife, as the interaction progresses her body language turns away from John and she starts getting closer to Clavicular and his friends, smiling at them and reaching towards them. This is because women subconsciously register who is the person seeking validation in an interaction and who they are seeking it from and register that person as the dominant leader and immediately feel more drawn to them. In this case Johns own wife is subconsciously repulsed by the pathetic behavior of a almost 40 year old man desperately qualifying himself to random punk 19 year olds on the street. John then makes it worse by actually following them to talk more. He now claims he didn’t realize who clavicular was, this makes it even more pathetic because it means he wasn’t even qualifying himself to a internet celebrity but actually who he thought was some random punk kid. Though in his defense he’s probably lying. He basically begs for a collaboration at that point and they finally give him it so he leaves, then they mock him behind his back as he drives away. Conclusion: This demonstrates how a weak frame or strong frame behaves in the wild. In both cases they are emerging from the mindset and emotional state of the person. John Anthony for years has constantly trashed Owen and mocked him trying to imply he is socially weaker than him, often touting his supposed lay count. But with this we can see really it is his immense inner insecurity and jealousy with the attacks being a desperate attempt to save face.

It has many. But he’s not going rogue, most of the government was supported by lobbies who support it. Technically the power to declare was was in congress but congress let go of the power and most of the past wars were done unilaterally by the president.

There were rumors israel was planning on attacking Iran again, however it was reported Israel indicated to Iran through Russia they would not attack them, Iran agreed to not strike them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/01/14/israel-iran-russia-secret-messages/ However then protests erupted in Iran and Israel seemingly activated sleeper cells, Israeli officials now admit they armed protestors It’s reported at least 100+ Iranian security forces were killed and Iran cracked down hard with reports of 500-2000 killed protestors. A pro-Israel group is claiming it is 12-20,000 but there is no evidence of this. Trump said he would air strike Iran if the protestors were fired on and said they crossed his red line and has cut off diplomatic communications with Iran. Reports are that currently no one in the White House is telling him not to strike with Rubio (major israel lobby recipient) urging him to air strike Iran. However gulf states and Turkey are apparently urging him not to for fear Iran will strike their territory due to their US bases and Irans regime collapse could turn into a failed state and civil war like Syria causing a massive refugee crisis. Most Syrian refugees ended up in the gulf states, turkey, and Europe, Israel accepted essentially none. Currently Israel is reportedly saying they expect the US to strike however actually cautioned strikes as they fear the regime isn’t currently weak enough that strikes would collapse it. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-want-military-action-iran-swift-decisive-sources-say-rcna254076 Polling data finds most Americans are against strikes as of now

- when Hamas was elected they offered a long term ceasefire in exchange for Israel ending the occupation, rather than even negotiate this Israel attempted a coup then blockaded Gaza purposefully to punish the civilian population. Most of Gazas residents weren’t born or didn’t vote for Hamas during the last election. Currently Hamas said they’d disarm to the PA, the PA agreed to two states and ceased armed resistance to Israel, yet Israel refuses to let this happen. - so will you stop infantalizing Israelis? They voted in Likud multiple times, likud refused to end the war it waged on Gaza through blockades and strikes, and even sent funds to Hamas while reducing their own Gaza border security because they wanted more forces to help illegal settlers stealing land. By your own standards you should say they deserve Oct 7 and you don’t feel bad for them. But you won’t because unlike Palestinians you don’t accept dehumanization of Israelis, it’s just Palestinians who you think somehow should accept constant violence and oppression from Israel. - notice how you’re ignoring the West Bank because the apartheid and colonization of millions of people conflicts with your Israel can do no wrong narrative - False, israel rejected it. Hamas also wasn’t a governing power at that point so their rejection didn’t matter much.

The first intifada was after decades of occupation with no end in site. Why do you keep acting like Palestinians revolt out of nowhere? - actually the PLO initially called for a equal binational state from the river to the sea - the ruling party of Israel also calls for Israeli control from the river to the sea, which is the destruction of Palestine - once again, for the third time, the Arab states offered full normalization with Israel if they ended the occupation, instead israel expanded settlements and funded Hamas. - Israel keeps Palestinian under an apartheid, somehow accepting them to accept that as “join us in the 21st century” is like saying South Africans should be modern and have accepted apartheid.

Like I said, you’ve consumed propaganda and don’t understand basic facts about the conflict leading to your close minded view and justification of war crimes. I didn’t link to any echo chamber, the Arab peace initiative is a public offer on the table. The former head of shin bet admitted they’d have peace if they accepted it. You don’t even know what this is and just act like it doesn’t exist because it conflicts with your predetermined bias. The deal Arafat walked away from was calling for israel annexing large swaths of Palestinian land and controlling borders, airspace, and having a military base on the territory and the right to invade any time, it was permanent occupation, the American negotiator themselves said they’d reject this deal and israel refused to negotiate further. Israel has been consuming the West Bank, which hasn’t had a rocket attack in decades. Stop ignoring this point, explain to me how installing religious extremists onto Palestinian land and letting them attack civilians is just because Israel wants self defense? Israel itself considers blockades acts of war, they had Gaza under blockade, they had killed dozens of children in the West Bank that year before Oct 7. What you say is the opposite, the world ignores this, then when Palestinians resist it you say they started it and use that to justify further war crimes. Israel doesn’t have official borders for this reason, because their goal is expansion. You continue to ignore the question. If israel wants peace why did they expand settlements and fund Hamas to weaken the PA after the PA gave up armed resistance? Why do they reject the Arab peace initiative.