Consept

Yeah i think a mix of fear of what was happening, anti-establishment sentiment, social media making it easy to distribute misinfo and yeah free time as well. During the time I would get daily content sent to me via wats app of just total bullshit and people would believe it. Im not even talking vaccine skepticism, I mean like a video of army vehicles being transported on the motorway and people believing that the army was going to lock down london. This is family members, friends etc who i thought were reasonable people, tbf when I did point out the bullshit with evidence some did back down, but it made me see how easy it was for people to be taken in because of the situation. So I think since then the anti-establishment sentiment has remained as well as the social media stuff although that started to get regulated a bit better. Remember before covid there was no need for the misinformation tags on posts, a lot of this was developed because of covid. Yeah thats the crux of it, its jarring because we might have thought humanity was at a certain point but its obviously not there yet, so its accepting where we are at and i guess doing what we can from our position. I do sometimes feel im living in an insane asylum. Whats weird as well is that the amount of comfort, freedom and opportunity America have compared to the rest of the world, most of it anyway, is insane. Of all the countries to rebel its so strange that America are rebelling, like what do you even want? youre already winning

Wow thanks man, very helpful and i really respect what youve put into the game. Ive bookmarked your post and im definitely going to try some of the steps youve suggested

Im with you bro, it always blew my mind that anyone could fall for Hitlers rhetoric and that blind and emotional to let someone like that do what he did. I didnt think people were actually that emotionally led. But here we are, I think covid and social media have led to this, where people realised they could just alter their perspective of reality and get others to follow. I read by our side you mean reason and actual desire for truth and understanding, whatever 'party' or form that takes. The right are obsessed with the right 'winning'. I completely hear you though, I can definitely imagine that case study

Is this your belief? This could be a good issue to prove my point. My contention would be you believe most immigrants are criminals because of hateful rhetoric that youve heard, to the point where you truly believe something is true that casts a terrible light on a group of people. What percentage of criminals do you think are criminals and do you have evidence or statistics that can confirm most immigrants are criminals?

Dunno itll probably get a bit technical but keeping it broad is there anything i can do to get to 2000, my highest was 1750

OK bud, wishing you the best though, just get the sense things are a bit tough for you at the moment

What's your ranking? I'm like 1600, could do with some tips actually

@mr_engineer how's life, are you happy? Genuinely

I'm talking about one specific day because it was insane, but there was no backing off that point of the election being stolen, people still believe that, the only reason why it's calmed down is because Trump has won but if he hadn't won everyone would've said it was rigged again. Aside from that how many lies about immigrants all being criminals or eating pets or rumours like Michelle Obama being a man or barrack not being born in the US, have been constantly been protected out of the right? It's constant nonsense which obviously inflames the political environment, probably purposefully to inflame it. So this argument where the dems act emotionally and that it's even slightly comparable to the right is way off. Today Biden invited Trump to sit down at the White house even though he side lost, if it went the other way do you really think Trump would do that and not have an emotional tantrum?

It seems as though you're presenting the left as worse by stating they're brainwashed and react emotionally, you didn't feel the need to state this about the right. Although maybe you did previously I don't know. But from my perspective the fact that we've seen the real world action of the storming of the capitol by the right because of a delusion and misinformation, of which they still don't acknowledge wrong doing. I would say is much more problematic and detrimental to discourse than apparent name calling from the left. Also if we accept that they shouldn't have stormed the capitol and that they were brainwashed into doing it and still haven't admitted fault, wouldn't name calling be a somewhat subdued response to such insane behaviour. It seems that there's a way higher expectation for civility put on the left over the right.

I'm not sure they do want to emulate him, but let's grant you that they've said something negative about Trump and his supporters, why is that scrutinised so harshly whereas Trump and maga engage in constant insults as well dangerous rhetoric and conspiracy theories. One example is people making jokes about Nancy Pelosis husband being attacked by a madman with a hammer and conspiracy theories about it being hos gay lover which obviously not true. Point being Trump and maga are not critiqued in the same way and it seems like they can get away with so much but the left say one thing out of turn and were saying they're brainwashed and emotional Yes it's a much more extreme emotional response that involved illegal activity and what I would consider brainwashing and/or delusion to do it in the first place. The comparison to an emotional response of some name calling from the right is nowhere near comparable, or am I missing something? If you were judging these things equally it wouldn't be a debate.

I mean have we whitewashed the fact that when Trump lost in 2020, maga stormed the capitol and called for the hanging of Mike pence for certifying the election? Was that not an emotional reaction? Or the constant name calling that Trump engages in calling any opponent some derogatory name which his followers take on. Or him labelling whole groups of people as criminals? This is the thing that I don't get is you might criticise the left for name calling, but it's not even in the same league as what Trump and his followers do. If the left did even a fraction of what the right do they would get a lot of flack for it. So my question is why is Trump judged very differently from the left?

This seems to be your core issue and most likely a lot of the negative feelings stem from this. What's great is you have amazing self awareness, which is crucial for addressing this issue. Have you ever had therapy or talked to a professional about this? I think if you can work with someone that can help you to reframe these thoughts, you will see a lot pf progress

Yep doing exactly what he promised, he's also bringing in maga loyalists to make up his cabinet who have no experience in the jobs they're being put in. The takeovers happening folks, but I guess it's what Americans want, billionaires 'regulating' billionaires, I'm sure they'll help out the normal people

He is definitely a great speaker l, he's got like 20 years in the game, I will give him that. I guess the difficulty is not getting taken in the by the charisma and actually look at what he's saying plainly. I think if you read a transcript of what he said it would be hard to take him seriously but his charisma papers of the inconsistency gaps

People say he's an asshole and not PC but it's really a distraction, which gives the impression you're making a criticism but in reality you're actually not addressing the most egregious things that he's done and aspects of his personality. I understand the sentiment of wanting more clarity in politics and on the face of it I do agree. However Trump is not truthful, when people say they want truth and point to Trump it suggests to me that what they really want is someone to identify what they're worried about, which Trump does, and then provide a solution, which Trump doesn't do. What Trump does do is convince them that he can solve these problems, which is dishonest. The truth for example with inflation is that yes it's higher but the US is doing much better than every other developed nation. Unemployment is also at its lowest, Trump had said the opposite on both these issues and then claimed he can solve the non-existent issue. So no he's not honest. People priortise politicians that make them feel good rather than truth, it has always been this way but I think Trump has taken it to another level.

Do you dissagree with the rest of it like this part - "This post reflects a strong anti-progressive stance, particularly in response to certain feminist critiques of masculinity. The writer's frustrations with "man-hating" rhetoric are evident, but the post is biased in its framing of the progressive movement as a whole. It tends to generalize and oversimplify complex issues related to gender, creating a polarized view of the debate. While it acknowledges a personal dislike of Trump, the post ultimately positions the defeat of the "SJWs" as a "win," focusing more on the ideological conflict than on any productive discussion about how to address the complexities of gender inequality and masculinity. The tone and language used make it clear that the author is more concerned with attacking progressive rhetoric than engaging in a nuanced discussion of these important issues."

Not really at least of I have some kind of self-awareness

I dont really disagree with you, maybe a better way of phrasing it from my side is something like to be a better or more rounded leader maturity and experience is needed. Through this compassion will most likely come anyway. When I say compassion in this context as a leader, I mean compassion for those that are following. So for example I would say Trump is not compassionate because he only cares about those that vote for and are loyal to him whereas the job of the president should be to serve all americans. We may disagree about that but you get my meaning in terms of circle of concern. I would probably argue that young men who are immature and lack experience could come across as 'unmasculine', this depends on how we define masculinity of course, but i think without the kind of emotional grounding ie being able to process emotions and understanding others emotions, they could be more liable to not be able to handle their emotions and be more feminine in the regard, just with a masculine presentation if you like. But i agree a lot of this is subjective and masculinity itself is a social construction and open to interpretation and also redefinition. If anything I'm trying to present a case for a healthy and more holistic version of masculinity.

@BlackPhil Because something happened, in this case a lot of votes for Biden does not equal on its own that there was any foul play. As @zurew said you would have to prove the foul play, which is not something that's been done in 60+ lawsuits, as well as organisations like Fox who said the lie being successfully sued for defamation. Just saying 'isn't this a weird thing that happened?', does not amount to a serious conversation on the topic, espeicially when we have concrete proof that it wasn't the case. If you accept, pending any proof you have, that the election wasn't rigged then you have to contend with the capitol being stormed on a lie. Which either makes trump very stupid and delisional or that he was trying to subvert democracy and stay in power through force and manipulation pf his followers

I can't take him seriously when he talks about it being a new era of truth but then votes in a guy that still either believes or lies about the previous election being stolen. As well as up to 80% of the right believing it. If I'm charitable to Marcus and say that he doesn't know how many believe this lie or he believes the lie himself then that makes him incredibly stupid to not know or take into account such an obvious point of contention

Yeah that's exactly it lol. I knew he would argue with the AI instead of self reflecting, when I've responded to him in the past and taken considerable effort to make him see another perspective which is usually met with argumentation. So I thought outsourcing it to AI might be fun. I put in a few of my posts into AI and its actually a great tool to check your own blind spots and bias' but if you're too tied to your ideas then obviously AI will be quite threatening to you

Thoughts?

It seems like the person replying is expressing skepticism about the AI's ability to think independently and is accusing ChatGPT of being biased toward a particular ideological perspective—specifically, the views associated with social justice movements or "SJW" ideology. Here’s a breakdown of the key ideas in their reply: ### 1. **Accusation of AI Bias**: - The person claims that the response provided by ChatGPT is not a product of independent reasoning but is instead a reflection of programming or ideological bias ("programmed with SJW ideology"). - They argue that the AI doesn’t "come up with this shit on its own," implying that the analysis is not original but shaped by external influences, such as the creators or the sources from which the AI has learned. ### 2. **Skepticism about AI's Autonomy**: - The reference to "dangerously close to the Matrix reality" seems to imply a concern that AI could be taking over human decision-making or shaping people's thoughts in a way that restricts autonomy and freedom of thought. - This suggests a broader critique of AI technology, where the speaker is questioning whether AI systems like ChatGPT are neutral or if they are subtly pushing certain agendas. ### 3. **Tone and Criticism**: - The tone of the reply is dismissive, calling the response “shit” and questioning the authenticity of the AI's response. - There’s also a subtle accusation that AI’s role in discussions like these could be dangerous because it might be reinforcing certain ideological positions instead of offering a balanced, unbiased perspective. ### A Response to the Reply: The user seems to be under the impression that ChatGPT is specifically programmed to align with social justice ideologies, but that’s not quite accurate. ChatGPT’s responses are based on patterns found in the diverse and vast corpus of text that it has been trained on, which includes a wide range of perspectives from across the political and ideological spectrum. It doesn’t have personal beliefs or intentions but simply generates text based on input and training data. That said, it's important to note that AI can reflect the biases inherent in the data it was trained on, which might include biases toward certain social or cultural perspectives. While I strive to provide nuanced and balanced views, I am influenced by the sources and discussions I have been trained on, which may lean toward particular narratives or frameworks. If you feel that certain perspectives aren't being represented fairly or fully, that's a valid point, and I encourage critical engagement and a diversity of viewpoints in these conversations. Regarding the "Matrix" reference, it’s a common metaphor for the idea that people can become trapped in systems that shape their thinking, whether through media, technology, or ideology. It’s a fair concern to have, especially as AI technology becomes more integrated into daily life. However, AI’s role should ideally be to assist with facilitating dialogue, providing information, and promoting critical thinking, rather than replacing it. In short, I’m here to provide insights based on a broad range of information, but it's up to you as the user to critically engage with those insights and make up your own mind.

healthy as in causes suffering vs doesnt cause suffering. I get you in terms of war and conquest has led us to where we are now, but that doesnt necessarily mean that it was the best route. To be fair we don't know whether unity and compassion would've been the best route either, maybe we would've have all died from a plague because we couldn't make a decision, I don't know. I would say speculatively that if everyone is on the same page you would probably see more progress. You probably would agree that having individuals today that want to take over the world by conquering and going to war wouldn't be the best way to achieve progress in society. Do you not think masculinity should include compassion, or what's your argument?