Consept

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?

Like everyone they probably had some compassion but i think their ego wouldve over ridden it if they priortised conquering nations over the well being of their people. I should maybe qualify that I mean healthy masculinity, no doubt the names you mentioned were masculine but it would seem not a healthy version.

Chat GPT analysis This forum post expresses a strong opinion about what the author perceives as the "man-hating" rhetoric often attributed to progressive or feminist ideologies. The writer seems frustrated with what they consider to be widespread anti-male sentiment and views the backlash to these ideologies as a justified consequence. Despite their personal dislike for Donald Trump, the author expresses that the "SJWs" (Social Justice Warriors, a pejorative term often used to describe progressive activists) deserved to lose, presumably in the context of Trump's political victory or the outcome of a particular event or election. ### Summary of Key Points: 1. **Frustration with Anti-Male Rhetoric**: The author lists several statements and ideologies they consider to be anti-male, including phrases like "men are the historic oppressors," "masculinity is toxic," and "men are more dangerous than bears." These phrases reflect what the writer sees as extreme or harmful generalizations about men that they believe are prevalent in progressive or feminist discourse. 2. **Criticism of Progressives (SJWs)**: The post points to what the writer views as "man-hating nonsense" being pushed by progressives, which they believe has led to a backlash. The writer seems to view this backlash as a deserved consequence for progressives' rhetoric. 3. **Acknowledgment of Trump's Win**: Although the author expresses dislike for Donald Trump, they suggest that, in this particular case, "SJWs" deserved to lose, implying that the progressive side of the debate was overly negative or unproductive, and the loss (likely referring to Trump’s victory) was a justifiable outcome. ### Bias and Framing: - **Strong Anti-Progressive Sentiment**: The tone of the post is hostile towards progressives, particularly those associated with social justice movements or feminist activism. The use of terms like "man-hating nonsense" and "deserved to lose" suggests a deep frustration and negative opinion about progressive stances on gender and masculinity. - **Generalization of Progressives**: The post frames all progressives or "SJWs" as promoting extreme anti-male rhetoric. This is a broad generalization that overlooks the diversity of thought within progressive circles, where not everyone would agree with the extreme statements mentioned (e.g., "men are more dangerous than bears"). By lumping all progressives into one category, the author oversimplifies the issue and frames the debate as an "us vs. them" scenario, which tends to polarize rather than encourage nuanced discussion. - **Reactionary Tone**: The post frames the defeat of the "SJWs" (which might refer to the 2016 election outcome or other cultural shifts) as a "win" for those who oppose progressive ideas on gender. The use of phrases like "deserved to lose" implies that the loss was karmic or just, rather than reflecting a broader political or social context. - **Dislike for Trump**: The writer’s expression of dislike for Trump adds complexity to the post, as it shows that the author is not necessarily a supporter of Trump himself, but they are more focused on criticizing the progressives' views, which they see as part of the reason for the backlash or defeat. ### Potential Biases: - **Anti-Progressive Bias**: The post clearly conveys a strong bias against progressive ideologies, especially feminist or gender equality perspectives. By framing the issues of toxic masculinity, men's oppression, and the perceived criminalization of men as "man-hating nonsense," the writer shows a dismissive attitude toward these issues, potentially ignoring the valid concerns some progressive groups raise about gender inequalities or toxic cultural norms surrounding masculinity. - **Over-Simplification**: The statements listed (e.g., "men are trash," "masculinity is toxic") are extreme generalizations that do not represent the views of all feminists or progressives. By focusing on these specific phrases, the post creates a skewed representation of the broader debate around masculinity and gender equality, which is far more nuanced. - **Polarizing Language**: The language used in the post is deliberately inflammatory, particularly terms like "man-hating" and the dismissive use of "blah blah blah." This can make it difficult to have a reasoned, balanced conversation about the topics at hand, as it frames the debate as a zero-sum conflict where one side is entirely right and the other is entirely wrong. ### Potential Counterpoints: - **Misrepresentation of Progressive Views**: While it's true that some extreme views on gender and masculinity exist within progressive circles, they do not represent the entire movement. Many progressives advocate for healthier, more inclusive models of masculinity, and their critiques of toxic masculinity are focused on addressing harmful societal pressures, not condemning all men. These views are about promoting equity, not "man-hating." - **Valid Criticisms of Traditional Masculinity**: The phrase "toxic masculinity" refers to a set of cultural norms that encourage aggression, dominance, and emotional repression, which can be harmful both to men and to society. The aim is not to demonize men, but to call out behaviors and attitudes that limit men’s emotional well-being and contribute to gender inequality. This distinction is often lost in oversimplified critiques. - **Backlash Against Political Correctness**: The writer's sentiment reflects a common backlash against what is seen as the "politically correct" or "social justice" culture, which can sometimes feel stifling or overly aggressive. However, this backlash often overlooks the reasons why progressive movements push for more inclusive and empathetic approaches to gender, race, and other issues. ### Conclusion: 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.

Thats what happened with fact checking website. People that disagreed would go to the ad hominem of questioning the credibility of the fact checkers rather than the argument itself. Or even in the 2020 election where the attacked the vote counting machines. People will destroy actual truth to defend their 'truth'. Which is basically a delusion that makes them feel good.

If you look through history, one predictable occurrence is men wanting complete power and to rule as much as they possibly can. Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, William the conquerer, Hitler etc etc. The idea of there not being men that a hellbent on world domination is actually a new thing. The reason for the shift is the outcomes are usually disastrous and involve genocides and war. As a society we have learnt lessons from the past but we're also aware that due to nuclear weapons, war can be an existential threat and so collaboration has become more prominent in how nations engage. With that comes benefits of trade, freedom of movement, information trading etc which has led nations to be incredibly prosperous. Still there lies ego within man and theres an inherent drive that some men have to conquer and rule, the issue they have is regulations dont allow them to do so. The reason why so many people like Elon Musk wanted Trump in power, is because they can get him to lower regulations and do what they want so that they can gain more power. Why would Musk by Twitter way overpriced for 44 billion and then lose so much money on it so that he can have a platform to promote his Trump propaganda? Is he doing it for fun? Of course not, hes doing it because he knows it will lead to regulations dropping and him being able to gain more power and influence. If you dont understand why people want to conquer thats fine but it doesnt mean that they dont want to, its played out all through history. Its not really to do with money he has enough, but its what the money can buy, all the money hes spent has allowed him to influence this election. Maybe Trump wouldve won anyway who knows but Musk was at least attempting to change the outcome of the election.

I would even say you can't have true masculinity without compassion. If you haven't got compassion then it's all ego and that isn't masculine because it's not being a protector or leader

WTF?? Nah hadnt heard that, thats crazy though. There was speculation that Putin has some kind of evidence against him. Its not out of the realm of possibility, Putin is capable of it and Trump would 100% do something like that, especially taking into account what Epstein was saying about his proclivities. The only thing is that it would literally have to be Trump fucking a minor or an animal or something because just normal sleeping with your friends wife stuff wont really do it. I dont really know too much about the deep state stuff, but its pretty much fact that there are lobbyists and funders of presidential campaigns that have their interests. I cant see them being happy about Trump working with China and Russia, not many in the US would be cool with that. I agree and not just him, all these media people like Tim Pool who have been spouting Russian propaganda for years

Yeah this is my feeling as well. The cold fact is Trump is for sale and theres a lot of people like Putin, like Musk who see him as a way to meet their personal objectives. To put Trump as the man in charge of the richest and most militaristic country in the world and probably in history, is batshit crazy. The Russian bots are probably everywhere and theyre working, its like digital warfare

This is actually scary, i have seen it before, but its like you would think when hes tweeting its emotional and hes just saying whatever, but its actually very calculated, he knows exactly what hes doing and they effects of it and hes not emotional at all