Trump won, ha ha

[something_else]

I have sympathy for you. Relentlessly fighting with the trauma ghosts in your head every day must be very tiring

[Devon]

Once you remember most people in the country lack critical thinking skills, AND are mostly self-interested stage blue/orange… and you combine that with Covid caused inflation, high interest rates, etc…then it makes perfect sense he won. You’ve got many different “types” of Trump voters and he was able to appeal to them all.

1.)  Your maga cultist / homophobic / racist “anti woke” crowds

2.) Those who demonize the establishment, institutions, bureaucracy and think Trump represents a fight against that.

3.) Those who just want prices to decrease. And think he’s a better “economic” candidate. Whether that’s rational or not.

4.) Evangelical nationalist types

5.) Greedy capitalists

But at the end of the day most Americans think we are on the wrong track as a country and are struggling, so being the candidate viewed as the incumbency is a huge disadvantage…especially if they give off the vibe that everything is okay while the other candidate repeatedly points out it’s not. 

It’s going to be a rough / interesting 4 years…I predict we will continue to have a party switch every 4 years as the American empire slowly declines.

[mr_engineer]

1 hour ago, something_else said:

I have sympathy for you. Relentlessly fighting with the trauma ghosts in your head every day must be very tiring

What?! I'm laughing about a reality that has thrown millions of people into an emotional crisis!! 

[Consept]

On 09/11/2024 at 7:18 PM, mr_engineer said:

'Men are the historic oppressors', 'Masculinity is toxic', 'Men are more dangerous than bears', 'the solution to men's loneliness is that they should smile more', 'men just need to be better', 'men are trash', blah blah blah. All of this man-hating nonsense spewed by progressives has come back to bite them in the ass. 

As much as I despise Trump, the SJWs 100% deserved to lose this one. 

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.

[Nemra]

😀

[mr_engineer]

@Consept All hail the almighty ChatGPT. 

The fact that you couldn't be bothered to write out a reply of your own, shows that we're dangerously close to the Matrix reality. 

We all know that ChatGPT has-been programmed with SJW ideology. It has not come up with this shit on its own! 

[Consept]

11 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

@Consept All hail the almighty ChatGPT. 

The fact that you couldn't be bothered to write out a reply of your own, shows that we're dangerously close to the Matrix reality. 

We all know that ChatGPT has-been programmed with SJW ideology. It has not come up with this shit on its own! 

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.

[mr_engineer]

9 minutes ago, Consept said:

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.

See? The AI said it itself. So, you might want to stop with the copy-pasting and start using your own brain. 

[integral]

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

See? The AI said it itself. So, you might want to stop with the copy-pasting and start using your own brain. 

Yeah, he was definitely using AI, but I think in general, we should be using AI to fully flesh out an idea and expand an idea as far as we could take it. And then, after that, make the idea our own and put in our own words.

[Buck Edwards]

Well what's wrong with using AI? 

[mr_engineer]

16 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Well what's wrong with using AI? 

This is a personal development forum. If you're not even willing to express your own opinions, it's a waste of content-space. Content generated by AI is garbage content for personal development. You need content generated by people because role-modelling is everything for personal-development. 

[Buck Edwards]

Just now, mr_engineer said:

This is a personal development forum. If you're not even willing to express your own opinions, it's a waste of content-space. Content generated by AI is garbage content for personal development. You need content generated by people because role-modelling is everything for personal-development. 

Nobody said that AI generated text didn't comprise personal opinions. There are lots of non native English speakers who use to AI to perfect and structure their sentences. The opinions are still theirs. 

[mr_engineer]

1 hour ago, integral said:

Yeah, he was definitely using AI, but I think in general, we should be using AI to fully flesh out an idea and expand an idea as far as we could take it. And then, after that, make the idea our own and put in our own words.

If you were talking about professional writing, what you're saying would make sense. 

However, this is personal-development. It is very important to separate those ideas which are your own original ideas, from those that are second-hand ideas. You have to be a real person talking to real people, you have to think through everything yourself. AI is not human, therefore it deserves no credibility when it comes to personal development. Who is this AI to tell us what's ethical/what's high-consciousness and what's not?! Get it out of here! 

[Joshe]

@mr_engineer Consept was basically saying "Your ideas aren’t worth engaging directly, so here’s a robot’s take on them.” I see it as a kind gesture he had hoped would, but I'm sure did not expect, lead you to self-reflection.  

He wasn't trying to take you down. 

Maturity in discussion involves openness to feedback, a willingness to examine one’s biases, and the ability to separate one’s ideas from one’s identity. 

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:04 AM by Joshe

[Princess Arabia]

44 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

If you were talking about professional writing, what you're saying would make sense. 

However, this is personal-development. It is very important to separate those ideas which are your own original ideas, from those that are second-hand ideas. You have to be a real person talking to real people, you have to think through everything yourself. AI is not human, therefore it deserves no credibility when it comes to personal development. Who is this AI to tell us what's ethical/what's high-consciousness and what's not?! Get it out of here! 

I had to. Lmao. Not at you, but the comment itself. On a serious note, if you can't see that the drama never ends and as soon as one conflict ends another is born, then I don't know. Conflict within conflict within conflict. It never ends. Sooner or later when the ego tires, it wakes up, lol.

[Princess Arabia]

25 minutes ago, Joshe said:

@mr_engineer Consept was basically saying "Your ideas aren’t worth engaging directly, so here’s a robot’s take on them.” I see it as a kind gesture he had hoped would, but I'm sure did not expect, lead you to self-reflection.  

He wasn't trying to take you down. 

Maturity in discussion involves openness to feedback, a willingness to examine one’s biases, and the ability to separate one’s ideas from one’s identity. 

 

Lol. Are you guys serious. Who is going to accept a robot's critique of them without them asking for it. This AI thing is getting out of hand. Using AI as a moderator and a judge referee, will surely put someone on the defense. Why even talk anymore. Why even a forum. Sooner or later AI will have it's own posting limits, because it's talking more than you guys are. Can someone use AI to critique this comment. I don't mind. I'd love to finally tell a robot off using AI to do it for me. Hehe 

Edited Tuesday at 04:29 AM by Princess Arabia

[Joshe]

55 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

Lol. Are you guys serious. Who is going to accept a robot's critique of them without them asking for it.

haha... yeah, I was just entertaining myself.

Here's what the AI thinks of you: 

I have it analyze my own thoughts all the time. I like how you can make it focus on specific points. I had it focus on maturity in my last post. It didn't want to do that at first. It tries hard to stay neutral and not offend. 

Another member plugged one of my posts into it the other day and it responded that I'm likely biased against white men, which is funny, because I'm a white man. 😂

If we're being honest though, most of us here couldn't compete with an AI intellectually. Yeah, we can often make connections better than the AI but as far as analyzing those connections, AI can save us a lot of time there and show us things we might have missed, as well as help us better articulate a jumbled mess of intuitions. Some people think it will lead to cognitive decline but if you use it right, it can improve cognition. 

Edited Tuesday at 05:23 AM by Joshe

[Jacob Morres]

sheesh ai is getting good 

[Consept]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

Consept was basically saying "Your ideas aren’t worth engaging directly, so here’s a robot’s take on them.” I see it as a kind gesture he had hoped would, but I'm sure did not expect, lead you to self-reflection. 

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 

[Javfly33]

On 10/11/2024 at 8:12 AM, Princess Arabia said:

Now Trump is talking about the government recognizing only male and female genders. He says God created only two genders. He hasn't even been sworn in yet but already trying to dictate. Umph....

@Princess Arabia

He is right. 

There are only two genders. Any other combination is a mental illness. 

If you don´t create any fantasy or paranoia about 'what gender you feel/identify with' in your head, there is only the truth whether you have male or female reproductive organs, that´s it.

In fact the mere word 'identify' already describes relativity and the start of any mental illness. 'Identification' is how you create any mental illness that can exist in a human's mind. 

The Left has basically normalized mental illness. That´s all that is going on. To the point people will go to surgery to change their reproductive organs becase the paranoia in their mind is that strong.

I want you to know we are not far away from normalizing removing your intestines and playing with them and using them as a belt to hold your pants. Thank God a conservative party is stepping in, before is too late we end up completely mad. 

Edited Tuesday at 12:54 PM by Javfly33