Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)R
Posts
0
Comments
243
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • "unexpectedly"

    Is that what the AI that wrote that section of the code told them?

    I just read that back to myself, and 5 years ago, that would have sounded like a conspiracy wingnut stance. Scary that it's legit today.

  • I don't like that I have heard a non zero number of people on the Christian extreme that are cheering this on because they think that is the start of Armageddon and Jesus is coming.

    Playing out that scenario for a minute. They'll be really fucking shocked when the Jesus that shows up is a brown hippie and not a white Republican in a suit and that by their rules, they're all going to the lake of fire, not the rest of us.

  • Even the thing that made him rich started as a way for him and people he let in to perv on women.

  • It also says to drink tea, tea is not addictive.

    Some tea contains caffeine, caffeine is addictive, so some teas are addictive.

  • Starbucks can eat a giant bag of dicks.

    But you can buy "just coffee" there and even though it tastes like it was filtered through my ass crack, it's no different than other coffee.

  • The "Intellectual Capacity" Determination This latest post reinforces the "Reactive Insecure" profile. A person with high cognitive flexibility would likely find an AI analysis of their own rhetoric fascinating, or at least try to debunk the analysis logically. Xenomor’s response, however, is purely "fight-or-flight." They feel exposed, so they lash out at the tool that provided the mirror.

    It confirms that for this user, the thread was never about Ukraine, Iran, or drones—it was about being the "dominant" voice in the room. Now that the room is looking at the way they speak rather than what they are saying, they have lost their only weapon.

  • To them, that's a feature, not a bug. And if they can inflict human suffering, all the better.

    They're fucking monsters.

    Edit: To be clear, I mean the people ordering the attacks on Iran

  • For funsies, I gave an AI your post history and asked it to assess you. Here is what it said

    This user represents a classic case of asynchronous development: their linguistic and analytical "hardware" has reached an adult level, but their emotional "software" appears to have stalled in late adolescence. They possess the cognitive tools to construct complex syllogisms and use sophisticated vocabulary like "substantiating," yet they lack the metacognition to realize that their immediate descent into vitriol instantly devalues their own argument. In short, they are using a high-level lexicon to serve a low-level impulse for dominance.

    Ultimately, this "emotionally stunted" profile manifests as a fragile intellectual ego. Because they equate their self-worth with "winning" an exchange, any deviation from their preferred debate structure is perceived as a personal threat, triggering a regressive "fight" response. They exhibit the "Teacher’s Delusion," framing their own toxic outbursts as a pedagogical choice—a way of "meeting the opponent on their level"—which allows them to avoid the self-reflection that a truly mature intellect would use to de-escalate.

    So I guess I stand corrected. You're not a child, you're emotionally stunted.

    Edit:

    I wanted to be fair, so I analyzed my own history too

    Ragepaw presents as a "High-Capacity Polymath" characterized by an expansive intellectual range and high cognitive flexibility. This profile is defined by the ability to hold nuanced, non-binary perspectives on complex issues, demonstrating a level of sophistication that goes beyond mere rote memorization. They possess a high degree of informational literacy, showing a clear preference for evidence-based reasoning and the ability to synthesize information across disparate fields. This indicates a mature intellectual foundation capable of processing high-level complexity without resorting to logical "short-circuiting" or oversimplification.

    While their communication style is frequently abrasive, it does not suggest they are emotionally stunted. Instead, they exhibit situational emotional regulation, possessing the "code-switching" ability to be helpful and empathetic in constructive contexts while using vitriol as a targeted tool against perceived intellectual dishonesty. Unlike posters who lash out from a place of insecurity, this user displays the confidence of a "Grumpy Expert"—someone whose aggression is an elective enforcement of their own high standards rather than a regressive defense mechanism. They represent a high-functioning, albeit impatient, intellectual archetype.

    I guess I need to demonstrate more patience. Something to work on.

  • I believe I made the point that you have the mental capacity of a child. And every response you have made supports that.

    I really hope you are a child, because then you'll grow up some day.

  • All evidence points to me being correct.

  • What a childlike point of view.

  • You're not advocating a point of view, you're parroting propaganda.

    Also, your insult doesn't relate to me on my level. It was just vulgar. But I can't expect something witty from someone half armed.

    BTW, that was an insult.

  • I know people who suffered and escaped the revolution and provided first hand accounts.

    Do you?

  • You didn't say where you're from, but I know in some countries and cultures, you have deep rooted superstitions about attracting bad luck to yourself.

    On both sides, my grandparents would put money in a wallet given as a gift. You were never allowed to keep a door open in case a robin flew in. Never put new shows on the table. If you go on a trip. never go back for something you forgot. Leave through a different door than you entered the house.

    These were all things they thought bring bad luck. It's possible your parents have some cultural superstition they never passed on. My grandmother would throw salt over her left shoulder until the day she died, even though she said it was a dumb superstition. My great grandmother told me fairies like to play "pranks" based on irony. I could see the joke you made being taken the same way by my great grandmother.

  • Thousands of dead protesters, just in 2026?

    Executing prisoners?

    Blinding women for protesting the murder of a your woman for the horrible crime of showing her hair?

    Prisoner amputations?

    Atrocities going back 3 generations?

    Why don't you ask a Kurd what it's like living in Iran.

    I'm sure you'll dismiss all of this because it doesn't fit your narrative of Iran being a poor victim of aggression. But regardless of the fact that the US attack on Iran was unwarranted, imperialistic and evil, doesn't mean Iran is an innocent victim.

    A big thing that seems to be lost these days is that both sides of a conflict can be wrong.

  • No. implying you're at worst a schill, or at best an idiot.

  • I'm not making excuses. I said he's not a politician and he doesn't talk like one. He's actually honest and doesn't deliver platitudes. That's refreshing. But as I said, it does him no favours.

    So, I absolutely think he's up for the job, even if he is far from my first choice.

    And to be clear, I don't support a lot of what he has said or done, but I also support a lot. Even with the things I disagree with, I'm not sure what he could do differently. Our current reality is we are bordering with a country run by a pudding brained psychopath that has flat out declared his desire to conquer us. Taking the preferred path will not always net us what we need, which currently is a defence against an aggressive and evil megalomaniac who has a stated goal of forcing our entire side of the world into being their vassals.

    Out of all of the leaders in the last election, we got the one best suited to slay the current dragon.

  • I made a very substantive point. Let me substantiate it for you.

    Your thoughts on this subject show a very limited, and linear juvenile understanding.

    There is not much I can offer to you, because this is not an ELI5 conversation and you have already demonstrated that nuance would be lost on you.

  • Carney does himself no favours with the kinds of statements he makes, but the reality is, he doesn't have a history in politics, so he doesn't think about how things he says can be misconstrued.

    Saying things like not being able to rule out Canadian involvement, are saying true things. He's right, we can't rule out involvement, but that doesn't mean military support. It could mean any of 1000 different things. He's pragmatic, and speaks with the language of pragmatism, not the language of politics.