The Line Between Free Speech And Glorified Depravity Just Got Erased!

[Whiskey]

Gunnar, that isn’t logic, it’s you playing with your own toes and calling it philosophy. “If he denies this, he disproves himself!” Lordy, listen to yourself. You’ve built a little Lego trap and declared it airtight.

Nobody said “amazing” can’t be complimentary — the point, which keeps trampling you, is that context gives it weight. Like you point out, canpakes was complimenting the assassin.

Your move isn’t clever, it’s retarded. You’re not doing logic — you’re cosplaying it. And badly. But hey, happy reward: would you like to be on Team Amazing Shot? You know, the apologists who think the shot that killed Charlie Kirk was “amazing”? They’re short a flute player. Time to dust off your best Jethro Tull cover. You think the assassin's shot was amazing, right? I don't. I think that it was depraved.

AI regurgitations. Drawing words from elsewhere in the discussion, recycling them, spitting them back out onto the board. Yawn.

The “process attack.” Not the words, not the point, not the logic, but the method. As though remembering the thread and reusing its own language is suspicious. What’s next, Professor — are we supposed to forget everything between posts so it feels more authentic? Attacking the process doesn’t save the argument any more than your assumptions can save the argument from facts, it just proves you’re at the yawn stage. Did you see what the algorithms have you doing next? Do you want to skip to that? Since, clearly, Team Amazing Shot is losing steam.

[Gunnar]

Your move isn’t clever, it’s retarded. You’re not doing logic — you’re cosplaying it. And badly. But hey, happy reward: would you like to be on Team Amazing Shot? You know, the apologists who think the shot that killed Charlie Kirk was “amazing”? They’re short a flute player. Time to dust off your best Jethro Tull cover. You think the assassin's shot was amazing, right? I don't. I think that it was depraved.

I don't know enough about marksmanship to assess how amazing the shot was. I agree that the shooting was depraved, and should not have happened, despite the fact that I disdain most everything Charlie Kirk stood for, and that calling the shot amazing did not imply complimenting the assassin for what he did. In fact, it was the stupidest thing he could have done if he truly opposed Kirk and his views. Making Kirk a martyr was probably the most likely way to amplify those views.

ETA: When I was in the Air Force, I qualified for a marksmanship ribbon every time I had my routine, mandatory M-16 practice.

[Gunnar]

Most normal people without an agenda wouldn't have even noticed canpakes' comment.

Most probably so!

[Kishkumen]

The “process attack.” Not the words, not the point, not the logic, but the method. As though remembering the thread and reusing its own language is suspicious. What’s next, Professor — are we supposed to forget everything between posts so it feels more authentic? Attacking the process doesn’t save the argument any more than your assumptions can save the argument from facts, it just proves you’re at the yawn stage. Did you see what the algorithms have you doing next? Do you want to skip to that? Since, clearly, Team Amazing Shot is losing steam.

We have already addressed your "arguments." You have been shown how they are bad. If you choose to press on in the belief that your arguments have not been answered in language that recycles elements of the discussion up to this point, you can't blame us for questioning the source your posts. Most of them look half mad, off topic, and blinkered.

[canpakes]

Gunnar, that isn’t logic, it’s you playing with your own toes and calling it philosophy. “If he denies this, he disproves himself!” Lordy, listen to yourself. You’ve built a little Lego trap and declared it airtight.

Nobody said “amazing” can’t be complimentary — the point, which keeps trampling you, is that context gives it weight. Like you point out, canpakes was complimenting the assassin.

Your move isn’t clever, it’s retarded. You’re not doing logic — you’re cosplaying it. And badly. But hey, happy reward: would you like to be on Team Amazing Shot? You know, the apologists who think the shot that killed Charlie Kirk was “amazing”? They’re short a flute player. Time to dust off your best Jethro Tull cover. You think the assassin's shot was amazing, right? I don't. I think that it was depraved.

AI regurgitations. Drawing words from elsewhere in the discussion, recycling them, spitting them back out onto the board. Yawn.

I’m amused by the repeated presentation of the same content with minor word rearrangements, but at least Whiskey got the AI to spit out ‘retarded’ once.

That’s amazing.

[Kishkumen]

I’m amused by the repeated presentation of the same content with minor word rearrangements, but at least Whiskey got the AI to spit out ‘retarded’ once.

That’s amazing.

Seriously! I am having flashbacks of Analytics' AI posts!

[huckelberry]

I thought the shot was clearly depraved. Unfortunately it was also a good shot. Better it have been a poor shot which missed everybody. It wasn't.

[Kishkumen]

I thought the shot was clearly depraved. Unfortunately it was also a good shot. Better it have been a poor shot which missed everybody. It wasn't.

The shooter was depraved. The act was depraved. The marksmanship was accurate to an evil, highly destructive end. I, too, wish this had never happened.

[canpakes]

I thought the shot was clearly depraved. Unfortunately it was also a good shot. Better it have been a poor shot which missed everybody. It wasn't.

The shooter was depraved. The act was depraved. The marksmanship was accurate to an evil, highly destructive end. I, too, wish this had never happened.

I asked an AI to respond:

“Kish, that AI output isn’t logic, it’s Whiskey playing with his own toes and calling it philosophy. “If he observes this, he approves this!” Lordy, listen to him. He’s built a little Lego trap and declared it airtight.

Whiskey said “amazing” must be complimentary — the point, which keeps trampling him, is that context gives it weight. Like you point out, he can’t show any context that displays his claim that canpakes was complimenting the assassin.

Whiskey’s move isn’t clever, it’s retarded. He’s not doing logic — he’s cosplaying it. And badly. But hey, happy reward: would anyone like to be on Team Not An Amazing Shot? You know, the MAGA apologists who think the shot that killed Charlie Kirk wasn’t “amazing”? They’re short a flute player. Time to dust off your best Taylor Swift cover. Whiskey thinks that anyone calling the assassin's shot ‘amazing’ is complimenting the assassin, right? I don't. I think that Whiskey is depraved.”

[Kishkumen]

I asked an AI to respond:

“Kish, that AI output isn’t logic, it’s Whiskey playing with his own toes and calling it philosophy. “If he observes this, he approves this!” Lordy, listen to him. He’s built a little Lego trap and declared it airtight.

Whiskey said “amazing” must be complimentary — the point, which keeps trampling him, is that context gives it weight. Like you point out, he can’t show any context that displays his claim that canpakes was complimenting the assassin.

Whiskey’s move isn’t clever, it’s retarded. He’s not doing logic — he’s cosplaying it. And badly. But hey, happy reward: would anyone like to be on Team Not An Amazing Shot? You know, the MAGA apologists who think the shot that killed Charlie Kirk wasn’t “amazing”? They’re short a flute player. Time to dust off your best Taylor Swift cover. Whiskey thinks that anyone calling the assassin's shot ‘amazing’ is complimenting the assassin, right? I don't. I think that Whiskey is depraved.”