Detransitioners vs the Progressive Machine: A Legal and Cultural Time Bomb

[Whiskey]

What the heck?

The man cites an AI app as a discussion-ending authority? Like "I asked my Dad, and he says"?

This is sad, and just a bit scary too ...

By the way: AI doesn't have opinions. It just churns out text in approximate imitation of what some of the people whose text it was trained on might have said in response to whatever prompt HoH gave it.

Oh my gosh!!!!!! No way. I thought it could write opinions for Supreme Court and everything. My gosh. No way.

[canpakes]

You’re referencing that split thread where the same thing happened. You made a false accusation that posters here were supporting child sex trafficking, and when it collapsed under its own weight, you split the thread instead of owning it.

That’s not discussion. That’s damage control.

It’s the same pattern here: make a false claim, defend it with fabrication, and when challenged, shift the focus or rewrite the record. Quoting another post doesn’t make your claim about the OP true. It’s retroactive justification, not evidence.

At least Shades has given you a pass to antagonize and mess with one or more posters, so technically you’re within the lines on that. But it still wrecks trust. When moderators play both sides of the line, it stops being conversation and starts being control.

Back to AI for you, it seems.

Yes, you claimed that I accused other board members of a crime. When pressed, you retracted it, because you were incorrect. It’s there in the linked exchange.

viewtopic.php?p=2909996#p2909996

You have a habit of imagining things and then asserting that folks are responsible for your imaginings. You’re doing it now, too.

By the way, there you go again with mention of moderators. : D But I am amused that you’re playing the ‘antagonized’ victim after you decided to rant about my post, out of the blue. I guess that you had no choice in the matter.

[Whiskey]

You’re referencing that split thread where the same thing happened. You made a false accusation that posters here were supporting child sex trafficking, and when it collapsed under its own weight, you split the thread instead of owning it.

That’s not discussion. That’s damage control.

It’s the same pattern here: make a false claim, defend it with fabrication, and when challenged, shift the focus or rewrite the record. Quoting another post doesn’t make your claim about the OP true. It’s retroactive justification, not evidence.

At least Shades has given you a pass to antagonize and mess with one or more posters, so technically you’re within the lines on that. But it still wrecks trust. When moderators play both sides of the line, it stops being conversation and starts being control.

Back to AI for you, it seems.

Yes, you claimed that I accused other board members of a crime. When pressed, you retracted it, because you were incorrect. It’s there in the linked exchange.

viewtopic.php?p=2909996#p2909996

You have a habit of imagining things and then asserting that folks are responsible for your imaginings. You’re doing it now, too.

By the way, there you go again with mention of moderators. : D But I am amused that you’re playing the ‘antagonized’ victim after you decided to rant about my post, out of the blue. I guess that you had no choice in the matter.

You’re lying again, and the record makes that obvious.

In that thread, you accused posters here of supporting child sex trafficking. That was a false and disgusting claim then, and it still is now.

What I actually wrote was:

You did not accuse anyone of a crime. You suggested they support a crime. Those are different claims.

That is not a retraction. It is clarification, the exact opposite of what you are now pretending it was. You made the original false accusation, and when it fell apart, you split the thread to bury it. Now you are recycling that same lie to prop up another one.

This is not miscommunication. It is a pattern of dishonesty, deflection, and revision, all while pretending to be above the conversation you are corrupting. You twist words, invent motives, and then act like the victim when called out. It is pathetic, and it is wrecking whatever integrity this place had left.

[Res Ipsa]

I’m an actual progressive, and I think our opinions are pretty similar.

Thank you, RI. I tend to think of you as a unique person, not conforming to a label, but I know you consider yourself a Progressive. If I recall correctly, your views are much closer to Progressive than mine, but I also think your Progressivism is rooted in careful, practical thinking.

Thanks for your kind words. I describe myself as "progressive" because I believe that the government should take action to make life better for its citizens, especially those who are less fortunate.

[canpakes]

Back to AI for you, it seems.

Yes, you claimed that I accused other board members of a crime. When pressed, you retracted it, because you were incorrect. It’s there in the linked exchange.

viewtopic.php?p=2909996#p2909996

You have a habit of imagining things and then asserting that folks are responsible for your imaginings. You’re doing it now, too.

By the way, there you go again with mention of moderators. : D But I am amused that you’re playing the ‘antagonized’ victim after you decided to rant about my post, out of the blue. I guess that you had no choice in the matter.

You’re lying again, and the record makes that obvious.

In that thread, you accused posters here of supporting child sex trafficking. That was a false and disgusting claim then, and it still is now.

What I actually wrote was:

You did not accuse anyone of a crime. You suggested they support a crime. Those are different claims.

And you didn’t even get that walked-back version right, even after you had to correct from claiming that I accused someone of a crime. It’s all still there in that thread.

Link to the post that you think proves otherwise. Stand your ground.

By the way, that whole derail by you is another great example of you coming out of the blue to antagonize yourself without reason or invite. Weird, right?

[Whiskey]

You’re lying again, and the record makes that obvious.

In that thread, you accused posters here of supporting child sex trafficking. That was a false and disgusting claim then, and it still is now.

What I actually wrote was:

“You did not accuse anyone of a crime. You suggested they support a crime. Those are different claims.”

And you didn’t even get that walked-back version right, even after you had to correct from claiming that I accused someone of a crime. It’s all still there in that thread.

Link to the post that you think proves otherwise. Stand your ground.

By the way, that whole derail by you is another great example of you coming out of the blue to antagonize yourself without reason or invite. Weird, right?

This isn’t debate. It’s a shell game. You switch the claim from “supporting a crime” to “accusing of a crime,” then declare victory over your own rewrite. That is textbook bad faith.

I did not retract anything. I clarified exactly what you did. You alleged support for a heinous crime, and when called on it, you tried to smuggle in a different accusation so you could knock that one down instead. That’s fabrication stacked on fabrication.

And all of this noise is just distraction from your first lie, the lie that Hound supports an outright ban. The same way you lied that posters supported child sex trafficking. The same way you manufacture bait, push it until it collapses, and then hide behind moderation when the wreckage is yours.

It’s harassment with a safety net. You get to lie, provoke, and twist, knowing that if someone calls it out too clearly, you can just tear the thread in half and claim order restored. That’s not moderation. It’s manipulation. It’s deceit with an edit button.

Oh, one more thing, GFY, liar.

[canpakes]

This isn’t debate. It’s a shell game. You switch the claim from “supporting a crime” to “accusing of a crime,” then declare victory over your own rewrite. That is textbook bad faith.

That bad faith was yours, Binger. Anyone can go back and see that you made a disingenuous claim and when called on it, had to change it. Now you’re claiming that having to correct your wording is someone else’s fault.

You might take a 10-count before always rushing to do that. Then you won’t have to walk any dumb claims back. It’s probably better for your blood pressure, too. That’s a good thing, right?

[Whiskey]

This isn’t debate. It’s a shell game. You switch the claim from “supporting a crime” to “accusing of a crime,” then declare victory over your own rewrite. That is textbook bad faith.

That bad faith was yours, Binger. Anyone can go back and see that you made a disingenuous claim and when called on it, had to change it. Now you’re claiming that having to correct your wording is someone else’s fault.

You might take a 10-count before always rushing to do that. Then you won’t have to walk any dumb claims back. It’s probably better for your blood pressure, too. That’s a good thing, right?

You’re lying again, and it’s the same lazy pattern. I never changed my claim. I said exactly what you did, alleged support for a crime, and you’ve been trying to rewrite that ever since.

You invent a false version of what was said, argue against your own invention, then pretend you “won.” It’s a toddler move dressed up as moderation. You’re not correcting anything; you’re covering for yourself.

The only bad faith here is yours, constant deflection, the smug little jabs, and the fake authority you wrap around lies. This isn’t about blood pressure. It’s about you getting caught fabricating again and trying to smirk your way out of it.

You can lie. Your lies about posters are where you cross the line as a moderator, liar.

[canpakes]

That bad faith was yours, Binger. Anyone can go back and see that you made a disingenuous claim and when called on it, had to change it. Now you’re claiming that having to correct your wording is someone else’s fault.

You might take a 10-count before always rushing to do that. Then you won’t have to walk any dumb claims back. It’s probably better for your blood pressure, too. That’s a good thing, right?

You’re lying again, and it’s the same lazy pattern. I never changed my claim. I said exactly what you did, alleged support for a crime, and you’ve been trying to rewrite that ever since.

You invent a false version of what was said, argue against your own invention, then pretend you “won.” It’s a toddler move dressed up as moderation. You’re not correcting anything; you’re covering for yourself.

The only bad faith here is yours, constant deflection, the smug little jabs, and the fake authority you wrap around lies. This isn’t about blood pressure. It’s about you getting caught fabricating again and trying to smirk your way out of it.

You can lie. Your lies about posters are where you cross the line as a moderator, liar.

Binger, that bulging neck vein looks bad. You have health care coverage, right?

[Molok]

How dare Canpakes suggest that someone who proudly enables a felon pedophile rapist supports crime. I'm offended!