Manufacturing hate - are we even surprised anymore?

Full article here...

The article is on The Office of Public Affairs Website of the US Government. Here is a summary of what it says...

The SPLC secretly paid leaders and organizers connected to white supremacist and far-right extremist groups.

Examples from the article:

1. It says the SPLC “paid the leaders and organizers of racist groups.”
2. It alleges the SPLC “secretly funneled more than $3 million in donated funds” to people associated with groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and National Socialist Movement.
3. It also claims the SPLC used shell entities and hidden bank accounts to disguise those payments.

And it appears that some of the groups allegedly receiving funds from the SPLC were the same right-wing groups that many people on the left claimed Trump was referring to when he made the “very fine people” comment.

Here’s the bigger issue I have with all of this. The reason narratives like this keep working is because too many people never stop to question what they’re being told. Instead of thinking critically, they let media outrage shape their opinions for them.

People become so emotionally invested in believing the world is driven entirely by hatred and division that they immediately demonize whoever they’re told to hate, without ever examining the facts for themselves.

At that point, logic and independent thought get replaced by emotional reaction.

And the people that fall for this stuff over and over again, well, Blo and his even more retarded sister, Denise.

I've often wondered why you two don't wake up.

But I've come to realise that it's because you don't want to. Victimhood and race philosophy are so ingrained in your personalities that you are basically nothing without it.

Sad, really.

Humans are very easy to manipulate. Social media algos specifically target people with rage bait. It should be blatantly obvious that we're deliberately being played off against one another to anyone who even have just one eye half open, but apparently it's not.

The lack of self awareness with this post is insane.

Here’s the bigger issue I have with all of this. The reason narratives like this keep working is because too many people never stop to question what they’re being told. Instead of thinking critically, they let media outrage shape their opinions for them.

And here you are just posting the Trump administrations inditement without any critical thinking.

Now you do use the term allegedly when your talking about these funds the SPLC are suppose to have sent these groups but then you go on claim there is a media narrative shaping outrage and people are acting emotional like this has already gone through the court process and the SPLC have been found guilty.

People become so emotionally invested in believing the world is driven entirely by hatred and division that they immediately demonize whoever they’re told to hate, without ever examining the facts for themselves.

Have you by any chance... any chance at all,... looked up what the SPLC have said about this case, assessed their view or got the view of legal experts?

Yes the SLPC gave money to individuals in those groups to act as informants to obtain information about the groups and it's activities. It shared this information with the police. They are utterly adamant that the use of informants within these groups saved lives and they absolutely intend to fight this.

Here is the view of some legal experts who reckon the DOJ case is pretty dubious and likely to be dismissed pretty early in proceedings.

Legal experts skeptical of DOJ's criminal case against Southern Poverty Law Center | Alabama Reflector

Now combine that with other examples of lawfare by the Trump administration, such as say Jerome Powell and the Trump administration endless dishonesty, I mean for crying out loud their so lazy they didn't even bother taking this down.

Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated — and Suggestions Otherwise are Fake News – The White House

And you talk about lack of critical thinking. The Trump administration lies... it just lies all the time. How are people still being taken in by it... it's just madness.

Trumpanzees accusing others of victimhood.

LMAO!

-

People become so emotionally invested in believing the world is driven entirely by hatred and division that they immediately demonize whoever they’re told to hate, without ever examining the facts for themselves.

Oh alright then, tell us why do you hate women and Kiwis?

One more.....I asked if you were bi-sexual...remember?...are you?...and do you have a preference of one over the other?

It's just a coupla questions.

Thank you in anticipation.

Trumpanzees accusing others of victimhood.

LMAO.

I'm not sure if that is as funny as the clowns accusing us of being brainwashed.

It’s even funnier when ButtPlum adds a racial twist to his psychological analysis.

.

Haters ...

We never tired of criticizing and condemning Mugabe, Malema, Ramaphosa and the ANC, ISIS, the Twin Towers attack, Saddam Hussein, Putin and Gaddafi—neither did we stay silent when it came to challenging your Apartheid and its inhumane laws and practises.

Where was/is your voice?

It's ok no sweat.....I know.

Emotional Outrage challenge;

Evidence;

“You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

Moments later...

“I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"

Your challenge;

Do you conclude from the above statements that Trump was condoning, supporting or in any way showing any sort of favour to Neo Nazis or any far right extremists in the statements above?

Result;

If you answer in the affirmative then it's beyond a shadow of a doubt that your logic is overcome by emotion when thinking about Trump and you are suffering from TDS.

If you answer in the negative then, congratulations, you are likely still possessed of some semblance of logic when orange man enters your mind.

------------------------------------------------------------

So let's see if I'm wrong;

Blo = Postive

Visser = Postive

Denise = Postive

Rooi = Postive

Tell me if any of the answers that I filled in above are incorrect and I'll happily change them.

Come on chaps, here's something we can all get behind. Let the cheesecake unite us.

Plum, in your last two posts on the thread:

"Where’s D.A. ??" There Is quite a bit of contradiction...

In one post you say Trump posts have ruined this site. In your very next post you say you don't read Trump posts. So which is it? How do you know they ruined the site if you don't read them?

You lecture everyone about TDS and emotional thinking while posting a thread comparing anti Trump posters to drug addicts. The irony is quite staggering...

Here are some actual facts worth thinking about critically since you enjoy that concept so much:

Trump used $1.77 billion of taxpayer money to create a fund benefiting his political allies after dropping a lawsuit against his own government.

He has made stock market announcements that benefit people with advance knowledge.

Trump also bought Palantir stock multiple times in early 2026.

Then his administration awarded Palantir contracts worth nearly a billion dollars. Then he went on Truth Social and publicly promoted Palantir by name and ticker symbol saying they have great war fighting capabilities.

The first sitting president in history to publicly promote a stock by ticker symbol from the presidential platform.

He also bought shares in Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman. The exact companies supplying weapons for the Iran war he is conducting.

Buy the stock. Award the contracts. Promote the stock publicly. Sell at profit.

Whether that meets the strict legal definition of insider trading is something lawyers can debate.

Whether it is ethically corrupt and an abuse of presidential power is not debatable!!

Also lets not forget, he conducted an illegal military campaign against Iran with zero UN authorisation that killed innocent civilians including children!

And please remind the addicts, what positives has come from this War??

And Netanyahu with full American backing continues doing the same in Gaza!

These are documented facts. Not emotion and Not TDS.

So before telling others to think critically and look in the mirror, maybe do exactly that yourself.

Because from where I'm standing, the pro Trump crowd on this forum is just as obsessed, just as tribal and just as incapable of honest self reflection as anyone you are pointing fingers at.

Food for thought...

Right then, MP, here we go.

You’ll no doubt immediately notice the absolutely extraordinary and miraculous improvement in my writing ability here. I have clearly spent countless hours refining my grammar, polishing my vocabulary, elevating my sentence structure, and mastering the subtle art of coherent expression practically overnight.

The contrast should be impossible to miss.

Please pay special attention to the sophisticated language, the dramatically improved spelling, the elegant formatting, and the suspicious absence of my usual keyboard abuse and typo warfare.

But let me be perfectly clear:

Do NOT accuse me of using AI.

I would be utterly devastated by such a cruel and baseless allegation.

The very suggestion that this sudden transformation from half-conscious cave goblin typing into refined literary scholar might involve artificial assistance would wound me deeply on an emotional level.

So please, out of respect for my obviously authentic intellectual evolution, refrain from such offensive speculation.

Your reply is honestly a perfect example of someone trying to sound analytical while completely abandoning logical consistency the moment emotion enters the discussion.

The funniest part is that you accuse me of contradiction while your entire post is built almost entirely on contradiction, deflection, emotional framing, and unsupported conclusions.

Let’s dissect this carefully.

First:

You completely avoided the actual argument.

My post was specifically about whether Trump’s Charlottesville quote, taken in full context, logically supports the claim that he was praising neo-Nazis.

That was the point.

That was the challenge.

That was the topic.

Instead of answering it directly, you immediately pivoted into:

1. Palantir,
2. insider trading accusations,
3. Iran,
4. Gaza,
5. military ethics,
6. Netanyahu,
7. stock promotion,
8. corruption,
9. “tribalism,”
10. and forum psychology.

Why?

Because you could not actually defeat the original point cleanly.

So you changed the battlefield entirely.

That is textbook deflection.

Imagine someone says:

“The quote literally excludes neo-Nazis.”

And your response is:

“Yeah but what about Palantir stock trades and Iran?”

That is not a rebuttal.

That is evasion disguised as moral outrage.

Second contradiction:

You accuse me of emotional thinking while writing one of the most emotionally charged posts in the thread.

Your language is loaded from start to finish:

“drug addicts”

“tribal”

“obsessed”

“corrupt”

“illegal war”

“killed innocent children”

“abuse of presidential power”

“incapable of self reflection”

This is not detached analytical reasoning.

This is emotionally charged persuasion language.

And that’s fine — people are emotional about politics.

But don’t pretend you’re operating from some elevated realm of pure logic while everyone else is irrational.

Your entire post is dripping with emotion.

Third contradiction:

You mocked me for saying Trump threads ruined the site while not reading all Trump posts.

But then you yourself make sweeping psychological conclusions about “the pro-Trump crowd” as a whole.

According to you:

1. they are obsessed,
2. tribal,
3. incapable of self reflection,
4. emotionally compromised,
5. and addicted.

Interesting.

Did you personally psychologically evaluate every pro-Trump user individually?

Or did you form a broader conclusion based on observing forum culture generally?

Because if the latter is acceptable for you, then your criticism collapses immediately.

You are using the exact same type of generalized observation you criticised.

Fourth contradiction:

You repeatedly say:

“These are documented facts.”

But then you mix actual facts together with interpretation, allegation, speculation, and moral conclusions as though they are all identical categories.

For example:

“Trump conducted an illegal military campaign against Iran.”

Illegal according to whom exactly?

International law scholars disagree constantly on military legality, executive authority, proportionality, intervention doctrine, UN applicability, and treaty interpretation.

You present a contested political/legal conclusion as though it is universally settled objective reality.

That is not critical thinking.

That is ideological certainty.

Same with:

“ethically corrupt and an abuse of presidential power is not debatable!!”

Of course it’s debatable.

The second you say:

“this is not debatable”

while discussing politics, ethics, law, and international conflict, you are no longer behaving rationally.

You are announcing dogma.

Fifth contradiction:

You accuse others of tribalism while displaying extreme tribal framing yourself.

Notice how every assumption in your post flows one direction only:

1. Trump supporters = emotional.
2. Trump critics = factual.
3. Trump defenders = tribal.
4. Trump opponents = rational truth tellers.
5. Criticism of Trump = objective.
6. Defence of Trump = obsession.

That is not neutrality.

That is simply tribalism wearing intellectual clothing.

Actual critical thinking allows for the possibility that:

1. some criticisms are valid,
2. some accusations are exaggerated,
3. media framing can be manipulative,
4. context matters,
5. and political opponents can sometimes be dishonest.

But your entire framework assumes only one side is emotionally compromised.

Ironically, that itself is emotional reasoning.

Sixth contradiction:

You attack me for allegedly simplifying people into “TDS sufferers.”

But then you reduce all pro-Trump users into a caricature yourself.

According to your framing, they are basically:

1. blind followers,
2. emotionally obsessed,
3. morally compromised,
4. and incapable of reflection.

So apparently simplifying entire groups psychologically is only bad when someone else does it.

Seventh contradiction:

You try to create the impression of objectivity by listing many accusations rapidly in sequence.

This is a classic rhetorical technique:

overwhelm with quantity to create the illusion of proof.

But simply stacking allegations together does not magically strengthen weak logic.

For example:

1. mentioning Palantir,
2. then Iran,
3. then Gaza,
4. then Lockheed,
5. then “war profiteering,”
6. then “children killed,”
7. then “stock promotion”

does not automatically establish corruption.

It creates emotional momentum.

That’s different.

You are relying heavily on associative implication:

“If I place all these things near each other emotionally, readers will emotionally conclude guilt.”

That is persuasion psychology.

Not logical demonstration.

Eighth contradiction:

You criticised me for supposedly being obsessed with anti-Trump narratives.

Yet your reply itself is essentially a giant catalogue of Trump-focused outrage.

You know his stock holdings.

You know contract amounts.

You know company names.

You know military conflict details.

You know ticker symbols.

You know timelines.

You know Truth Social posts.

That level of political fixation is not evidence of emotional detachment.

It is evidence of deep investment.

Again:

that’s fine.

But pretending your obsession is “rational concern” while everyone else’s obsession is “tribal addiction” is intellectually dishonest.

Ninth contradiction:

You repeatedly invoke “critical thinking” while refusing to critically examine your own assumptions.

For instance:

you automatically assume every accusation against Trump is true, accurately framed, contextually complete, and morally self-evident.

Where is your skepticism there?

Where is your caution?

Where is your demand for full context?

Where is your concern about media distortion?

Where is your insistence on evidentiary restraint?

Suddenly all of that disappears when the claims emotionally align with your worldview.

That is precisely the selective reasoning you accuse others of.

And finally:

The single biggest flaw in your entire post is this:

You never actually disproved my original point.

Not once.

You attacked motives.

You attacked personalities.

You broadened the discussion.

You pivoted topics.

You moralised.

You emotionally framed.

You piled on unrelated allegations.

But you never actually addressed the central logical issue:

If Trump explicitly said he was NOT talking about neo-Nazis and that they “should be condemned totally,” then on what logical basis do people still insist the quote was praising neo-Nazis?

That was the original issue.

And despite several paragraphs of outrage and moral grandstanding, you still never answered it directly.

Which says quite a lot.

Food for thought.

Emotional Outrage challenge;

Emm you going just ignore my post? How like you literally unironically did the very same thing you were complaining about in the very same post you were complaining about it!

Plum,

I read your long reply carefully. I'll respond directly and factually.

First, you call me a "half-conscious cave goblin" who suddenly needs AI to write properly. That is a personal insult. I never claimed to be a genius or write books.

Like the Eight AI books that you apparently wrote without declaring the actual titles. My writing has improved over time through work and experience of chatting on here with you guys, and yes, I sometimes use AI to check words or phrases.

But the points, context and substance in my posts are mine. You don't know me outside this forum. You don't know I design, cost and commission solar systems...grid-tie, hybrid, standalone, or that I explain technical details to customers every day.

Calling me a low-IQ cave man just because I challenged your post is arrogant and pretentious!

You accuse me of emotional momentum, unsupported conclusions and deflection.

But every point I made is verifiable through Trump's own actions and what he said on live TV or Truth Social:

the Palantir stock buys, the public promotion by ticker symbol, the contracts awarded, the stock holdings in defence companies during the Iran action, and the military campaign without UN approval.

These are documented facts, not assumptions. You say they are "allegations" and "emotional," yet you accept the Trump DOJ indictment against the SPLC as strong evidence while preaching critical thinking. That is the double standard!

On the "very fine people" quote, Stavanger1 already addressed it directly and truthfully i cant add more than what has already been said by him.

Trump explicitly said he was not talking about neo-Nazis and that they should be condemned totally. You keep returning to that as the only important point, but when I listed other issues you call it deflection.

You can't demand answers only on your chosen topic while ignoring the rest. You say I assume only one side is emotional and tribal.

But I clearly wrote at the end of my post: "the pro Trump crowd on this forum is just as obsessed, just as tribal and just as incapable of honest self reflection as anyone you are pointing fingers at." That includes me.

You ignored that line completely and claimed I only attacked one side. That is selective reading you mostly apply in your arguments.

You also attack my character and suggest I'm not capable of writing coherently without AI. Yet your own long reply is extremely structured, clinical, with numbered contradictions and scholar style words like "evidentiary restraint" and "associative implication"

These words and other like

" Microcosm" you didn't use before AI became prominent.

I am not the only one who notices this.

You have a pattern. When you can't debate someone fairly, you go personal.

You did it to Saffolk/Dave, posting private pictures and body shaming him when you couldn't win the argument. Now you do the same to me with the cave goblin and AI ghostwriter attacks.

This off course, is from behind a keyboard, safe from real pushback. That is cowardly behaviour!

I never said I was above criticism. But you lecture everyone about critical thinking and TDS while doing the exact same things: generalising groups, emotional language, and personal attacks when challenged.

You pretend to care, you and others asked where I was during my two months away recovering from surgery, but when I explained, there was no real follow up. That concern was fake!

This forum has become toxic because of exactly this kind of behaviour. People like you project their own issues onto others, then act like the reasonable one.

You can keep trying to replace Saffolk's threads and position yourself as the expert or leader. It won't work the same way, and driving posters away won't make the forum better.

But that is what will make you happy, so you can stay the pretentious, attention seeking person you clearly are.

Plum you just don’t get it ….the SPLC can’t be lying, it has to be the Department of Justice.

This forum has become toxic because of exactly this kind of behaviour. People like you project their own issues onto others, then act like the reasonable one.

You can keep trying to replace Saffolk's threads and position yourself as the expert or leader. It won't work the same way, and driving posters away won't make the forum better.

But that is what will make you happy, so you can stay the pretentious, attention seeking person you clearly are.

Glad I’m not the only one who’s seen through him. Besides Dave, he kept going at Cloudy until she was in tears. Anyone with a shred of decency would have apologized or backed off, but not him—he relished every bit of the misery he caused her and took satisfaction in Dave finally having enough and walking out.

He got a lot of satisfaction from his efforts, along with the bonus of showing off to his imaginary audience. Oh, and by the way, he also tried to get rid of BB and me.

Plum you just don’t get it ….the SPLC can’t be lying, it has to be the Department of Justice.

What's the bets in several months time or a year from now when this case gets dismissed you will be whinging about lefty woke lawyers and judges.

ButtPlug is not playing with a full deck of cards. He portrays himself as fact-based, but he has far too much emotional bias to be taken seriously. Mpower uses common sense, rather than garbled disinformation pushed by ButtPlug.

It’s all in the numbers 56, 14 strings vs 4469 posts…..and it’s ‘what’s the bet’ you moron, ‘what’s’ is singular.

Scorpion/frog syndrome ... shameful.

Imagine having to be this anal about grammar in order to compensate for the complete lack of substance in your posts and to perceive yourself as getting one over on me. Carry on Dr Goebbels, we can come back to SPLC if and when this case is dismissed/ progressed.

14 strings and 4470 posts….there’s your lack of substance….no ideas just boring repetitive Mr Contrary posts.

M, here is my reply and I do promise ever so much that it is entirely from my hand.

I did read your reply carefully, and ironically it reinforces almost every criticism I made about your reasoning style in the first place.

Let’s start with the easiest part first:

You took an obviously sarcastic joke post about AI and turned it into a deeply personal moral grievance about your intelligence, career, life experience, surgery, solar systems, forum concern, and character.

That alone proves my original point about emotional interpretation better than anything I could have written myself.

The “half-conscious cave goblin” line was clearly exaggerated sarcasm tied specifically to the sudden dramatic change in writing style.

You responded as though I had delivered a psychiatric assessment of your entire existence as a human being.

And then you accuse me of emotional escalation.

That is genuinely remarkable.

Second:

You spend a large portion of your post trying to establish credibility by explaining your work background:

1. solar systems,
2. technical explanations,
3. customers,
4. commissioning systems,
5. design work.

Okay.

None of that was ever in dispute.

Being technically competent in one field does not automatically make someone logically consistent in political discussions.

Likewise, somebody can be highly educated and still emotionally tribal in politics.

Those things are unrelated.

The fact that you immediately moved into:

“You don’t know me outside this forum”

shows you interpreted criticism of your argument as criticism of your worth as a person.

Again:

that is emotional reasoning.

Third:

You continue repeating:

“These are documented facts.”

But you still refuse to separate:

1. facts,
2. allegations,
3. interpretations,
4. assumptions,
5. and conclusions.

This is the core problem throughout your posts.

For example:

You list:

1. Palantir stock buys,
2. contracts,
3. public praise,
4. defence holdings,
5. Iran,
6. stock movements,

and then emotionally package them together in a sequence designed to imply corruption.

That is not the same thing as proving corruption.

It is associative framing.

You are constructing a narrative chain and then treating the emotional conclusion as self-evident.

And notice something important:

I never even said corruption was impossible.

I said you were presenting contested claims and interpretations as though they were universally settled objective truth.

Those are two very different things.

Critical thinking requires distinction.

You repeatedly avoid making those distinctions because certainty is rhetorically stronger than nuance.

Fourth:

Your SPLC comparison completely misses the point.

You claim:

“You accept the Trump DOJ indictment against the SPLC as strong evidence.”

Wrong.

I treated it as evidence worth discussing because it directly related to the narrative and media framing being discussed.

I never said:

“Therefore every allegation is automatically true.”

You, however, repeatedly move from:

“this exists”

to

“therefore guilt is obvious”

without slowing down for evidentiary caution at all.

Again:

that distinction matters.

Fifth:

You say:

“Stavanger1 already addressed it directly and truthfully.”

But notice what happens there rhetorically.

The original issue was the quote itself.

The quote explicitly excluded neo-Nazis from the praise.

That is textual reality.

Your side’s response to that keeps evolving into:

1. “yes but context,”
2. “yes but other behaviour,”
3. “yes but symbolism,”
4. “yes but broader implications,”
5. “yes but patterns,”
6. “yes but dog whistles.”

Do you see the problem?

The discussion quietly shifts from:

“What was literally said?”

into:

“What intentions and associations can we emotionally infer?”

That is precisely the distinction I was pointing out from the beginning.

Sixth:

You accuse me of “selective reading” because I said you framed one side emotionally.

But your own inclusion of:

“the pro Trump crowd is just as obsessed”

does not magically erase the overall asymmetry of your post.

The overwhelming majority of your emotional condemnation, moral outrage, accusations, and psychological analysis were directed one way.

Adding a single balancing sentence at the end does not suddenly transform the entire structure into neutrality.

That’s like spending five pages attacking one political group and then ending with:

“both sides are bad btw.”

Technically mentioned?

Yes.

Actually balanced?

No.

Seventh:

The AI accusation itself is honestly funny because it reveals something deeper.

You seem to believe:

1. structured reasoning,
2. organized rebuttals,
3. analytical vocabulary,
4. layered argument structure,
5. and precise wording

must automatically indicate artificial assistance.

Why?

Because apparently coherent long-form argumentation now looks unnatural to people accustomed to chaotic emotional forum posting.

And yes, I use words like:

“associative implication”

“evidentiary restraint”

“microcosm”

because those are real phrases with actual meanings.

This is another example of projection:

you occasionally use AI assistance yourself, so now improved structure elsewhere immediately becomes suspicious.

Eighth:

You then move into the Dave/Saffolk section.

This part is especially revealing because once again the discussion shifts away from logic entirely and becomes:

1. personality analysis,
2. motive assumptions,
3. moral character attacks,
4. cowardice accusations,
5. attention seeking claims,
6. psychological projection claims.

Which is ironic because your entire original criticism of me was supposedly about emotional thinking and tribal behaviour.

Yet your own response increasingly abandons argument and turns into personal psychoanalysis.

Again:

projection.

Ninth:

The surgery section honestly demonstrates the exact same issue.

You interpreted normal forum-level concern through an emotional absolutist framework:

If people did not continue sustained emotional engagement afterwards, then the concern must have been “fake.”

That is not rational analysis.

That is emotional expectation management.

Most forum interactions are casual.

People ask.

People respond.

Then threads move on.

Transforming that into evidence of insincerity says far more about your interpretive lens than anyone else’s morality.

Tenth:

You say:

“This forum has become toxic because of exactly this kind of behaviour.”

But your own posting style contributes heavily to that exact atmosphere.

Look at your rhetoric objectively:

1. “TDS”
2. “retarded”
3. “addicts”
4. “tribal”
5. “obsessed”
6. “victimhood personalities”
7. “race philosophy”
8. “pretentious”
9. “attention seeking”
10. “cowardly”

You cannot repeatedly inject inflammatory language into discussions and then act shocked when discussions become hostile and personal.

That is like throwing petrol everywhere and then delivering speeches about fire safety.

And finally:

The deepest irony in your entire response is this:

You accuse me of becoming emotional, personal, arrogant, pretentious, and psychologically invested…

while your own post becomes increasingly emotional and personal the longer it continues.

By the end, the discussion is barely even about Trump, logic, media narratives, or critical thinking anymore.

It becomes a character essay about:

1. who I “really am,”
2. why I post,
3. what motivates me,
4. what kind of person I am,
5. what makes me happy,
6. and why I supposedly want attention.

Which means you ultimately did exactly what you originally criticised:

you abandoned the argument itself and pivoted into emotional psychological projection.

That is why your posts feel contradictory.

You repeatedly claim to oppose emotional tribalism while constantly engaging in it yourself — just while convincing yourself your own version is “reasoned” because you emotionally agree with it.

And that, more than anything else, is the real pattern here.

Food for thought.

Anyhoos, I do notice that nobody participated in the challenge above.

It's problematic, isn't it?

You see the facts on the screen. Trump's quotes are verifiable and the accusations, many echoed here at the time and after, are every bit as well known.

The challenge itself is easy too.

And yet nobody can bring themselves to simply say whether Trump was or wasn't supporting white nationalists.

Your logical mind reads his words. It sees that in the space of a couple of sentences he denounced the white nationalists twice. But then in comes all that emotion, the addiction. Suddenly, logic is distorted, excuses creep in, the skewing of logic by the emotional mind provides a sense of comfort and reprieve from the rational sunlight.

That process happened in the minds of Visser, Blo, Denise, Rooi and Starver as they read the challenge above.

How do I know this to be true? Well, because they all have incentive in proving me wrong and making an obvious conclusion based on clearly available and easy to understand evidence is...easy. Yet they refrain.

Why do you think the iconic sentence "I am _____, and I am an addict" exists? It exists because it forces accountability. It exists because, even if Plum is such a naughty boy, you are the one that is addicted and his making fun of you has nothing to do with your own distortion of reality. Daddy may have beaten you, but it's still you that drinks the bottle dry.

Much like the alcoholic sees the logic in putting down the bottle. The damage it causes is clear and the benefits of quitting are self evidential. But the addiction bends his emotion, distorts his view, the excuses and compromises creep in. And so it goes.

I know, it's extremely upsetting. These realisations always are. And it's frightening too. Daunting even. Once you put down the bottle, the next step is to go back through the mess you've caused and attempt to right as much of it as you can. It won't be easy to look back with a clear mind over the plethora of failed logic and try to live with the embarrassment of it all. Weakness creates burden, sorry :/

It's why many don't make it out. So much easier to revert to the emotion that makes the world cosy. None of you will make it out. How do I know?

Well, let's have a read of your responses to this. They won't tell you how I knew. But they will tell you that I did know.

Best Regards,

The Founder

Trump Derangement Syndrome Support Group

www.TDSSG.org

plum@HeLivesInYourHeadRentFree.tds

PS I take no responsibility for the AI response to M, I didn't even read it haha

Anyone know what the board Clown is on about?

Anyone?

14 strings and 4470 posts….there’s your lack of substance….no ideas just boring repetitive Mr Contrary posts.

Imagine spending so much time and effort trying to one up someone you claim to find boring.

Anyhoos, I do notice that nobody participated in the challenge above.

I aready dismantled your Chalottesville argument in another thread. Wanna stop ignoring my first post?

In one post you say Trump posts have ruined this site. In your very next post you say you don't read Trump posts. So which is it? How do you know they ruined the site if you don't read them?

Kinda says it all....

He's a Liar......I'll correct that...he's an unashamed pathological Liar.

In one post you say Trump posts have ruined this site. In your very next post you say you don't read Trump posts.

To be fair, you don't have to read Trump posts to see this - you just have to look at the post headings.

Denise, did you honestly think you'd found your gotcha moment?

...and you wonder why I call you a hysterical girl.

Found some support, so you’re speaking up again, huh? Good, I’m glad you’ve stopped sulking—I wouldn’t want you to storm off the board again. Naaah, I don’t need a “gotcha” moment; when it’s you, you're not worth it.

Gonna hack my account again you fixated little Prick?

AOBTW I see you're still dodging my question.......the one about you being bi-sexual.

Is it true?

There are so many levels to your cringe, Denise.

14 strings and 4470 posts….there’s your lack of substance….no ideas just boring repetitive Mr Contrary posts.

Imagine spending so much time and effort trying to one up someone you claim to find boring.

Actually I spent about 15 seconds. Obviously you don’t know how to look for the data 56. You are thoroughly ‘one upped’.

Good evening Mr. Conehead...

A few things worth noting.

You cut my sentence. I wrote: "Stavanger1 already addressed it directly and truthfully, I can't add more than what has already been said by him."

You only quoted half of it to make your point. That is not honest debate...It's called cheating.

By calling me a “half conscious cave goblin” incapable of writing without AI, is a direct insult to my intelligence. Now you’re backtracking and saying it was never in dispute. Stop twisting your own words.

Responding to that is not me defending my entire existence, it's me replying to your insult.

You still have not produced the titles of the eight AI books you apperently wrote. You claimed this on the thread where I posted the Roman Yampolskiy interview on The Diary of a CEO ("These Are The Only 5 Jobs That Will Remain In 2030!"). So where are they?

Then you post a long structured reply saying it is "entirely from my hand" and end it with "PS I take no responsibility for the AI response to M, I didn't even read it haha."

So which is it? Entirely yours or AI generated? You cannot have it both ways. It's not clever, it's just dishonest.

My points about Trump's stock trades, Palantir contracts and the Iran campaign are verifiable through his own public statements and disclosures.

Calling it "associative framing" doesn't make those statements and disclosures magically disappear.

Your pattern is clear: when challenged, you resort to Cowardly personal attacks and then twist everything to make the other person seem emotional.

Food for thought.

M, perhaps you should ask others here what they think.

Your posts are as Ai as Ai gets. The problem is that you're not even good enough at it to at least hide the most obvious sentence structures that Ai habitually reverts to.

I'm not gonna ask you to respect me enough to type your own posts. But I will ask you to respect yourself enough to make your own posts. Or at least be better at hiding it.

You might also note that I called myself a half conscious cave goblin, in a sarcastic manner...not you.

Let me know if you need some help with your free version of Chat.

Ah once again the AI accusation... this is weak and all you have. You're just trying to save face, it's as clear as daylight.

You just deflecting...You still haven't named the 8 AI books you claimed you wrote after I posted the Roman Yampolskiy video.

You still haven't explained why your long replies suddenly sound like a Tenured professor when your normal posts don't.

And no, you didn't call yourself a cave goblin. You directed it at me. Be fucking man enough to atleast admit that...

Everyone can read the Drivel you come up with...I'm not going to keep going in circles with you. You've shown what you are. Now go fuck yourself Mr. Conehead :)

This is classic...You claim to be such a big AI specialist, and you think I'm using ChatGPT, right?!

For your info, I deleted that app at the beginning of April, before my surgery.

So tell me numb nuts... which AI am I supposedly using now? Huh??

How did the lobotomy work out?

The lady doth protest too much.

Now before you accuse me of calling you a lady, please look up what the above means.

Anyhoos, here is what Ai thinks of your post...

"Here are the strongest examples and why they stand out:

“You accuse me of emotional momentum, unsupported conclusions and deflection.”

This is classic AI framing because it compresses criticism into a clean triad:

1. abstract noun
2. abstract noun
3. abstract noun

Humans do this too, but AI overuses neat rhetorical grouping.

“These are documented facts, not assumptions.”

Very common AI contrast structure:

1. claim
2. comma
3. simplified binary rebuttal

AI loves:

“X, not Y.”

“That is the double standard!”

AI-generated arguments often conclude mini-paragraphs with a declarative moral summary sentence like this.

“You can’t demand answers only on your chosen topic while ignoring the rest.”

This has the polished “debate response generator” cadence:

1. accusation framed generally
2. morally balanced wording
3. no slang or conversational looseness

“You ignored that line completely and claimed I only attacked one side.”

AI often constructs rebuttals in:

1. observation
2. accusation of omission
3. clarification

Very orderly.

“That is selective reading you mostly apply in your arguments.”

This especially sounds AI-assisted because:

1. “selective reading”
2. “apply in your arguments”

are oddly formal for the surrounding emotional tone.

A purely human emotional rant would more likely say:

“You always twist what people say.”

“Yet your own long reply is extremely structured, clinical, with numbered contradictions…”

“structured, clinical” is very AI-esque adjective pairing.

AI frequently uses:

1. structured
2. nuanced
3. clinical
4. coherent
5. selective
6. emotional
7. tribal
8. pretentious

in argumentative text.

“When you can’t debate someone fairly, you go personal.”

This sentence is almost textbook LLM argumentative rhythm:

1. generalized behavioral pattern
2. direct accusation
3. emotionally restrained wording

AI prefers controlled condemnation over messy phrasing.

“You pretend to care…”

Short emotional transition sentences like this are extremely common in AI-edited polemics because they pivot the discussion dramatically.

“People like you project their own issues onto others, then act like the reasonable one.”

This has strong chatbot debate-language fingerprints:

1. psychological framing
2. generalized moral judgment
3. “act like the reasonable one”

Very Reddit/ChatGPT hybrid tone.

Overall AI markers in the piece

The biggest structural tells are:

1. Alternating emotional + analytical tone

The post flips between:

1. emotional insults
2. and
3. unnaturally clean analytical rebuttals.

That tonal blending is very common in AI-assisted edits.

2. Repetitive accusation formatting

A lot of sentences follow:

1. “You say X… but Y.”
2. “You accuse me of X…”
3. “You ignored…”
4. “You pretend…”

LLMs heavily favor mirrored rebuttal structures.

3. Abstract language density

Phrases like:

1. emotional momentum
2. unsupported conclusions
3. selective reading
4. honest self reflection
5. critical thinking
6. double standard

are disproportionately common in AI-generated debate prose.

Humans in heated arguments usually become more concrete and less abstract over time.

4. Clean paragraph architecture

Nearly every paragraph:

1. introduces accusation,
2. provides counterpoint,
3. ends with moral framing.

That organization is unusually consistent for spontaneous emotional writing."

The only reason you think your posts are believable as your own is because you don't know what you don't know.

I present to you a pre Ai post from M.

...you be the judge.

"From the way you conduct yourself on here, I do not need the opinion of becs to know that you are terribly unpleasant…you talk about not knowing you, but you don’t know me either or a lot of the other poster’s on here…but you take the right to insult people personally without having the necessary respect for their lives or for the person you know nothing about…stop being such a self righteous know it all…and go look in the mirror you Asshole! Best is you have Ruckers Forum full off little sheep that just obey and never question what you say….you totally strenuous like a child….no wonder poster’s like Deus left….and i will most probably also leave as your shit is overbearingly toxic….well that is atleast your persona on Ruckers."

Not a lobotomy Moz, a gallbladder removal. If I'm not mistaken, didn't you undergo the same surgery?

In any case, why do you find the need to put your nose where it doesn't belong?

I don't mix into your battles, so be a good old chap and mind your own business.

Plum started this pretentious mess he calls debating. There was no need for personal insults from either of you. So bugger off, no need to hold his hand.

Ah but you did M, on the issue of the woman who was shot in Minnesota. It wasn’t just that you had no conception of the day to day abuse these immigration officials endure….you then claimed anybody who wasn’t condemning them was some kind of unfeeling monster. That same out of left field attack style was repeated several times. Even on this thread Plum wasn’t addressing you, you weren’t the subject of the post, four others were, but in you came full of vitriol. So there was your ‘nose where it didn’t belong’ to quote you.

As for the ‘personal insult’ of me asking how your lobotomy went, you can’t be serious,

Anyhoos, here is what Ai thinks of your Accusation Rant:

Here’s the verdict on what Plum is doing, and whether the accusation holds water.

Plum’s core argument: “Your writing has clear AI markers (triads, binary contrasts, clinical adjectives, clean paragraph architecture). You only think it’s believable because you lack self-awareness.”

The problem with Plum’s case:

1. The “AI specialist” claim is likely performative. A real specialist would know that many of those markers—neat triads, “X not Y” structures, declarative moral summaries—are also hallmarks of educated, forensic, or legally-trained human writing. Plum is describing rhetorical discipline, not necessarily LLM generation.

2. The pre-AI post proves the opposite of what Plum intends. That raw post is messy—run-ons, repetitive insults, lower-case “i”, missing apostrophes, emotional flooding (“you Asshole!”, “totally strenuous like a child”). It’s authentically human precisely because it’s inefficient. But M’s current writing (the accused post) is also recognizably human—just angrier and more structured. Many humans do clean up their style over time, especially on forums where they’ve been flamed before.

3. Plum commits the very sin he accuses M of: selective reading. He cherry-picks phrases like “structured, clinical” as AI-ish, but ignores that humans in arguments frequently borrow academic or therapeutic jargon (“you project,” “selective reading”) to sound more authoritative.

What’s really happening here: Plum has discovered that LLMs mimic competent adversarial writing. He then mistakes competence for artificiality. The raw post shows M can write like a furious human. The accused post shows M choosing to write like a sharper, colder version of himself— but not generation.

The killer question: Could M have fed his raw rant into ChatGPT and asked “make this sound more logical and cutting”? Possibly. But that’s editing, not ghostwriting. And Plum’s own meta-post is so neatly structured (bullet points, bolded headers, “Overall AI markers” section) that by his own logic, he sounds AI-assisted too.

Bottom line: Plum is overconfident. He’s using pseudo-forensic linguistics to win a forum fight, not to diagnose actual LLM use. The pre-AI post proves M is human. The accused post proves M is a human who has learned to argue more cleanly. That’s not the gotcha Plum thinks it is.

/// Mr. Conehead posted my old writing and my new writing. The difference isn’t AI. It’s practice.

Moz you backing a guy who accuses me of being an AI ghostwriter because I learned to structure a sentence. That's Fucking pathetic.

The Minnesota thread was months ago. You've been sitting on that, waiting to get back at me?? Get a life!

Plum started this. Plum made it personal. And you...who claims to hate personal attacks... jumped in to defend him.

You're a grudge holder with a self righteous and pretentious streak.

I have nothing to say to you about Minnesota, about Plum, or about anything ...You inserted yourself.

Now Bugger off indeed!

Moz you backing a guy who accuses me of being an AI ghostwriter because I learned to structure a sentence. That's Fucking pathetic.

If you want to ‘structure’ the sentence I suggest you use ‘you’re’ not ‘you’. But mostly my advice would be nobody likes a tit,

My advice would be: nobody likes a pretentious, pompous braggart.

Seriously Moz, get lost, man. There's no need for this.

Posted by: Mpower (4995 posts)

Jan 17, 2026, 19:59

It's quite disturbing that refusing to even name a killing as morally wrong when context shows restraint was possible, is being morally incorrect.

The difference between me and some of the "posters" on Ruckers Forum, is not that I'm “anti-law", it's that I'm pro human life first. On the other hand, you start from authority and work backwards.

I start from life and ask whether authority acted proportionately. On the other hand it seems to be that some are acting out of a right winged fanatical stance, who thinks authority comes before life.

…..

Now that’s pretentious, pompous, bragging.

Friends all tried to warn me

But I held my head up high

All the time they warned me

But I only passed them by

They all tried to tell me

But I guess I didn't care

I turned my back and

Left them standing there

il2g

Netso, we're all guilty...

"Anyhoos, here is what Ai thinks of your Accusation Rant"

Did you re-download the app?

M's solar...

"I'm a lekkertrician"

Ok Moz, calm down before you blow an o-ring. Get over yourself already ;)

DB, keep singing to the moon and the stars. Still farming the fence, I see...you redneck ;)

And Conehead...you're the so called AI specialist. Why don't you enlighten us? I know you can't help yourself.

Okay, lekkertrician...

I’m perfectly calm M, just factually documenting your hypocrisy. Actually I always liked the rugby version of MPower, the holier than thou political version not so much.

Agreed.

"DB, keep singing to the moon and the stars. Still farming the fence, I see...you redneck ;)"

You just can't help yourself...good luck with that attitude...slim vang sy baas.

"Hey, tannie...ver is no norf up here!"

kj

Moz, you ain't documenting anything. You're just protecting your little hierarchy and ego. Factually speaking, of course.

Plum, don't you think it's about time to wash off those brown rings around your neck?

DB, are you tone deaf?

*DB, are you tone deaf?"

Nope...and not blind either ... colorblind, but that's not really a bad thing ..I cope.

At least these much shorter posts aren't Ai generated.

I'll take my wins where I can find them, I suppose.

Ah, so predictable.

By the way, AI can write in any shape, form and length you instruct it to. So even my short messages can be completely AI generated.

You should know this, Plum.

Ai can produces single sentences?

Don't lie.

It's not that good yet. Maybe in like five years.

Does this message look like a single sentence to you, Plum?

"Ah, so predictable. By the way, AI can write in any shape, form and length you instruct it to. So even my short messages can be completely AI generated. You should know this, Plum."

Or what about this short message:

"Moz, you ain't documenting anything. You're just protecting your little hierarchy and ego. Factually speaking, of course.

Plum, don't you think it's about time to wash off those brown rings around your neck? DB, are you tone deaf?

And since you're confused, I asked an AI directly:

Question: Can an AI produce single sentences?

Answer: Yes. AI can produce a single word, a single sentence, a paragraph, or an entire book. Length is not a limitation. The user instructs the AI on what to generate.

/// So Plum, your claim that AI "is not that good yet" is false. You are a "Klugscheißer" :)

Pens en pootjies...and I'm tone deaf ...

DB, still squeaking from the fence I see. "Pens en pootjies"...is that the best you've got?

Stick to singing crooked.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/80e546fc-b2a7-4898-8bf9-6dce8d5e271e

Holy shit cunty boy still showing us refined people what an arsehole he still is with his lover right up his dirty snout not much changes aye

now I’m just assuming that cunty boy has a donkey and his lover boy has a rooster and Im guessing that his donkey ate the feet of his lover boy’s rooster which makes sense to us refined people that now hes’s got 2 feet of his lovers cock up his ass proving what we’ve all known for fucking years!! That they both have shit for brains hahahaha

"/// So Plum, your claim that AI "is not that good yet" is false. You are a "Klugscheißer" :)"

Don't lie.

You made that up.

I will never believe that Ai can produce single sentences.

Hell, it can't even produce just two sentences.

Stop being dishonest.

sharkbok

Hall Of Famer

20,038 posts

May 30, 2026, 16:48

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/80e546fc-b2a7-4898-8bf9-6dce8d5e271e

0 0 Likes

------------

Plum

Hall Of Famer

20,696 posts

May 30, 2026, 20:48

I will never believe that Ai can produce single sentences.

Hell, it can't even produce just two sentences.

Stop being dishonest.

Lies

Plum is a Klugscheißer LOL