Manufacturing hate - are we even surprised anymore?

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??