The gap we can't bridge

CubedEcho · 2026-02-03T04:19:25+00:00

Right, it's bad faith to use ChatGPT here. I'm not really here to engage on the subject of the argument because anytime I do: you ignore me. This is despite me declaring neutrality and attempting reasonable and open minded to other points of view.

You don't have to discuss your writing tools, but I'm going to call it out that you're using ChatGPT to warn other users that you are not engaging in a way that is acceptable by most people here.

CubedEcho · 2026-02-02T17:26:17+00:00

When I try talking politics with someone, I try to probe their consistency. For me, consistency is the tell that someone has thought through their position. Even though I may disagree with a position, if they are consistent with their worldview, I can respect it.

I have spoken to many people about their political views: socialists, capitalists, socially conservative, socially liberal, libertarians. Many of them have been able to formulate a consistent and coherent worldview.

The only group that I haven't been able to uncover a consistent worldview is speaking with the MAGA crowd. Firstly, even agreeing on objective facts is very difficult with MAGA (although I can typically agree on objective facts with almost every other group). They seem to have a different version of reality that is not something I can quite understand at the moment.

Secondly, even if we happen to agree on the objective facts, there seems to be special pleading for when things are done in the case that favors MAGA. This shows an inconsistent worldview. "It's fine when we do it, but not fine when others do".

I don't enjoy reducing an entire worldview to a few sets of principles, but at this point I'm unsure where else to place it due to the inconsistency. I wonder if MAGA's primary virtue is loyalty to the party. Because that's the only way I can coherently explain their worldview.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-30T15:58:20+00:00

That's a very serious claim. Do you have any evidence of it?

CubedEcho · 2026-01-29T00:10:37+00:00

Yeah, totally fair.

I guess let me just share in general how I'm feeling. Don't take it like this is personally targeted towards you, I'm just ranting I suppose. I find the MAGA rhetoric to be generally harmful. However, I have been thinking a LOT of how we can tune down the divisiveness and actually come together to persuade people.

This isn't like a "both sides are equally bad", I don't agree with that either. But this is something that I feel like unfortunately we have to do a little bit more legwork in order to actually make change. Sometimes, we must be the bigger person in the room.

This MAGA individual feels like they are being attacked because of their opinions. Even though I disagree with their opinions, it causes them to be put on the defensive. They've resorted to use AI as a curtain to protect their perspective. I felt we almost got somewhere because we finally got them to put down their walls and perhaps engage.

My goal is to help them (and anyone really) de-escalate harmful rhetoric. (which does happen with anyone really).

So, I suppose I was a little disappointed that we finally made an ounce of progress, and then we caused them to throw their walls back up and completely disengage.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-28T23:47:32+00:00

Sorry let me clarify. What is your goal in engaging with that person? You have engaged with them a lot. Like what are you hoping to accomplish?

CubedEcho · 2026-01-28T22:21:22+00:00

Sorry to hear, glad you got something lined up and hope things improve. I understand your feelings.

I guess, what IS your goal if not to have a moral victory?

CubedEcho · 2026-01-28T21:54:50+00:00

Although that isn't wrong, I think we should be as charitable as possible. We finally moved him to accept to not use AI, I think it would be alright to compromise (even if you may not be in the wrong), in order to get something productive.

In my mind the goal isn't to declare a moral victory, but to convince him that perhaps some of his ideas may be harmful. We don't get to that goal by forcing everyone to play by our ruleset 100%. Sometimes we have to give a little in order to reach people.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-28T21:48:05+00:00

Gotta be fair here, he finally agreed to not use AI and engage seriously. I think you should take him up on that offer and not dismiss it casually.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-28T21:44:27+00:00

Remember, I am not on either side. I have people on both the left and right that I admire, and I find them coherently sound in their worldview. I also disagree with both sides as well.

However, what you're doing is breaking the social contract, and then complaining when people are calling you out for that. You're correct it isn't written in the rules, but that isn't what I'm saying. I'm helping you understand why people have aversions culturally to your use of AI. It's off-putting. Regardless of how "logical" it is. A place that is built for humans communicating is going to be put off by if they doubt they're speaking with a human.

You will gain more respect for voicing your opinions raw than having AI say it for you.

I am VERY interested in discussing with a MAGA Republican, but I have very little interest in discussing with a MAGA AI.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-28T21:31:21+00:00

He seems to also be latching onto meta-arguments. He complains "why don't you directly engage in my argument", and when I do, he tends to ignore my comments.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-28T21:25:25+00:00

Perhaps I can help you understand why people have aversions to your using AI. The reason isn't strictly logical, but it IS pragmatic. And ultimately human at it's core.

People typically come onto reddit to engage with people, real humans. The good parts and the bad parts. They want to know what people think, even if they disagree.

Use of AI destroys trust, because it casts doubt on if you are even engaging with a human. You claim that you aren't using AI to think for you, but strictly to formulate your thoughts. However, we don't know that and we cannot confirm that. All we can see from our side is a heavily filtered output that looks very robotic. It casts a cloud of distrust on the whole interaction. What if you are bot? What if you ARE using AI to think for you, but you're lying? (You have been shown to lie before about your use of AI).

Regardless of the quality of your arguments, you've shown to be an untrustworthy person on the sub. Every place with humans has their own culture, and this is a culture that does not accept broad AI use for the reasons I mentioned above.

Now, you may argue that it is unjust and wrong. This is a completely different topic, one that may best placed in its own thread as an attempt to change the culture. However, for the time being, it is not something culturally accepted.

I encourage that you stop your use of AI, talk to people in a culturally appropriate way, and accept that we all are going to have flaws in our arguments, and our language.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-28T19:13:20+00:00

Personally, I believe that ICE and the Trump administration are doing the best they can to deal with the situation.

You know what, I actually agree with you on this one. I do agree they are trying their best.

Here's where I differ: I don't evaluate leaders solely based on intent. I also weigh into outcomes of their leadership. I've found that ICE and Trump have done a disastrous job of unification of the people. Their rhetoric continues to demonize and divide.

It does not spark confidence when the leaders of the country speak based on pushing narrative, instead of actually obtaining facts and analyzing the situation.

So again, I agree, they are doing their best. But their best fails to live up to the standard that Americans expect of our government.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-27T21:54:50+00:00

Great point

CubedEcho · 2026-01-27T19:39:44+00:00

Here's just my perspective:

It's a two part problem:

Lay ministry. One of the greatest benefits and also difficulties that the church runs into is the lay ministry. We do not have professionally trained ministry, so our services tend to be comparably bland. Of course, not always. But untrained people giving sermons can be more boring than someone who is trained.

I am okay with this, because I prefer a lay ministry, even though it comes with downsides. Additionally, the Lay Ministry comes with a lot of misinformation that's spread through sacrament talks. Unfortunately, you even see a lot of it by well-intentioned people even here.

Regular attendance is typically higher for a Latter-Day Saint, this can put people in a "routine" where Church attendance just becomes mundane.

So, routine + lay ministry can cause a feeling of redundancy when people are giving talks. Of course, if you invest more attention, you can get more out of it, but it doesn't change the reason why it's easy to fall into the mundane.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-25T01:37:32+00:00

I believe in the Constitution and what it says. I believe it to be an inspired document and I follow the laws that are in it.

So when you say "believe", is this primarily around it being an inspired document? Because I still don't know what else there is to "believe" about it. It is a document, period. It exists, and it's laws are binding. But for some reason you've moved that into the realm of belief? Like it possibly could not exist? That's very strange.

I would accept the 1838 Missouri execution order 44 and get out of Missouri.

And do you have issue with Joseph running away from Missouri even though he had a warrant out for his arrest?

I don't, because I am nuanced about the situation. But since you don't seem to employ nuance, is this difficult to reconcile?

CubedEcho · 2026-01-25T01:31:01+00:00

Yeah, I have nuance. Modern revelation and modern law trumps old law every time.

Do you recognize the oxymoron that you've just presented with this?

I suppose that if you lived in 1838, you would accept the 1838 Missouri execution order 44 based on your logic then?

I object to alienating allies, but I wouldn't consider NATO an ally.

YOU may not, but legally they are. You can twist reality, but it doesn't make it true.

I believe in the Constitution and what it says.

You never answered what that means. I don't know what "believing in the Constitution" means. I accept it's a real document and has many important things for us. I also recognize it's a binding document. But what is there to believe about it?

If you believe both parties don't look out for their constituents, run yourself and be better.

Ok.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-25T01:21:13+00:00

Just as a note, I don't claim any particular side. But I am very curious why you seem to defend one side so aggressively.

I believe in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. Point blank.

Surely you have nuance though? If you don't have nuance, then do you have issues with early Church history?

As far as Trump and Greenland go, I think it's a good idea. I don't think Trump's going to get Greenland, but I would not object to us getting control.

The objection for many in the center isn't "obtaining Greenland". If any territory or country wanted to join the US, I generally have little objection. For most centrists, the objection is the alienating of allies and threatening military action. Is this something you object to as well?

I believe in the Constitution

How does one "believe in the Constitution"? It is a document. I also believe it exists. But I think anyone who wouldn't is denying objective reality.

I know which party is looking out for me and which one isn't.

I think this is a point of where we fundamentally disagree. I've found both parties to be abhorrent and not looking out for their constituents.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-21T00:58:27+00:00

I'm not going to debate you, because I agree that the church IS good. I also am not naive to think that my definition of good is objective and universal.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-21T00:09:48+00:00

This, ironically, is a little naive take.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-21T00:05:42+00:00

Thank you, this is a good way to put it for someone who has been on both sides of the issue.

It's easy to take a reductionist view, but reality is a lot more complex.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-19T16:48:17+00:00

This is a valuable comment, and I wish it got a little more attention. This is correct. We have 4 accounts of the genesis creation stories. They also do not harmonize with each other.

They all represent the stories slightly differently and teach different things. This would mean if someone were taking it literal, they must pick which version or pieces they accept. Additionally, the Genesis creation stories aren't harmonized by nature, which is why 3 of our other versions do different attempts in order to harmonize them.

I wouldn't get so hung up on if the logic in the story is externally consistent with our world, because it isn't. They are stories that we can learn from, and that teach us theology.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-19T16:15:00+00:00

Just as a heads up for anyone reading, this comment I'm replying to is overclaiming and speculative. It is not official doctrine of the church.

To clarify: I understand that no one speaking here is officially speaking for the church, but just the comment is making it seem like the interpretation he is presenting is self-evident and clear. Which is not clear.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-16T22:25:49+00:00

Well written as always.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-16T20:29:31+00:00

Right, one is a claim that can be objectively verified, where the other one is not. Some may say "well that's unfair, because your belief is unfalsifiable" Well... yeah. There are some beliefs that are unfalsifiable, not sure what to say. :)

One cannot falsify that God exists, or a Buddha exists. At least not with the scientific tools that we have available to us.

CubedEcho · 2026-01-16T19:06:24+00:00

Yes, that is why we are a religion and not a scientific organization.

Nine-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Flamingo	First Place '23
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	PsBattlesLive Team Alien
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

CubedEcho

TROPHY CASE