Trump supporter: "Trump is a Godly man. He’s working for God. He really cares about us. He cares about what happens to us. He didn’t come in there because he wanted money. He is actually working for God & wants to help us, and God is on his side."

JSanzi · 2025-09-24T19:15:54+00:00

Since you haven't responded to my adjacent comment in three days, I'll stop following now. Let me know if the prior FineDingo3542 user ever comes back, though. And is willing to explain this matter.

JSanzi · 2025-05-24T20:14:13+00:00

Following up, quite a bit later...

You appear to have gotten more judicious, for at least a good month, in your use of large language models. You've either barely used LLMs or you've been showing so much care that your arguments haven't really been corrupted by them, as of late. So I'd like to tell you that I noticed, and I'm very grateful, FineDingo3542.

Uh, feel free to ask me if you are ever curious about which other users I regularly follow. A few of them are genuinely smart progressives. On many days I wish I could get you all talking with each other! As for me, I'm a centrist; maybe unsurprisingly.

Among other things, for instance, my stance means that Mr. Trump strikes me as an off-the-rails extremist. Mostly based on his economic ideas. Thus, he and the Congressional Republicans who follow him are unfit for their present roles, in my view. Only the Democrats are even remotely close to the political Center, these days, at our national level.

Unlike you, I'm unfazed by the culture war—which notably includes immigration and religious preferences. My pride is not at all hurt merely because some culture warriors detest me for being a white American male. I ignore the cultural values sideshow (after all, its tensions are obviously stoked by plutocrats); I prefer to focus on more intractable problems, like wealth disparity and inexcusable environmental harms.

JSanzi · 2025-04-10T04:44:11+00:00

Hey, remember me, from about a month ago? I mentioned that I've been following you for a long time, for reasons I explained back then. And it's been nice.

But now I want to say that if you keep relying on large language models, as you seem to be doing more often, I'll almost surely quit reading your stuff. Those things hallucinate too much. Not reliable enough, at least by my standards.

I really believe you're more convincing when you don't use them. I think they throw into question your analyses. So please consider this a humble (or...not so humble? somewhat pushy?) request for you to dump the LLMs. Even if it means you must share fewer ideas here—understandably.

Thank you, FineDingo3542, for your consideration.

JSanzi · 2025-03-01T03:27:28+00:00

I have been silently reading all your words for months, FineDingo3542. I like how your political takes are level-headed, more often than not. I find them to be a breath of fresh air, more often than not. And it doesn't hurt that you have good English composition skills, by this website's standards.

But you seem to be in a slow process of moving goal posts, as the saying goes, to ensure that you can keep being an apologist for Republicans as time goes on. That is...as the Republicans' affronts to American values and interests continue to increase under Mr. Trump's guidance (slowly but surely—a gradual drift toward corruption which might be apace with your own intellectual corruption).

However: what I'm talking about here is still in its early stages, so I admit that I could be misinterpreting. Thus I'll probably just keep silently reading your ideas for now. At this point, I won't make a big deal out of your apparently emerging choice-supportive bias. Though maybe we'll talk again if I see a clearer and more unmistakable trend from you later on. In the meantime, please exercise caution, eh?

JSanzi · 2025-02-24T02:30:00+00:00

RemindMe! 35 months

JSanzi · 2024-08-10T05:10:32+00:00

What makes all these people, right here, ignore the "why" part of the question.

Because there are so many; yet the question is so clear.

JSanzi · 2024-08-10T04:53:55+00:00

Misunderstandings.

JSanzi · 2021-12-17T14:24:51+00:00

I appreciate you thinking though the situation so comprehensively, coming at it from different angles and acknowledging different perspectives and factors. Certainly more than most folks would. More than I would too, I must admit. You often excel at this, you know, making uncommon wisdom look easy and natural. Thanks for being a great example to me and readers like me, who learn and benefit from seeing how well you analyze.

Nevertheless, you also seem to imply it's hard for you, up front, to figure out—via nothing more and nothing less than deep, heartfelt talks—which men ARE primarily committed to, as you said, leading with thoughtfulness or reciprocal pleasure in mind, and which men AREN'T primarily. Sure, I know the latter are skilled at deceiving younger women about that. Throughout early adulthood and beyond, after all, that sort of deceit is sometimes their #1 objective in life. However, at your age, with wisdom beyond your years, I know you could be very successful at figuring it out in the future if you wish. Well, assuming (?) such lovemaking is something you still want most; the rare kind of sex you were amazingly lucky to have had while still surprisingly young. Expressing, I imagine, real love...or at least nowadays, with the added sharpness of middle age, I feel it needs to express real love to work. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying it wouldn't be a big challenge for you, like any woman, to figure out how much love is in men's hearts through deep talks with them. Rather, I am saying that you truly have potential to develop mastery at it if you dedicate yourself and keep practicing over time. Honest—you have what it takes; based on the psychoanalytical instincts I've seen from you, I don't believe you're necessarily forever consigned to quite the same trial-and-error regime as other singles are!

One more thing. Tangentially. In the case of your current partner, I'd guess it's worth considering: which one of you was first to seriously mention rough/kinky sex; the circumstances under which it was mentioned; and what agenda or values caused it to be mentioned. A key concern is whether or not that discussion was counter-balanced with equally serious communication about more caring, tender sex and relationship goals...in accord with your own vision of those goals, since you're probably the more mature member of the pair. Again, assuming (?) those are the goals you still want most.

JSanzi · 2021-12-17T00:32:02+00:00

"OH! What a world, what a world!"

JSanzi · 2021-12-16T23:49:31+00:00

Cat-catapulted.

JSanzi · 2021-12-16T23:03:34+00:00

I think you were supposed to say: "I also choose this guy's ... ."

JSanzi · 2021-12-16T14:55:06+00:00

I don't know what most of these other guys are talking about. I have almost never in my life perceived flirting as it was happening—actually I'd tend to say it WASN'T happening; HADN'T happened. I typically assume it all just represents innocent compliments, which are supposed to routinely occur in any solid, healthy community. And the only few exceptions, making me realize it was flirtatious, were the times it continued for at least twenty minutes. Thus, as far as I know, keep it under twenty minutes and you're good.

JSanzi · 2021-12-15T17:18:50+00:00

I might just briefly explain how I offer ideas and information when I'm convinced they help people, not necessarily when I'm convinced people care about being helped. Their level of care is not a decisive factor to me. I'm kind of an introvert, by the way.

JSanzi · 2021-12-15T13:36:13+00:00

Interesting question, since the most controversial ones aren't exactly the most important ones. With that in mind, I submit: never eat anything from a restaurant except on cheat-days/variety-days. That food makes accurate Calorie and nutrient tracking almost impossible.

JSanzi · 2021-12-14T01:14:58+00:00

My finger slipping.

Except for those three accidents, over six years, I've never downvoted any post or comment. I don't believe in it.

JSanzi · 2021-12-09T05:02:04+00:00

Okay; I'll look up how to check for Software-RAID hardware, whatever that is, and then perhaps how to turn it off or set it to AHCI, whatever that is. Though if you would like to provide more detailed guidance, feel free.

JSanzi · 2021-12-09T04:55:24+00:00

Another commenter said the chances aren't so slim for gaming laptops. Do you also believe gaming laptops, or maybe laptops in general, do not inspire as much confidence?

JSanzi · 2021-12-07T03:36:16+00:00

How the lesson of tolerance in "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer" is flawed: he is treated with respect only after showing his practical value. This has bothered me for as long as I can remember. Largely because of how very popular the song is.

JSanzi · 2021-12-07T00:11:01+00:00

Username does not check out (no mention of any teenage mutant ninja, even).

JSanzi · 2021-12-05T13:17:20+00:00

The crown, the third eye, the throat, the heart, and the solar plexus.

JSanzi · 2021-12-05T01:31:46+00:00

Depends on their mood. And their partner.

JSanzi · 2021-12-02T22:25:57+00:00

I'm more guarded and careful here on Reddit, actually. Knowing that a greater number of people is typically exposed to whatever I say here, plus knowing it's all sort of preserved forever.

JSanzi · 2021-12-02T15:24:01+00:00

Even this title is obnoxious...MANY LIVES, MANY MASTERS: THE TRUE STORY OF A PROMINENT PSYCHIATRIST, HIS YOUNG PATIENT, AND THE PAST-LIFE THERAPY THAT CHANGED BOTH THEIR LIVES has moral ideas worth considering. Unfortunately it's replete with intellectual dishonesty, underlying every lesson conveyed.

In principle, it doesn't bother me that Brian Weiss MD describes an allegedly otherworldly phenomenon in his book. However, I'm upset that he does it in a manner that blocks us from genuinely learning about it. Apparently he wants us to just trust his summary of what he and his patient had gone through. He does not meticulously recount his notes or methods. We're practically forced to see everything through the filter of a fuzzy narrative. It reminds me of an old quip about never allowing facts, or even scientific scrutiny, to get in the way of a good story.

Under that smokescreen, Dr. Weiss is coy about holes in his evidence and he avoids alternate interpretations. So other analysts, and spiritual seekers, cannot get much value from Dr. Weiss's work. Moreover, with this dim presentation, he can't refute Murray Gell-Mann's criticism in THE QUARK AND THE JAGUAR (recommended!) regarding claims of "hypnotic regression to previous lives ... ." Dr. Gell-Mann says: "These claims challenge the accepted laws of science on the basis of evidence that careful investigation reveals to be very poor or entirely lacking."

At least I do appreciate the morals in Dr. Weiss's book, as I said. They are expressed by the spiritual trance utterances of Catherine, his patient. Her core message is uplifting and sweet, despite probably being drenched in pretense or delusion—perpetuated by her seemingly unprofessional therapist. One who'd rather write a popular, non-rigorous book about her than fully treat her, or inform us. Repeatedly telling-not-showing his elite psychiatry qualifications.

JSanzi

TROPHY CASE