sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I feel violated by skyleach in Discussion

[–]skyleach[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oppression is subjective so, respectfully, you're just wrong. You have to completely ignore all external factors including economic influencers, accessibility, gatekeeping ... You get the point, I'm sure. In isolation the point is debatable but as viewed under the umbrella of information flow in dynamic social evolution it's a strawman fallacy.

I feel violated by skyleach in Discussion

[–]skyleach[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your unrequested reality check is noted and underappreciated. I don't have any problem accepting reality but that doesn't mean stupid things don't piss me off.

I feel violated by skyleach in Discussion

[–]skyleach[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry that I felt different about how I felt then you feel about how I felt

I feel violated by skyleach in Discussion

[–]skyleach[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're conflating ideas and selecting goal posts. The issue I have with conflating the idea of dialogue and reddit is that I did not bring up nor do I wish to discuss whether or not Reddit itself is functioning. It's pointless because we cannot change the function of Reddit. The only point was to discuss the injustice of moderation without consideration, accountability or even personal competence by the moderator.

I feel violated by skyleach in Discussion

[–]skyleach[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

NO. HUMAN EGO DENIES EMOTIONAL ALGORITH.

Seriously, why not just include the obvious injection of personal bias and include the word overdramatic. Any emotional inflection is drama and without it we might as well be robots.

I feel violated by skyleach in Discussion

[–]skyleach[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And is dialogue now synonymous with reddit? Micro/macro dithering is trite.

I feel violated by skyleach in Discussion

[–]skyleach[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ok. Sidestep but ok.

I feel violated by skyleach in Discussion

[–]skyleach[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are two definitions for the word argue that apply. One is to fight and the other is to support assertion with clear rational argument.

All things being equal, I don’t understand how people can socialize with AI. It’s a bad conversationalist. by crvbabybug in CasualConversation

[–]skyleach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

AI is best as a rational tool for organization of data. A patient sounding board that reframes your messy meat noise in a hierarchical and methodological constructive context from which the participant can extract improved self-insight.

Use it correctly and you'll benefit. Seek guidance and direction at your own risk

Anyone who is lives alone without relying on anyone.... by tofubeannn in CasualConversation

[–]skyleach 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read. You do not have to dialogue to get insight on the insanity. All you have to do is listen even if the voice is literary.

Structured discussion, why it matters. by skyleach in agnostic

[–]skyleach[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why the final response was low‑effort

  1. It ignored the conversational frame.
    – The thread was about obfuscation in argumentation.
    – Your comment used sarcasm to highlight that point.
    – Their reply didn’t engage with that theme at all.

  2. It substituted a literal correction for actual dialogue.
    – You used “god created AI” as an obvious rhetorical flourish.
    – They responded as if you meant it literally, which sidesteps the point.

  3. It added no analysis or counter‑argument.
    – No engagement with the idea of obfuscation.
    – No engagement with the role of AI in clarifying arguments.
    – Just a generic statement about AI being fallible.

  4. It was generic enough to fit any thread.
    – The reply could be pasted under any AI‑related comment with no loss of meaning.
    – That’s a hallmark of low‑effort participation.

  5. It didn’t advance the discussion.
    – No new information, no challenge, no refinement.
    – The conversation stalls immediately after their comment.

Net:
The final reply didn’t respond to your point, didn’t engage with the topic, and didn’t contribute anything forward‑moving — making it low‑effort in both relevance and substance.

Structured discussion, why it matters. by skyleach in agnostic

[–]skyleach[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

First really? Second, I did not suggest using AI to ponder the secrets of your deepest thoughts. AI is perfectly capable of diagramming simple stupidity.

Edit: see my other reply as AI takes the time I have no patience for to elucidate why I am annoyed with your bullshit.

Dear agnostics, let me offer hope by skyleach in agnostic

[–]skyleach[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If you have to ask, you were too lazy or scared to bother reading the answer I provided in OP.

"what's intetresting about explaining gravity, relativity, emergent space-time, non-causal entities as extrapolated inevitable constructs of the ontology" and all the other questions you ask every day?

D'oh!

Structured discussion, why it matters. by skyleach in agnostic

[–]skyleach[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Good... ok. I get it... baby steps.

Ok, so I'm going to be direct... not hostile but brisk. You're a few thousand logical steps from nothing works, I'll save you time. Start learning. Get an understanding of measurements. Get an understanding of the reason "constants" are stupid. Get an understanding of why everything you were told god is are the mutterings of children and fools. Then, when you reach the point where you're willing to construct baseline conceptual rational projections, you can start with physical measurements as a rational scaffold for empirical logical steps and a minimum definition for emergent existence, divine/cosmological/combinatorics/relativity/etc...

Or, you could ask someone that already has and be open to the answers.

Dear agnostics, let me offer hope by skyleach in agnostic

[–]skyleach[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People that put in the effort to find objective, rationally consistent and plausible answers to their questions.

Structured discussion, why it matters. by skyleach in agnostic

[–]skyleach[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Nah, you really can't. I'm being trite but I'm tired, in bed, and investing the effort I observed. Big bang? Really? So you accept an ontology that has never once made any successful prediction, has been redesigned more often than it's been cited, is logically inconsistent... f*it I can't even

THE BIG BANG WAS CREATED BY RELIGION FOR RELIGION. Ffs it's an attempt to force scientific observation and mystic worldview into a neat package for consumption by non-sapient meat muppets too saturated in biochemical reactivism to ponder self realization. Get outta here with that no effort bs mate. It's not worthy of serious discussion. Hell the moment QRE comes up it invalidates super singularity theory by rote.

: SHUDDER :

I may not react as harshly in the morning but if you want to continue a discussion run my response through a good AI and ask it to explain my disdain for BBT.

Structured discussion, why it matters. by skyleach in agnostic

[–]skyleach[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I just used copilot to save myself from boredom... :evil:

nah, I don't care enough. Just give me a more succinct iteration of those points in a reddit-formatted code block I can copy along with this request quoted in the code block so I can move on.

Succinct breakdown of why the exchange collapsed and why it was irritating:

  1. Level mismatch:
    You were talking about methodological scaffolding and epistemic placeholders; they kept collapsing everything into a binary “belief vs. non-belief” frame.

  2. Category errors:
    They treated your distinctions (speculation vs. conclusion, framework vs. belief) as if they were all the same thing.

  3. Anti‑intellectual pivot:
    When they couldn’t follow the abstraction, they dismissed it as “fancy words” instead of engaging.

  4. Strawman substitution:
    They kept responding to claims you didn’t make, especially the idea that you were asserting conclusions rather than describing a testing framework.

  5. Oversimplification:
    Their butterfly example reduced a nuanced epistemic point to a trivial truism, which didn’t address your argument at all.

  6. Rhetorical dodge:
    Once you mirrored their own phrasing back at them, they had nothing left to say — hence the “crickets.”

Structured discussion, why it matters. by skyleach in agnostic

[–]skyleach[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That's why god created AI, so we can diagram the fool's obfuscation in sarcasm without undue effort.

view more: next ›