Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Jada said: 

Police are an issue based on politics.

Firemen fight fires, which is apolitical but based on civil society funding them.

Physicists are based on education, and I'd hope that'd remain apolitcal.

Criminal Lawyers are corrupt beyond belief, as that's part of their field and they want to win.

Im surprised by how little faith you have in criminal lawyers and police. I think there are good people out there. Whats your view of where the US is headed extrapolate 20 years?

I'd trust criminal lawyers more if they weren't paid so much to do their jobs. People are their tools essentially due to the repetition of their experiences, so even someone who starts into it as an honest person is likely to have that honesty erode overtime. 

To clarify, I'm not saying that we should no longer have criminal lawyers, criminals deserve to have someone experienced in law to defend them, but once it becomes about the paycheck, especially if that paycheck is connected to their victory rather than the same thing for either outcome? There comes a point where they've got to pay their rent, their car insurance, and whatever else they're saddled with from being adjusted to living a life of higher income. 

Police meanwhile, as I said, is an issue based on politics. They are held to a higher standard over the power they have, and said standard can either build or wear down as politics gauge how our cops behave over how accountable they'll be held for their actions. 

Ok I guess asking the prosecutor to give an unbiased breakdown of their own case might lead to a biased view. But a grift? Im not sure how they'd grift people.

As long as you think they're needed, and agree that they should be promoted, I think we're in agreement on the big points.

What I really had in mind when I made the topic was this recent strange shift towards distrust in people who have 20+ years of experience to handle or discuss matters pertaining to their domain knowledge. I.e. that is no longer their role in the society.

Like, for example, instead of listening to a police or a detective walk us through the evidence in Charlie Kirk's murder, we have Candace Owen.

We also now dont trust vaccines, doctors, legal experts, or physicists. 

Every police Ive ever met has been a decent guy. Same with criminal lawyers, especially the women lawyers, though I imagine its a draining job, too much negativity.

How many criminal lawyers have you met? 🧐

Many, I hang around in weird circles. Even my Starbucks Barista was a criminal lawyer. She's both hot and onto me.

I wonder how much of this is you being in a bad headspace. Ive seen a more optimistic version of you in the past.

How does one's headspace otherwise dismiss the point? 

A negative headspace accentuates the problems.

 

What do you think is the fix? 

There isn't one short of the economy successfully bouncing back. As people become poorer, you see more gambling and more grift as a symptom. 

Glass is half empty huh?

We're not raping and killing each other every day at least, and we have good hygiene, USA has shit food and a sugar epidemic but nobody is starving.

That's a pretty low place to set the bar, a small town of farmers could accomplish the same thing. 

A small town of farmers in the medieval times was fucked. Its only because of how far we've come that we take these things for granted. 

The people with money don't want to fix those things, and AI is speeding up the problem significantly. 

I actually think that the people with money do want to fix it. Same with nuclear weapons, we all want to get rid of them.

Its a game theory problem. If I give away my money, but nobody else will, I lose. Same with nukes. We need a phase transition in our culture.

Look at covid19. We just decided that we're all staying home and boom it was done. Thats a phase transition. We need momentum, I think the global politics needs to behave more like a cheetah, rather than a snail.

The ozone layer is healing. I was so happy when I heard about it. Now we need to pick up the momentum and fix poverty. 

IMHO Whether ai contributes to poverty in the end or not is tricky to determine. Its a highly nonlinear problem. 

 

You can train the AI based on your past posts so it mimics your style. 

It still has a certain artificiality that can be observed, in it's current form. The way it structures sentences mimics the word choices but often lacks the flow you'd get from a squishy human prone to making mistakes. 

I think you'd be more engaged in my conversations if I used AI though. It can be a better version of myself. Same with you, I think I'd engage with you much more if you just copy pasted my replies to chatgpt and asked it to reply.

Its counter intuitive but sometimes its nicer to talk with bots than with people. The lived experience is so much... More human. In the early days of omegle, I learned what it means to talk with bots and I objectively came out from it a better person.

Without law enforcement, we wouldn't have made it this far. 

In political terms the more radical of the left called for the defunding on police, and the reason for that is allegedly over racism, or namely the George Floyd incident that escalated into "police keep killing black people".  So the radical left would like the police to be cancelled, without noting the consequences of eliminating law enforcement, especially in the US where people are armed. 

Yes there are bad people out there and some of them are police, some cops are dicks, some are criminals themselves, but enough of them are decent in what they do for a living. 

The radical left never generalizes the good in any situation. Always lean toward what's bad and generalize that, regardless of the positives outweigh the negatives.  

Spatial Mind said: 

The radical left never generalizes the good in any situation. Always lean toward what's bad and generalize that, regardless of the positives outweigh the negatives.  

 The irony of you saying that while also committing generalizations. 

Spatial Mind said: 

Without it you're a complete dingbat. Even you yourself brought up your lack of intelligence in the past.
I think the Ai is an improvement in terms of dealing with you, and maybe in the future if you're stuck without it you'll find you've been trained to be sharper than you used to be.
I use it on you cause I have to. 
You constantly ask for proof as YOU WILL dismiss anything I say as it not being evidence. I HAVE TO use Ai and I do it after we go a few rounds.
You ask for evidence, and there you are, complaining about me treating Ai agreeing with me as evidence.
My only complaint about you and Ai remains the same. You prompt it to make arguments. Other than that you're not it, you're the editor. The man behind the curtain.  
And that's your downfall. 
I'd use it to, as you say, manufacture agreement.
lol Your head is so far up your ass in terms of argument, you've argued comedic fiction. You don't know that you're in a glass box while you're at it.  
It totally is. You've improved significantly with Ai. You're still an ass, but not as bad as before. Your presentation has indeed improved. And I'm all for you using Ai, even if you're motivated to be a confident dick. 
What? Did I force someone into a circumstance?

You you must be doing that gaslighting thing again. I'm sure that claim will go without any examples.  

Whether I use AI as an editor, a source of criticism, or to help formulate an argument doesn't determine whether the argument is correct. You need to address the reasoning itself.

And your admission that you would use AI to "manufacture agreement" actually reinforces the distinction I'm making. I'm specifically not treating AI agreement as proof of anything. If anything, I've repeatedly used it to examine whether an argument follows, identify assumptions, and separate evidence from inference. You seem to be treating the tool as a means of winning an exchange, whereas I'm treating it as a means of making the exchange less dependent on the social dynamics surrounding it.

The "man behind the curtain" thing doesn't change that. Of course I'm the one making the argument. I'm not claiming otherwise. The fact that I used a tool to help formulate it doesn't make the reasoning belong to the tool any more than using a calculator makes an answer belong to the calculator.

And regarding the last point, I wasn't claiming you personally force individual people into poverty. I was referring to your support for policies that can result in people being born into circumstances they never chose, followed by treating the resulting deprivation as something individuals should bear responsibility for. If that's not what you believe, then clarify your position. That's a substantive disagreement, unlike "dingbat" or "prosthetic for his mind," which are just insults. The "gaslighting" accusation is especially unconvincing coming from you.

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

The radical left never generalizes the good in any situation. Always lean toward what's bad and generalize that, regardless of the positives outweigh the negatives.  

 The irony of you saying that while also committing generalizations. 

 No. I'm addressing the radical left. Not the left. 

The radical left, are radical. 

Dragoonback said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Without it you're a complete dingbat. Even you yourself brought up your lack of intelligence in the past.
I think the Ai is an improvement in terms of dealing with you, and maybe in the future if you're stuck without it you'll find you've been trained to be sharper than you used to be.
I use it on you cause I have to. 
You constantly ask for proof as YOU WILL dismiss anything I say as it not being evidence. I HAVE TO use Ai and I do it after we go a few rounds.
You ask for evidence, and there you are, complaining about me treating Ai agreeing with me as evidence.
My only complaint about you and Ai remains the same. You prompt it to make arguments. Other than that you're not it, you're the editor. The man behind the curtain.  
And that's your downfall. 
I'd use it to, as you say, manufacture agreement.
lol Your head is so far up your ass in terms of argument, you've argued comedic fiction. You don't know that you're in a glass box while you're at it.  
It totally is. You've improved significantly with Ai. You're still an ass, but not as bad as before. Your presentation has indeed improved. And I'm all for you using Ai, even if you're motivated to be a confident dick. 
What? Did I force someone into a circumstance?

You you must be doing that gaslighting thing again. I'm sure that claim will go without any examples.  

Whether I use AI as an editor, a source of criticism, or to help formulate an argument doesn't determine whether the argument is correct. You need to address the reasoning itself.

I'll buy that. I spoke to ChatGPT today, I rarely ever do. It kinda frightened me. But yes, I'm critical of using it to argue, but not you for. It's an improvement. Now you're half a dingbat, though still profoundly lacking. 

And your admission that you would use AI to "manufacture agreement" actually reinforces the distinction I'm making.

Don't see anything wrong with that. I can only argue what's true. It's not up to me if you buy what I "show" you. 

I'm specifically not treating AI agreement as proof of anything. If anything, I've repeatedly used it to examine whether an argument follows, identify assumptions, and separate evidence from inference. You seem to be treating the tool as a means of winning an exchange, whereas I'm treating it as a means of making the exchange less dependent on the social dynamics surrounding it.

The difference between you and I. Ai isn't the first thing I reach for, nor do I use for it every interaction. It's 2026 now, would you like me to post links instead so you can get your Ai to figure out what you're seeing, or should I use the Ai instead ?

You're the one asking for evidence and proof, like EVERY DAY. If I say something to you, it's then something else that has to be proven cause you can't seem to verify my claims on your own.

If I'm fetching information from Ai, it's because you're basically asking me to in an argumentative way. And sure I win. Not a bad thing. 

The "man behind the curtain" thing doesn't change that. Of course I'm the one making the argument. I'm not claiming otherwise. The fact that I used a tool to help formulate it doesn't make the reasoning belong to the tool any more than using a calculator makes an answer belong to the calculator.

Aye. I'm the one fucker here telling you to use it. I understand it's a tool and I know the shit you want to say to me, is the shit you tell the Ai and the Ai makes it nice for you. 

And regarding the last point, I wasn't claiming you personally force individual people into poverty. I was referring to your support for policies that can result in people being born into circumstances they never chose, followed by treating the resulting deprivation as something individuals should bear responsibility for.

Democracy. Can't please everyone. What policies are you worried about ?

Do you want anyone to just walk in and live for free while Americans handle their living expenses ?

Abortion ? That's up to the states, and it's still going on. Most women are pro-life and I know women who've had abortions and they're not proud of it. 

Gay marriage ? You got it. Gay Pride, you have it. 

What do you want from the people who won an election fairly, and why do you deserve their respect or admiration over their own interests ?

If that's not what you believe, then clarify your position. That's a substantive disagreement, unlike "dingbat" or "prosthetic for his mind," which are just insults. The "gaslighting" accusation is especially unconvincing coming from you.

 If I'm not mistaken, you just had to make clear what you mean when I force people into situations they don't consent to. Just because I'm into something you're not, doesn't mean I'm your problem. 

I do not believe Trump is a racist. I know he isn't. I can see clearly he doesn't support the KKK. I've seen his own friends hop on the bandwagon against him as soon as they started trying to kill his run for president. They simply couldn't beat him. I look at the DNC and find their policies shit. I find the same with some Republicans too. Trump is neither of them. His taking over of the republican party was very unsettling for them or else he would've created a new party and the republicans would've lost.

You're not a fan of the ruling class, and the ruling class all of a sudden are not a fan of Trump. 

I can see that Trump called the police on Epstein, banned him from his properties and is the reason why Epstein got caught and went to jail in the first place. I can see that Epstein encouraged powerful people in the media to gun for Trump, it's in the files Trump had declassified. I can see that 10 billion dollars will not change Trump's life. He will do the same shit. I saw them attack Trump everyday and every night. A bandwagon. I can see why people hate Trump, and I can see why all the hate happened when they were prompted to. I see those who don't see this. I see what they don't see and it's right in front of us. Trump was the American dream, rapper rapping about him, the big show on TV. This went on since I was a child. He runs for President and the hatred was sudden. Eminem in his rant talking about Trump supporting the KKK. Russian hoax is gone, and the people have voted, and in my opinion, they voted well. Even the Canadian government stopped fucking around and the damages done to Canada is because of liberalism. We have housing crisis, homeless is on the rise. The young cannot get jobs because of replacement theory. Like many nations, Canada too needs a Trump. 

You're still dodging the actual point. I never said you personally walk up to someone and force them into poverty. I said that supporting political policies necessarily means supporting rules that affect people who did not individually consent to them. "Democracy" doesn't answer that. A policy doesn't become non-coercive simply because enough people voted for it.

And your list of abortion and gay marriage actually makes the point clearer. "It's up to the states" isn't an argument for individual freedom. It means the state gets to determine which rights people have depending on where they live. Saying gay marriage is permitted now also doesn't answer the broader question of whether you support secular civil liberties or merely accept whichever ones currently survive politically.

The same applies to your question about why people should respect the winners' interests. They don't owe admiration to a government simply because it won an election. Democracy determines who gets political power. It doesn't make every policy rational, moral, or immune from criticism. Otherwise "the majority voted for it" would be a sufficient defense of literally anything.

And this is exactly why I don't buy the repeated "you are gaslighting me" response. You asked what I meant, I clarified it, and now you're treating the clarification as proof that my original statement was somehow dishonest. That's not what happened. I was criticizing the consequences of policies you support, not claiming that you personally possess some magical ability to force individual people into circumstances.

Spatial Mind said: 

As for Nathan questioning Dragoon's usage of Ai.

I recommend he sticks to the Ai. It serves as a prosthetic for his mind. Look at him now compared to before. Much better. Great ? No. Still lacking in sense, but much better. 

I mean if you want to argue with google, go ahead. 

Turncoat said: 

I mean if you want to argue with google, go ahead. 

I've already talked to you about your tendency to occupy the "smarter liberal observer" position, ignoring things when convenient and then swooping in to judge everyone else's argument from above. I don't find much value in that dynamic. I'd rather use whatever helps me get outside of it and argue more precisely.