(10-21-2024, 02:28 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 12:51 AM)username Wrote: Ya’ know, a long, long time ago I was an HR director and was responsible for hiring for a couple companies. RC, i’d interview people that were sometimes highly intelligent, highly educated and/or book smart but I’d pass on hiring them because they oftentimes had the EQ or common sense of a shrimp. It always disturbed me; people that seemed so smart and yet lacked any self awareness or opinions that they didn’t read or outside of their own experience.

Fast forward I was thinking about u because ur so god damn anal and rarely say what YOU think (much less, *gasp*) what u feel and suddenly a much more current, trendy possibility came to mind: that asshat is using fucking AI, chatbot or whatever to whip out his very boring but somewhat fact filled replies (to the degree AI is accurate yet (which I understand it’s not entirely). I’ve never used it but reading ur posts…it’s the first time I’ve felt like I’m getting responses from a robot.

Shame on u.

Love, Commando Cunt Queen.

Knowledge isn't acquired by swallowing regurgitated factoids. Shame on U.

Go ahead and see if you can tease something witty out of one of the chat engines. Impress me. 

(10-21-2024, 07:15 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 02:28 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 12:51 AM)username Wrote: Ya’ know, a long, long time ago I was an HR director and was responsible for hiring for a couple companies. RC, i’d interview people that were sometimes highly intelligent, highly educated and/or book smart but I’d pass on hiring them because they oftentimes had the EQ or common sense of a shrimp. It always disturbed me; people that seemed so smart and yet lacked any self awareness or opinions that they didn’t read or outside of their own experience.

Fast forward I was thinking about u because ur so god damn anal and rarely say what YOU think (much less, *gasp*) what u feel and suddenly a much more current, trendy possibility came to mind: that asshat is using fucking AI, chatbot or whatever to whip out his very boring but somewhat fact filled replies (to the degree AI is accurate yet (which I understand it’s not entirely). I’ve never used it but reading ur posts…it’s the first time I’ve felt like I’m getting responses from a robot.

Shame on u.

Love, Commando Cunt Queen.

Knowledge isn't acquired by swallowing regurgitated factoids. Shame on U.

Go ahead and see if you can tease something witty out of one of the chat engines. Impress me. 

And BTW, knowledge (as opposed to common sense and emotional intelligence) is absolutely acquired by absorbing facts (whether or not u regurgitate them being entirely up to u). But the very definition of a “fact” is that it’s true. Proven. Based on science and objectively determined to be accurate. I understand challenging some things that are presented as facts (when they don’t meet the aforementioned criteria) but hopefully intelligent, thoughtful people(s) are digging deeper than the latest post on X or TikTok or YouTube and parsing out the facts. Do you think you’re better at that than…me? I don’t think so, Mr.

(10-21-2024, 09:37 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 07:15 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 02:28 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 12:51 AM)username Wrote: Ya’ know, a long, long time ago I was an HR director and was responsible for hiring for a couple companies. RC, i’d interview people that were sometimes highly intelligent, highly educated and/or book smart but I’d pass on hiring them because they oftentimes had the EQ or common sense of a shrimp. It always disturbed me; people that seemed so smart and yet lacked any self awareness or opinions that they didn’t read or outside of their own experience.

Fast forward I was thinking about u because ur so god damn anal and rarely say what YOU think (much less, *gasp*) what u feel and suddenly a much more current, trendy possibility came to mind: that asshat is using fucking AI, chatbot or whatever to whip out his very boring but somewhat fact filled replies (to the degree AI is accurate yet (which I understand it’s not entirely). I’ve never used it but reading ur posts…it’s the first time I’ve felt like I’m getting responses from a robot.

Shame on u.

Love, Commando Cunt Queen.

Knowledge isn't acquired by swallowing regurgitated factoids. Shame on U.

Go ahead and see if you can tease something witty out of one of the chat engines. Impress me. 

And BTW, knowledge (as opposed to common sense and emotional intelligence) is absolutely acquired by absorbing facts (whether or not u regurgitate them being entirely up to u). But the very definition of a “fact” is that it’s true. Proven. Based on science and objectively determined to be accurate. I understand challenging some things that are presented as facts (when they don’t meet the aforementioned criteria) but hopefully intelligent, thoughtful people(s) are digging deeper than the latest post on X or TikTok or YouTube and parsing out the facts. Do you think you’re better at that than…me? I don’t think so, Mr.

Just because something is presented as a fact doesn't mean it is, even if it's by a so-called expert. Even if statistics are accurately compiled their interpretation is highly subjective. Look at crime stats that are broken down by race. Many believe they indicate that blacks are predisposed to criminality, but if you look at stats broken down by class you see a very similar picture. When you take into consideration that blacks are disproportionately poor and that poor people are the demographic that most frequently comes into contact with police, you see that poverty is probably the primary cause of blue-collar crime, not race. 

People have a tendency to see what they want to see and have a remarkable ability for rationalizing prejudice and misconduct, and "experts" are no exception. IMO, integrity has greater significance than expertise. Scientific methodology is only as good as the degree to which it is honestly applied; people who have vested interests, however, tend not to care about that because they do not like to pay for unfavorable results. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

(10-21-2024, 09:57 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:37 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 07:15 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 02:28 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 12:51 AM)username Wrote: Ya’ know, a long, long time ago I was an HR director and was responsible for hiring for a couple companies. RC, i’d interview people that were sometimes highly intelligent, highly educated and/or book smart but I’d pass on hiring them because they oftentimes had the EQ or common sense of a shrimp. It always disturbed me; people that seemed so smart and yet lacked any self awareness or opinions that they didn’t read or outside of their own experience.

Fast forward I was thinking about u because ur so god damn anal and rarely say what YOU think (much less, *gasp*) what u feel and suddenly a much more current, trendy possibility came to mind: that asshat is using fucking AI, chatbot or whatever to whip out his very boring but somewhat fact filled replies (to the degree AI is accurate yet (which I understand it’s not entirely). I’ve never used it but reading ur posts…it’s the first time I’ve felt like I’m getting responses from a robot.

Shame on u.

Love, Commando Cunt Queen.

Knowledge isn't acquired by swallowing regurgitated factoids. Shame on U.

Go ahead and see if you can tease something witty out of one of the chat engines. Impress me. 

And BTW, knowledge (as opposed to common sense and emotional intelligence) is absolutely acquired by absorbing facts (whether or not u regurgitate them being entirely up to u). But the very definition of a “fact” is that it’s true. Proven. Based on science and objectively determined to be accurate. I understand challenging some things that are presented as facts (when they don’t meet the aforementioned criteria) but hopefully intelligent, thoughtful people(s) are digging deeper than the latest post on X or TikTok or YouTube and parsing out the facts. Do you think you’re better at that than…me? I don’t think so, Mr.

Just because something is presented as a fact doesn't mean it is, even if it's by a so-called expert. Even if statistics are accurately compiled their interpretation is highly subjective. Look at crime stats that are broken down by race. Many believe they indicate that blacks are predisposed to criminality, but if you look at stats broken down by class you see a very similar picture. When you take into consideration that blacks are disproportionately poor and that poor people are the demographic that most frequently comes into contact with police, you see that poverty is probably the primary cause of blue-collar crime, not race. 

People have a tendency to see what they want to see and have a remarkable ability for rationalizing prejudice and misconduct, and "experts" are no exception. IMO, integrity has greater significance than expertise. Scientific methodology is only as good as the degree to which it is honestly applied; people who have vested interests, however, tend not to care about that because they do not like to pay for unfavorable results. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Again I don’t entirely disagree and I think that I said that some “facts” aren’t in fact, factual. People need to parse through the information and dig deeper. But there are facts that people will deny despite all proof to the contrary. I would argue that it’s factually true that Joe Biden won the 2020 election legitimately. And you?

(10-22-2024, 10:22 AM)rothschild Wrote:  By my standards the answer is no. 

(10-22-2024, 11:05 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(10-22-2024, 10:22 AM)rothschild Wrote:  By my standards the answer is no. 

Can you elaborate on that a little? What are your standards?

(10-22-2024, 10:22 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:57 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:37 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 07:15 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 02:28 AM)rothschild Wrote: Knowledge isn't acquired by swallowing regurgitated factoids. Shame on U.

Go ahead and see if you can tease something witty out of one of the chat engines. Impress me. 

And BTW, knowledge (as opposed to common sense and emotional intelligence) is absolutely acquired by absorbing facts (whether or not u regurgitate them being entirely up to u). But the very definition of a “fact” is that it’s true. Proven. Based on science and objectively determined to be accurate. I understand challenging some things that are presented as facts (when they don’t meet the aforementioned criteria) but hopefully intelligent, thoughtful people(s) are digging deeper than the latest post on X or TikTok or YouTube and parsing out the facts. Do you think you’re better at that than…me? I don’t think so, Mr.

Just because something is presented as a fact doesn't mean it is, even if it's by a so-called expert. Even if statistics are accurately compiled their interpretation is highly subjective. Look at crime stats that are broken down by race. Many believe they indicate that blacks are predisposed to criminality, but if you look at stats broken down by class you see a very similar picture. When you take into consideration that blacks are disproportionately poor and that poor people are the demographic that most frequently comes into contact with police, you see that poverty is probably the primary cause of blue-collar crime, not race. 

People have a tendency to see what they want to see and have a remarkable ability for rationalizing prejudice and misconduct, and "experts" are no exception. IMO, integrity has greater significance than expertise. Scientific methodology is only as good as the degree to which it is honestly applied; people who have vested interests, however, tend not to care about that because they do not like to pay for unfavorable results. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Again I don’t entirely disagree and I think that I said that some “facts” aren’t in fact, factual. People need to parse through the information and dig deeper. But there are facts that people will deny despite all proof to the contrary. I would argue that it’s factually true that Joe Biden won the 2020 election legitimately. And you?

The key word is "legitimately". By my standards the answer is no. By the prevailing standards in American politics, the answer is yes.

(10-22-2024, 04:38 PM)username Wrote:

(10-22-2024, 10:22 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:57 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:37 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 07:15 PM)username Wrote: And BTW, knowledge (as opposed to common sense and emotional intelligence) is absolutely acquired by absorbing facts (whether or not u regurgitate them being entirely up to u). But the very definition of a “fact” is that it’s true. Proven. Based on science and objectively determined to be accurate. I understand challenging some things that are presented as facts (when they don’t meet the aforementioned criteria) but hopefully intelligent, thoughtful people(s) are digging deeper than the latest post on X or TikTok or YouTube and parsing out the facts. Do you think you’re better at that than…me? I don’t think so, Mr.

Just because something is presented as a fact doesn't mean it is, even if it's by a so-called expert. Even if statistics are accurately compiled their interpretation is highly subjective. Look at crime stats that are broken down by race. Many believe they indicate that blacks are predisposed to criminality, but if you look at stats broken down by class you see a very similar picture. When you take into consideration that blacks are disproportionately poor and that poor people are the demographic that most frequently comes into contact with police, you see that poverty is probably the primary cause of blue-collar crime, not race. 

People have a tendency to see what they want to see and have a remarkable ability for rationalizing prejudice and misconduct, and "experts" are no exception. IMO, integrity has greater significance than expertise. Scientific methodology is only as good as the degree to which it is honestly applied; people who have vested interests, however, tend not to care about that because they do not like to pay for unfavorable results. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Again I don’t entirely disagree and I think that I said that some “facts” aren’t in fact, factual. People need to parse through the information and dig deeper. But there are facts that people will deny despite all proof to the contrary. I would argue that it’s factually true that Joe Biden won the 2020 election legitimately. And you?

The key word is "legitimately". By my standards the answer is no. By the prevailing standards in American politics, the answer is yes.

The “prevailing standards in American politics…”. So you’re saying by current standards Biden won (in the U.S.—but not by your standards) and only by current standards in the U.S.  Did Trump win legitimately in 2016 by your standards and prevailing standards then? How about Reagan? I’m wondering when exactly you think the “standards” weren’t corrupt (by your standards—and “prevailing standards”)? If ever?

(10-22-2024, 07:36 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-22-2024, 04:38 PM)username Wrote:

(10-22-2024, 10:22 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:57 PM)username Wrote:

(10-21-2024, 09:37 PM)rothschild Wrote: Just because something is presented as a fact doesn't mean it is, even if it's by a so-called expert. Even if statistics are accurately compiled their interpretation is highly subjective. Look at crime stats that are broken down by race. Many believe they indicate that blacks are predisposed to criminality, but if you look at stats broken down by class you see a very similar picture. When you take into consideration that blacks are disproportionately poor and that poor people are the demographic that most frequently comes into contact with police, you see that poverty is probably the primary cause of blue-collar crime, not race. 

People have a tendency to see what they want to see and have a remarkable ability for rationalizing prejudice and misconduct, and "experts" are no exception. IMO, integrity has greater significance than expertise. Scientific methodology is only as good as the degree to which it is honestly applied; people who have vested interests, however, tend not to care about that because they do not like to pay for unfavorable results. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Again I don’t entirely disagree and I think that I said that some “facts” aren’t in fact, factual. People need to parse through the information and dig deeper. But there are facts that people will deny despite all proof to the contrary. I would argue that it’s factually true that Joe Biden won the 2020 election legitimately. And you?

The key word is "legitimately". By my standards the answer is no. By the prevailing standards in American politics, the answer is yes.

The “prevailing standards in American politics…”. So you’re saying by current standards Biden won (in the U.S.—but not by your standards) and only by current standards in the U.S.  Did Trump win legitimately in 2016 by your standards and prevailing standards then? How about Reagan? I’m wondering when exactly you think the “standards” weren’t corrupt (by your standards—and “prevailing standards”)? If ever?

I don't know of an election outcome that I would consider to be legitimate. How much cheating should be considered acceptable? If we're talking about maintaining democracy the answer has to be the least amount that is humanly possible, because something like corruption is either growing or in decline, there is no in-between. Vigilance has to constantly be maintained, just as weeds have to consistently be weeded. That may sound daunting but once it becomes ingrained nature it's akin to maintaining personal health.

(10-22-2024, 09:09 PM)username Wrote: Ya’ know what? Lol, I’m probably late to this certain conclusion but with yet ANOTHER military commander (Kelly) who served for decades and under Trump as chief of staff today calling him a fascist and unfit to serve another term, I realize even more so how Trump is just the fucking puss on the pimple. I’ve never liked McConnell or DeSantis or Graham (I could go on and on) but the fact that Trump is even a candidate has almost nothing to do with him but the god damn Retrumpicans that have completely ignored his racist, sexist, vulgar, lying bullshit and allowed him to remain the leader of their party.

And some people think Biden was pushed aside by his party because of his debate performance and age…as if that’s bad. Trump’s popularity to the degree he has it is because his party (except those who have left and/or are speaking out) rests on the shoulders of those elected officials who continue to kiss his ring despite the fact that the man is clearly unhinged. Zero backbone there.

Fuck them all.

(10-23-2024, 09:51 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-22-2024, 09:09 PM)username Wrote: Ya’ know what? Lol, I’m probably late to this certain conclusion but with yet ANOTHER military commander (Kelly) who served for decades and under Trump as chief of staff today calling him a fascist and unfit to serve another term, I realize even more so how Trump is just the fucking puss on the pimple. I’ve never liked McConnell or DeSantis or Graham (I could go on and on) but the fact that Trump is even a candidate has almost nothing to do with him but the god damn Retrumpicans that have completely ignored his racist, sexist, vulgar, lying bullshit and allowed him to remain the leader of their party.

And some people think Biden was pushed aside by his party because of his debate performance and age…as if that’s bad. Trump’s popularity to the degree he has it is because his party (except those who have left and/or are speaking out) rests on the shoulders of those elected officials who continue to kiss his ring despite the fact that the man is clearly unhinged. Zero backbone there.

Fuck them all.

You're forgetting that Trump dropped his hat in the ring in the wake of the Tea Party movement, which had greatly weakened the Republican leadership. They hate Trump because he feeds off of the disaffection many rank and file Republicans feel towards the leadership. I'm guessing that most of the Republicans that do speak out against him are from blue and purple states. You're also forgetting that the Democratic Party sucks dead donkey dick. If it weren't for their radical policies in support of illegal aliens, rainbows and unicorns, lockdowns, etc., Republicans would have a hard time getting elected as dog catchers.

Shame on U.

(10-23-2024, 10:43 AM)username Wrote:

(10-23-2024, 09:51 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(10-22-2024, 09:09 PM)username Wrote: Ya’ know what? Lol, I’m probably late to this certain conclusion but with yet ANOTHER military commander (Kelly) who served for decades and under Trump as chief of staff today calling him a fascist and unfit to serve another term, I realize even more so how Trump is just the fucking puss on the pimple. I’ve never liked McConnell or DeSantis or Graham (I could go on and on) but the fact that Trump is even a candidate has almost nothing to do with him but the god damn Retrumpicans that have completely ignored his racist, sexist, vulgar, lying bullshit and allowed him to remain the leader of their party.

And some people think Biden was pushed aside by his party because of his debate performance and age…as if that’s bad. Trump’s popularity to the degree he has it is because his party (except those who have left and/or are speaking out) rests on the shoulders of those elected officials who continue to kiss his ring despite the fact that the man is clearly unhinged. Zero backbone there.

Fuck them all.

You're forgetting that Trump dropped his hat in the ring in the wake of the Tea Party movement, which had greatly weakened the Republican leadership. They hate Trump because he feeds off of the disaffection many rank and file Republicans feel towards the leadership. I'm guessing that most of the Republicans that do speak out against him are from blue and purple states. You're also forgetting that the Democratic Party sucks dead donkey dick. If it weren't for their radical policies in support of illegal aliens, rainbows and unicorns, lockdowns, etc., Republicans would have a hard time getting elected as dog catchers.

Shame on U.

But never in our country have so many prominent party members (Republicans) members of the military (who typically remain apolitical) and former staff members come out against the candidate and straight up called him a fascist, unhinged, unfit leader to have that basically IGNORED or swept aside by the rest of the elected members of their party...

lara trump on Newsmax--"we (RNC) have lawsuits in 81 states right now".