this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
624 points (97.4% liked)

MST3K

930 readers
60 users here now

Rules/guidelines/info

You know you want links, baby!

This community is hosted at https://lemmy.world/c/mst3k and moderated by:

If you were a mod on /r/MST3K give me a shout.

Confused about Lemmy/Fediverse? Here's a useful infographic

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

(I know this is about Rifftrax, but we don't have a Rifftrax community.)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] masquenox 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it

This probably made sense in your head while you were typing it. Would you like a chance to gather your thoughts before continuing? It seems like you need one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I repeated what you said. And now it doesn't make sense to you? Ok.

[–] masquenox 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And now it doesn’t make sense to you?

No, your logical leaps doesn't make any sense. So I guess this is normal for you, then?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] masquenox 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Does this ring a bell?

Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it. . .

Do you not live in a capitalist society? For the sake of your argument, I certainly hope so.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That doesn't, at all, explain in precisely. It's a bunch of incredibly vague nonsense.

[–] masquenox 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It’s a bunch of incredibly vague nonsense.

Oh, I agree. Let me post your incredibly vague nonsense for you again.

Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it. . .

This is your incoherent logical leap, is it not? Or is it perhaps somebody else's?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Lol you're avoiding explaining it because you can't.

[–] masquenox 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sooo... you don't even recognize your own incoherence?

I sure hope nobody allows you to operate any heavy machinery.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

No, I don't. Apparently neither do you because you can't explain it. Well I guess we both know what's really going on, you're latching onto this because your ego is too fragile to admit you're wrong, and you realize you're out-matched.

[–] masquenox 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

and you realize you’re out-matched.

Your incoherence does not imply a failure on my part in any way whatsoever.

Do you need me to post your incoherence for you again? You seem to forget it quite easily.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I was going to drop this, because I figured if I tried to explain it, you would just continue to lie and say it was incoherent. Then I had an idea. . .why not ask a LLM if what I said was coherent?

So I jumped over to gemini, I gave it the context of our debate, and then asked:

"I then said "Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it. . .despite just moments ago when you were arguing nothing could be separated from it. Which is it? These blatantly contradictory statements are hard to follow for someone like me who has such limited “mental faculties.”" Can you explain what I mean there?"

It responded:

"Your response cleverly points out the speaker's contradictory statements. Here's a breakdown of what you're saying:

  1. Highlighting the contradiction:

"Oh, so now, even though we live in a capitalistic society, things can be separated from it..." This part emphasizes the shift in the speaker's position. They went from saying nothing can be separated from capitalism to suggesting exceptions exist. 2. Sarcasm and irony:

"...despite just moments ago when you were arguing nothing could be separated from it." This uses sarcasm to point out the inconsistency in the speaker's arguments. 3. Mocking the speaker:

"Which is it?" This directly asks the speaker to clarify their stance. 4. Self-deprecating humor (optional):

"These blatantly contradictory statements are hard to follow for someone like me who has such limited “mental faculties”." This part, while optional, adds a layer of humor by playfully suggesting your own limitations in understanding the speaker's inconsistent arguments. It implies that even someone with "limited mental faculties" could recognize the contradiction. Overall, your response effectively exposes the speaker's inconsistency and uses sarcasm and self-deprecation (optional) to make your point in a witty way."

Funny that an AI can easily figure out what I mean, while you insist it's incoherent.

I wonder why that is? lol

[–] masquenox 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

ROFLMAO! You literally appealed to a bot to try and circumnavigate your incoherence?

Holy crap... even the "wall-of-text" arguments tankies use is less sad than this. The white liberals trying to justify white supremacism by appealing to dictionary descriptions is less sad than this.

Good job breaking it, hero.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You literally appealed to a bot to try and circumnavigate your incoherence?

I asked an objective source if it made sense. Not only did it say it made sense, breaking it down and explaining what each part meant, it even called it clever.

And you're still trying to argue that it was incoherent. lol. You're a fucking joke. I thought, considering it had been so long since you responded, that even you are smart enough to realize that an argument against this was ridiculously stupid. Yet, apparently, I was wrong. You actually stupid enough to try and argue against it.

[–] masquenox 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I asked an objective source if it made sense.

No. You didn't. You asked a bot, genius.

You don't even have the pretense of credibility left to appeal to, liberal.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Lol how does it being a bot make it not an objective source?

[–] masquenox 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Is this your idea of "objective," genius?

No wonder you're incapable of spotting your own blatant incoherence - you wouldn't know "objective" if it were to bite you on your arrse.

[–] ety3rd 1 points 7 months ago

We only have a few rules here ... one of them is "be nice to each other." So knock this off.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Lol. You don't know the difference between being accurate and objective. One has zero to do with the other. You should be utterly embarrassed that I have to explain this to you.

The fact that it was wrong about something else has zero bearing on whether it's objective about our debate. And considering it accurately described my point, brining up that it was wrong about something else makes even less sense.

You can't possibly be this dumb. If you're just trolling, what do you get out of looking like a complete idiot? I don't get it.

[–] masquenox 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You should be utterly embarrassed

I'm not the one that asked an AI bot to do my thinking for me, genius - that's you.

[–] ety3rd 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We only have a few rules here ... one of them is "be nice to each other." So knock this off.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Can I ask why you're even down here? I deleted my last post because you asked nicely for me to knock it off,so I will, but if someone reported me, and not the other poster, then it's obvious the other poster and thus it's obvious they are just baiting with the attempt of getting people banned.

[–] ety3rd 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Both of you were reported; both were given the same message.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

Ok cool, just checking. Thanks for the response