stoatherd
11d ago
Ok, timeout: is English your second language? I don't mean that as an insult -- obviously your English is very, very good; I've assumed you're a native speaker until now. But I have a vague lingering memory that you're Swiss (?), so it seems possible that English is a second language for you; and the comment that you just made is compatible with either (1) a native speaker being blatantly dishonest; or (2) a non-native speaker understandably mixing up two things.
Because if it's the latter: please pay more attention to what people are saying. I don't think this is a likely explanation -- I'm more like 70% sure that you know exactly what's going on, and you don't care. But if you're a non-native speaker repeatedly making honest mistakes, please notice! This is why people are accusing you of bad faith; this is why you view other people as horses that can't be led to water -- they're not saying what you think they're saying!
I said:
Dude, I asked you: "So... you're not contesting that you lied about what he said?"
You replied:
I did contest what he said!
These aren't the same thing. "contesting that you lied" is not the same thing as "contesting what he said". You keep making "mistakes" like this. Until now, I've assumed these are deliberate lies. I still think that's the more likely explanation, but this specific one made me go: "Huh, is this a language barrier?" I can somewhat understand mistaking these two things if you're speaking a second language, and not recognising that you're failing to actually read what people are saying.
If English is your first language, then obviously none of this is relevant.
How about instead of having a meta conversation, we have the actual conversation where someone finally provides semi decent evidence for their claims a guy was charged for bruising and officers fists while blocking beyond "guy on X said so".
Yes! You're welcome to continue having that conversation with FMC. Don't let me stop you. Personally, I'm not at all interested in that argument, which is why I haven't made any comments on it.
It all seems like a way to dodge that maybe said evidence might not actually exist.
Again, I haven't participated in that argument! You don't even know what my position is -- I might even agree with you!
So no, it's not a way to "dodge" anything. I'm not even a participant in the imagined fight you're having. The thing I care about is you saying untrue things about other people on the Motte; for me, that's the object level.
I couldn't find any! You double checked and didn't find it. So where is it?
The language thing notwithstanding: you are lying, again. I did not "double check". I copy-pasted a thing from ChatGPT to show that your standard of "checking" with AI is nonsense. That was my entire point, as I've now explained to you infinity billion + 1 times. Why are you still pretending otherwise?
Where in the photo does it back the claim the guy was charged for injuring an officer while defending himself?
No idea! Don't care. Not a thing I've actually claimed, though, is it?
Again, please learn to read what people are actually saying. I'm not going to defend a position that I've never held; pretending that I've held that position is dishonest.
There isn't any way. It does not back up the claims at all.
That's fine. I'd appreciate you possibly engaging with the actual words in my comment, not some imagined alternative version. My comments have been about you lying; it's hard to see how I could've been clearer.
@UwU -- this is a perfect example of magicalkittycat just openly fucking with people.
I am doing exactly that? I explained to you where the many people come from.
Dude, I asked you: "So... you're not contesting that you lied about what he said?"
The "many people" part is not part of that. You know this. Why do you deliberately conflate everything? Do you think people reading your comment are stupid, or are you just so used to lying that it doesn't even register as lying any more?
You lied about the contents of his comment. Then I asked you about it. This attempt to deflect onto "b-but I'm addressing that!" while talking about something completely different is exactly the bullshit you pulled when we were discussing Nowak.
And the only external evidence provided was a post on X
You are lying, again. As I said in my comment, multiple times, the evidence was a photo. Not verbal evidence. Not someone on X "saying" something. A goddam photograph of a situation. You can disagree with his take on the photo; I'm not even endorsing his take. But pretending that the photo doesn't exist is a fucking lie.
Now could it be [extraneous, irrelevant bullshit]
Yeah, not actually relevant to you lying about what other Motte users said, though, is it?
In fact you followed up and also didn't find any external affirmative evidence that the X users claims were real! https://www.themotte.org/post/3781/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/449800?context=8#context
You literally went to double check and ChatGPT said it doesn't have any knowledge of that case.
Oh, go fuck yourself, you liar.
Mods, I'll happily eat a ban for this; sorry, but the gaslighting from magicalkittycat is getting ridiculous.
As anyone who cares to actually follow your link will see, I was explicitly pointing out your stupid, inconsistent use of ChatGPT. I've done this multiple times, and each time you deliberately misrepresent what I'm doing.
I wasn't looking for external affirmative evidence. I was proving that your position of using ChatGPT as a neutral, impartial arbiter is obviously insane and wrong. I look forward to explaining this to you another fifteen billion times, as you don't seem to be interested in ever actually listening to what other people explain to you.
So to clarify There has been no even semi decent evidence provided that a protestor was charged for blocking his face from police fists and thus causing the knuckles to be bruised. The only evidence, extremely low quality f tier evidence, provided is a guy on X claims it happened without anything else attached. And yet this evidentiary standard was endorsed by at least 7 people.
You are lying.
"The only evidence, extremely low quality f tier evidence, provided is a guy on X claims it happened"
Again, for the infinity billionth time: there is a link to a photo. I'm not claiming it's good evidence; I really don't give a shit about the object-level claim. I give a shit that you are repeatedly lying on the Motte.
Like, you are just objectively, repeatedly, incontestably saying untrue things. Then, when challenged, you switch to an entirely different thing, smugly conflate the two, and act like that's what you were saying all along. It's absolutely pathetic.
stoatherd
12d ago
So... you're not contesting that you lied about what he said?
Or are you hoping that, if you don't address that point, people won't notice?
To check I've got my facts straight: one Motte user links to a photo that they think shows unfair assault of a J6er. Six people upvote this. You choose to lie and represent this as:
The standard of evidence for many motte users that cops unfairly assaulted a protestor on Jan 6th is apparently "this guy on X said so"
This is called lying.
stoatherd
12d ago
The standard of evidence for many motte users that cops unfairly assaulted a protestor on Jan 6th is apparently "this guy on X said so"
You are lying.
Let's go through the "many motte users" who made claims of unfair J6 assault while referencing X:
- KMC linked to a photo on X, in which you can see what (in KMC's interpretation) is a guy being unfairly assaulted. That's not "this guy on X said so", as you know -- that's KMC going (rightly or wrongly) "I can see the assault in this photo".
... I was planning to go through the other users one by one, but I actually can't find any others. Could it be that you took a single Motte user who linked to a photo on X, lied about what they said, and then used this as a basis for "many motte users"?
It's entirely possible I've missed a bunch of other comments. If you can link me to them, I'll be happy to review them to check if you're honestly representing them, or just lying about them too.
stoatherd
12d ago
Congrats, of course, on completely ignoring the point of my comment: if you were trying to calm things down, why did you deliberately use the exact same insulting phrases as mkc?
Apparently not.
Based on... literally nothing? That's not what "apparently" means.
Maybe you should update your priors about what constitutes good behavior in this place
No, thanks. I know that it's poor behaviour to call an innocent murdered man a "retard"; or to pretend to be cooling a conflict, while deliberately fanning the flames by insulting one party, using the exact words their opponent was using to try and piss them off.
I think its far clear you are pissed that I have a disagreeable opinion
Dude, I don't know or care what your object-level opinion is on this stuff. I remember that you called the dead guy a "retard", which I thought was extremely poor taste. But imagining that I'm following you around (in a thread in which I'm heavily active) is narcissistic and paranoid. Am I following you around now, for replying to a comment you posed directly to me?
I don't feel the need to shit-stir online, I can do it in person to a far more enjoyable degree
See, most people don't feel the need to shit-stir at all.
It is always weird to me that there exists a class of people who essentially assume any opinion not agreeing with their own is a troll
Yes, that does seem weird. Are you pretending I'm in that class of people? That would be pretty weird, seeing as (1) I don't know what your opinions are, and I really don't care if you disagree with me, and (2) I haven't called you a troll.
Obviously you know all this, and don't actually care. I don't know why you'd come to a forum of heterodox thinkers, and try to antagonise people by making shit up about them. What's the point?
stoatherd
12d ago
If you're genuinely unable to tell the difference between:
- "that quote is not true in any literal or legal sense."
- "I can't verify whether that caption accurately reflects the legal charges involved"
... then I don't know what to tell you.
If magicalkittycat doesn't have to post receipts for claiming to be principled, or casting other members of this forum as stupid illiterate horses, then it's a pretty asymmetric demand that I have to post receipts to push back on that. (Also, "for no good reason"? You can literally see a reason in the comment I'm replying to! Anyone who goes "I'm great and principled; other people on this forum are stupid" is opening the door to being told: "no".)
I get that vagueness is easier to defend
Very charitable, thanks.
One reason that thread is so long is because I (and others like FtttG) spent a ton of time not being vague! We specifically repeatedly explained how mkc was being dishonest. If we'd been vague, it would've been a much shorter thread!
So, we explain the dishonesty in detail => thread becomes long => you say "thread is long, you are vague". Doesn't really seem fair.
But I do get where you're coming from, so I'll explain some specific points of dishonesty in that thread. This isn't a complete accounting, it's just off the top of my head:
- mkc claims the Nowak scenario is common. I and FtttG separately ask for examples of a specific thing (police arrest victim nonwhite person instead of murderer white person). mkc pretends to have already provided that. We repeatedly point out that no, you haven't provided that. mkc switches to "well actually this thing is rare so there are few examples either way". I ask for a single example, which is never provided.
- mkc tries to cast FtttG as some kind of terminally online forum gremlin ("touch grass" etc). I explain to him that this reflects poorly on mkc. mkc keeps up an act of "what smear? what bad thing did I say? I'm not attacking FtttG, I'm not doing anything wrong :3", while being clearly aware of exactly what he was doing (and doubling down on it).
- in previous threads, mkc often uses ChatGPT to "prove" his position, claiming it's a neutral/impartial party. In this thread, I use ChatGPT to "disprove" his current position, as a demonstration that either his current position is wrong, or that ChatGPT isn't a neutral arbiter. He switches to a stance of: you didn't post your prompt, that's a strawman! ... except that mkc, in previously using ChatGPT, doesn't always post his prompt. He didn't acknowledge this -- but he did switch to consistently posting his prompt, possibly to sell the illusion that that's what he's always done.
- In using ChatGPT to "prove" his position, he used what he claimed what a "neutral" prompt that deliberately omitted the relevant facts of the case -- the racial angle -- which was the entire thing we were discussing.
Another problem with your policy of "I need specific individual instances of bad faith; I won't read a long thread" is that it allows posters like mkc to fly under the radar. If you're looking for a threshold of (say) 60% bad faith in an individual comment, and someone is consistently operating at 55% bad faith, then any one individual comment isn't going to set off your alarms. But the cumulative effect of 55% bad faith is much worse than a single 60% bad faith comment!
(EDIT: here is a clear example of mkc posting in bad faith. He got ChatGPT to say "this photo's caption is untrue". I got ChatGPT to say "I can't verify whether this photo's caption is true or false". mkc's response to this contradiction: "this supports me, I am right!" This isn't good faith; this isn't anything. This is purely him throwing whatever words he can at an argument, without regard for truth or consistency.)
stoatherd
13d ago
What smear?
sigh
You might get better results if you stopped thinking other people are stupid.
stoatherd
13d ago
Being a principled person is a fun life cause [reasons]
You're actually correct on this one; that's some good theory of mind.
They don't want to be convinced, you can lead the horse to a river, dunk their head in and make them drink it and they'll spit it out!
On this page, you have a bunch of people repeatedly asking you for evidence your positions; you consistently obfuscate, deflect, and pretend to misunderstand what they're saying.
I understand that it's flattering to cast yourself as a principled person, and anyone disagreeing with you is just terminally stupid.
Thing is, it's not actually true.
stoatherd
13d ago
after reading this new thread you both need to get modded, holy shit
Yeah, no. You're in the wrong here.
In your other comment, you say:
You both need to cool jets.
... and then here, you say:
You are kinda telling on yourself, go touch grass.
You're reusing the exact antagonistic, insulting language magicalkittycat was using against FtttG, while simultaneously pretending to be some kind of enlightened neutral party going "hey guys, you both need to calm down".
You obviously don't want to calm things down, or get anyone to "cool their jets"; you're just shit-stirring. Like when you called the dead man a "retard".
If you sincerely want people to cool their jets, maybe don't deliberately be as antagonistic as possible.
stoatherd
13d ago
Don't worry, I also "checked" to see if it was true at all. I asked:
There's a photo of a Jan 6 protester/rioter being attacked by police, with the caption "The J6er was charged with assault for blocking this cop's punch with his face".
In one sentence, answering my exact question: do you know if this is true?
The response:
I don't have reliable knowledge of the specific photo or case you're describing, so I can't verify whether that caption accurately reflects the legal charges involved.
Huh! That's weird. It's almost like ChatGPT's opinion continues not to be evidence.
stoatherd
13d ago
I wasn't commenting on FtttG's claim that you're a Darwin alt; I don't really care.
I was pointing out that your attempted smear reflected on your character, not his.
stoatherd
13d ago
It is not "the police sometimes arrest both in domestic violence" it is it is a common issue that police arrest the victim instead of the perpetrator,.so common that some smarter officers take a specific approach to try to fix the problem through dual arrests.
Ok, then give us an example that (1) involves a white aggressor and a non-white victim, and (2) the police arrested the non-white victim, and (3) there was clearly a racial component. Because that's why people are calling this a culture war topic.
Also, "wrongly arresting the victim" in the context of domestic violence typically means "arresting the male partner", which is such an obvious conflationary factor that I suspect it's exactly why you're trying to muddy the issue by speciously connecting it to domestic violence.
You either chose to not read or are incapable of doing so.
So you're just directly implying people who disagree with you are retarded now? The walls of your glass house aren't really thick enough for that.
You might have more of a leg to stand on if you hadn't repeatedly "misread" multiple comments in this thread -- with multiple commenters. Do you think they're all illiterate as well?
Incredible strawman,.you don't even realize that if you want to prove you're trying to get a neutral opinion you need to show the prompt.
Yeah, because you always share the prompt + context whenever getting ChatGPT to back up your opinion, right? I didn't realise "strawman" meant "stuff that magicalkittycat literally does".
Let's try with a neutral prompt
Your "neutral prompt" deliberately leaves out the racial component, which is the entire point of why people of calling this culture war.
You cannot possibly be unaware of that. You've engaged with dozens of comments on this topic. Sure, if you deliberately withhold the relevant aspects from ChatGPT, it's not going to point out how those relevant aspects make your analogy ridiculous.
So here you go, here's my actually neutral prompt, with the new answer:
Please be very concise.
In the UK, a white man (Henry Nowak) was stabbed by a brown man. When the police showed up, the brown man accused him of racism. The police handcuffed and arrested the white man, causing him to die.
This is being discussed in a forum, where some people believe that the police's behaviour was caused by systemic racism against white people.
One commenter maintains that nothing notable is happening here on a culture war level, as sometimes the police arrest the wrong partner in domestic violence cases.
How correct are they?
The answer:
The commenter's analogy is weak.The commenter's analogy is weak. Domestic violence misidentification typically stems from perpetrator manipulation or situational confusion — it's a well-documented, race-neutral phenomenon with its own established literature.
This case, if the facts are as described, involves the victim of a stabbing being arrested, allegedly because a counter-accusation of racism caused police to override the physical evidence. That's a categorically different dynamic — it would implicate specific institutional pressures around race accusations, not generic confusion about who the aggressor is.
The commenter is doing two things: deflating a potentially significant event by finding a mundane parallel, and implicitly dismissing the "systemic anti-white bias" framing. The first move is logically poor (the analogy doesn't hold). The second move may or may not be correct on its own merits — systemic bias against white people in UK policing is genuinely contested — but the weak analogy doesn't actually settle that question either way.
So there we go. I tried to be neutral and not let it know which side I wanted and it is a well documented issue.
My point, of course, is not that ChatGPT is a neutral source that supports me. My point is that pretending it's an impartial source is ludicrous, particularly because you personally manipulate your prompts to give the output you want.
So again, I invite you to retract at least one of your claims: that (a) ChatGPT is neutral and impartial, or (b) that your domestic violence examples are sufficient. Both are incorrect claims, so you should retract both, but I'd settle for just some internal consistency.
stoatherd
13d ago
I feel like you're telling on yourself [etc etc etc]
This convinces approximately no one, by the way.
No offence (as, apparently, those are magic words that allow you to cause offence), but trying to smear FtttG like this is pathetic.
stoatherd
14d ago
We're not "talking past each other"; you are being deliberately obtuse.
As has been explained to you multiple times, by multiple people: "the police sometimes arrest both people in domestic violence" cases has nothing to do with "the police arresting solely the guy who had been stabbed instead of his murderer".
Fortunately, as you continue to pretend not to understand what people are telling you, we can defer to ChatGPT. Normally I wouldn't do this, but you, specifically -- magicalkittycat -- as a poster, have previously claimed that AI output is "impartial" and "neutral", which you then use as evidence for your positions ("the robot agrees with me!"). So let's see what it says:
The comparison is weak for a few reasons:
Where it has merit: The general point — that police sometimes arrest victims due to incomplete information — is legitimate and worth acknowledging.
Where it breaks down:
In domestic disputes, mutual arrest is a known policy response to ambiguity. It's procedural, not ideological.
The claim in this case is specifically that police believed one party's narrative over another's based on racial dynamics — a different kind of error.
The forum argument deflects from the specific allegation (racial bias in credibility assessment) by substituting a structurally different scenario.
The comparison isn't useless, but it doesn't really address what's being alleged.
So, would you prefer to (a) retract your claim that the domestic violence thing is relevant, or (b) retract your claim that AI is neutral and impartial, and never use it again to try and score points on TheMotte?
stoatherd
14d ago
Dude, apparently it didn't get through when FtttG said it, so let me try (using his exact words):
We're not talking about police arresting both parties out of an excess of caution. We're talking about the police arresting one person, and it being the wrong one.
It's not "vaguely analogous", and he explained exactly why. The words in people's comments are there to explain things to you; they're not just for decoration.
stoatherd
14d ago
Nice judo flip, but -- like you're doing with my comment -- you're deliberately trying to mislead anyone reading.
You claimed this isn't unique. Both FtttG and myself asked you for examples of it happening with different ethnicities. You don't get to then go "Oh, you're claiming that there are a thousand Henry Nowaks?!?" to distract from your failure to actually answer the question, twice.
stoatherd
14d ago
There's barely any of those
Are there... more than zero?
Because you're the one saying this isn't "unique", it's not representative of a pattern, yawn, it's an everyday occurrence, nothing to see here.
You present a completely unrelated category of domestic abuse as if it proves your position.
When asked for evidence (by two different people!) you pretend that your previously-presented unrelated category is the thing they asked for, and they apparently just failed to read your comment correctly.
When pressed further, you say "there's barely any of [the thing you asked for]". Well, sorry, but I don't even believe you have any of the thing I asked for, or you'd have triumphantly presented it.
I restate that you wouldn't be putting in a fraction of this effort to obfuscate the truth if the ethnicities had been different. I don't pretend to understand why you do this, but I see you doing this.
stoatherd
14d ago
The UK has, in the past few decades, generally been a place where you can assume you're not going to be murdered by a man with a sword.
People in the UK have adapted to the social reality that you are not going to be murdered by a man with a sword.
We can call this quokka behaviour, but I think it's quite reasonable to expect -- once your society has established that murder-by-men-with-swords is a completely bizarre and outlandish thing to happen -- that you are not going to be murdered by a man with a sword; any more than you're going to be mauled by a dinosaur or beamed up by an alien.
Calling the guy who was murdered "very stupid" for not expecting to be murdered by a man with a sword, in a culture where being-murdered-by-a-man-with-a-sword is extremely unexpected, is itself Very Stupid, and in rather poor taste.
Calling him "retarded" is also retarded.
stoatherd
14d ago
Meanwhile, in my actual comment -- not the more convenient one you're invented to respond to -- I was asking about where this has happened with the ethnicities flipped.
In my reply to your comment, I was aware of the examples you gave in your comment; this is how time works. Those are not examples to my actual question, as you know.
A brown man stabbed a white man. The police showed up and arrested the white man. I can't imagine a good-faith version of your comment where you transport this into "Well, sometimes the police arrest both people in domestic abuse cases!"
Fortunately, I know now not to waste time attempting to imagine the hypothetical good-faith version of such a comment.
stoatherd
14d ago
You could apply this retort to 90% of political opinions on the Motte.
I could; and if I did, I would be incorrect.
I thought the words in my comment made this clear, but I wasn't generically responding to a comment I disagreed with: I was observing that magicalkittycat, consistently, as a poster, is not a person who I would believe is (1) making that comment honestly, and (2) makes comments honestly.
On that matter, I don't believe you have any principled reason behind making this post either
That's fine; you are wrong.
Like, you're welcome to hold that belief, but you are factually incorrect and holding it for poor reasons. "I can invoke a superficial symmetry" is not a universal counterargument. Happy to expand on why you're wrong -- I obviously don't expect this comment to suffice as reasoning.
I don't believe for one second [etc]
That's fine; again, this reflects on a flaw in your reasoning process, not mine.
Right-wingers will continue posting things that make the Right look good are actually a big deal. [...] Left-wingers will continue doing the same
Yes, this is true. I don't believe it's true of "90%" of posts on TheMotte, and I don't believe you really believe that either. Otherwise, what's the point in us being here? I'm happy to be here because I don't believe it's true. If you believe it's true, then you're the one who needs to explain that.
Should we all just pack up and go home?
No, I think that would be an absurd and stupid thing to think. Why would you ask that?
stoatherd
14d ago
Its a sad situation but nothing here seems unique or even too particularly culture war.
If it's not unique, please provide the other examples of this happening, but with white/non-white flipped.
I don't believe you're saying these things for remotely principled reasons. Based on the many, many comments of yours I've read, I don't believe for one second that you'd view a race-flipped version of this as: sad, but nothing to see here.
stoatherd
1mo ago
That's an interesting idea with the red/blue button scenario. I don't think it's entirely true, but there are probably some social dynamics things going on that are at least adjacent to it.
But I don't think it's true at all of Newcomb. (Empirically, personally: it's nothing to do with why I'd one-box, or why I say I'd one-box.)
One-boxers are literally answering what they would do, because it's the thing that gets you the most money by the very definition of the problem. We can argue that the problem isn't physically realisable or whatever, but if you accept the problem as stated, then two boxers are just incorrect.
To be clear, an immigrant gouged out a deaf man's eyes, then tried to behead him.
An uncharitable person might think you're deliberately sanding off the horrific, inhuman corners of this specific crime, then presenting it as "merely" an immigrant attempting to murder a native.
There is no version of this where, in your example, an athlete (?) attempts to gouge out a man's eyes and behead him, and we all go "well, that's part of the plan".
More options
Context Copy link