Anonymous #2 18h

"The Bible is scientifically proven" is very misleading, but "science isn't scientifically proven" is entirely true. Saying science is scientifically proven is the same as religion using circular authority. Science can measure things like carbon half-life to estimate ages, but the interpretive and thus inherently subjective substance of ancient texts can never be objectively proven. There's an impasse that most people don't even realize exists.

21

Anonymous #2 18h

There's a reason "theory" is the word that gets used to refer to explanations.

-6

Anonymous #3 18h

"science" would be referring to the general work and studies and results, whether that be geology (tectonics or paleoclimatology) or biology (anatomy and psychology) "scientifically proven" would be using the scientific method to get the same measured result (like half lives) when repeated however many times "science" is not a monolith, but is predicated on measurements and repeatability. what is known is proven fact, what is believed until proven otherwise (aka improved) is best estimate.

41

Anonymous #1 18h

to say science isnt scientifically proven is a heinous oversimplification which reflects the tiktok commenters very limited thought process and defending it is concerning

39

Anonymous #3 15h

tell me you didn't pay attention in middle school science without telling me:

43

Anonymous #4 15h

This is graduate level philosophy, not middle school science 💀

-9

Anonymous #1 15h

Okay sweetie, let's go slow. You said science is "predicated on measurements and repeatability." Great! Now: what experiment proved that measurement and repeatability give you truth? Go ahead, I'll wait. There isn't one. You can't use the method to prove the method without assuming the method. That's circular. That's literally the thing you'd mock a Christian for doing with the Bible.

-14

Anonymous #1 15h

A measurement tells you what happened. It doesn't tell you it'll happen again. Assuming the future will match the past is called induction, and Hume showed in the 1700s that you can't justify it without... using induction. Carbon decayed at that rate every time we checked? Cool. That's data. "Therefore nature is uniform forever" is an assumption science stands on, not a result it produced.

-12

Anonymous #1 15h

Vocab time, since you love that word: science doesn't "prove" things. Proof is for math and logic. Science corroborates and falsifies. You actually said this yourself: "what is believed until proven otherwise (aka improved) is best estimate." Congrats, that's the argument you're mad at. Every theory is provisional. Newton was "proven fact" until Einstein. If your position needs the word "proven" to survive, you got your epistemology from the same app you're dunking on.

-12

Anonymous #1 15h

And I'll use small words just to be extra clear for you. Even if science proved itself (it can't), it still couldn't measure meaning. Half-life tells you how old a scroll is, not whether what's written on it is true or what it means. That's the impasse you skipped right past. You called the TikToker a "heinous oversimplification" with a "limited thought process," then defended a take a 7th grade teacher would mark incomplete. Self-report noted. 💀

-12

Anonymous #3 15h

good god you are a supremely condescending idiot

46

Anonymous #3 14h

idek if youre being serious with all this because holy jesus christ man. you manage to be condescending while talking in such bad faith, arguing semantics when you know damn well what i meant, ripping apart pieces of what i said and ignoring others to form an argument that stands on air, and then babbling about random shit all in one comment, but then do that for four comments!

40

Anonymous #1 14h

i could choose to sit here and argue every little piece of smarmy sniveling shit you wrote, but id be here breaking down each sentence you wrote and all id get in return after all that time is some snarky comment written with the burning condescension of some twerp that must defend a tiktok comment thats probably written by like a 14 year old that doesnt have an internal monologue

39

Anonymous #3 14h

look you’re right but you’re operating in an entirely different philosophical universe than that post is

7

Anonymous #3 13h

right, which is why you should know science is in fact proven by science

5

Anonymous #5 7h

You think I don't know that? The very first thing I said was the comment was very misleading.

-3

Anonymous #4 7h

Again, that's not a fact. Putting "in fact" in front of your metaphysics don't make them no longer metaphysics.

-2

Anonymous #1 7h

Funny thing about condescension: you opened by calling the TikToker's take a "heinous oversimplification" from a "very limited thought process," then guessed they're a 14 year old with no internal monologue. That's condescending too. The difference is that mine came with arguments. Yours came with "twerp," "sniveling," and "idiot." We're both being smug. Only one of us is also being coherent.

-1

Anonymous #1 7h

Now for your arguments, all zero of them. "Idiot" is an ad hominem; insulting the speaker doesn't touch the claim. "I could refute it but won't" isn't a refutation, it's a forfeit. And "arguing semantics"? The whole debate is about what "proven" means. Semantics IS the topic. You can't make a definitional claim and then cry foul when someone checks the definition.

-3

Anonymous #1 7h

And the point still stands. A measurement is objective: anyone can repeat it. What a text means, or whether it's sacred, isn't measurable. That's interpretation, and interpretation is subjective by nature. Carbon dating can tell you how old a scroll is. It can't tell you whether God inspired it. No amount of data closes that gap, and no amount of calling me names does either.

-2

Anonymous #1 7h

And since you brought up "bad faith": good faith means engaging with what someone actually said. I quoted your own words back to you, including the "best estimate" line that agrees with me. You quoted nothing of mine, answered nothing, and said you could refute it all but won't. If I misread you, one sentence clarifying fixes that. Instead you said I "know damn well" and bailed. Dodging every point while accusing me of dodging? That's what bad faith actually looks like.

-3

Anonymous #5 7h

I'm right but what? You don't like it? You need to make excuses for why it doesn't matter that I'm right?? Come on.

-2

Anonymous #3 7h

Bro. There is conversation that is relevant in academic circles- the one you are trying to have. And then there is good scientific communication with the public; what this comment needs to be met with. While you’re totally right, you’re failing to read the room. Look up Carolyn Beetozzi (this year’s Nobel prize in chemistry) explaining her discovery to 3 different grade levels. The PhD level explanation would baffle a five year old (and most people), and drive them away from science.

5

Anonymous #3 4h

Get a job bud, too much time on your hands clearly

12

Anonymous #7 4h

I won’t knock anyone’s faith but god you should the bible is the last thing you want to use as a credible source 😂😂

5

Anonymous #8 3h

mb maybe my sarcasm wasn’t obvious im faded asl

6

Anonymous #7 2h

That's not how science works...

-2

Anonymous #6 2h

I don't give a fuck about the room. I'm against scientism and bioessentialism because they function exactly like orthodox religion. "Only falsifiable information is useful" is the axiom people hide behind when they pathologize trans people and deny our experience. That's not science, it's dogma with a lab coat on. This isn't about empirical facts. It's a moral choice. And deciding subjectivity isn't real is just that: a choice.

-5

Anonymous #6 2h

"You're right, but don't say it here because it undermines the authority of science" is scientism in its purest form. It's the same move as "your reading of the Bible isn't welcome because it threatens the Church." Orthodoxy doesn't care if you're right. It cares if you obey. I'm not dumbing down my existence so people can keep worshipping a method like it's a god.

-5

Anonymous #3 1h

wow a whole lot of drivel that exactly proves what i said for why i dont want to argue with some snot nosed insufferable twit. you deadass come in here saying "i dont care about the room" and follow it up by trying to reframe who is speaking in good faith by again chopping up what i say and ignoring other parts that were entirely fundamental to what i was talking about, but what does that matter! you have a tiktok comment with 0 seconds of thought behind it to defend with your life!

8

Anonymous #1 1h

Read the timestamps.

-3

Anonymous #1 1h

You're mad at a comment I wrote to someone else, while accusing me of not reading what you said. And you've now spent more words explaining why you won't argue with me than you've spent arguing. I'll let that speak for itself.

-1

Anonymous #1 1h

actually hold on i was beginning to ignore what you wrote, but it turns out you were doing that first! idk whats up with you mentally bc it seems like youre defending your anonymous yikyaker honor with your life. ill just put a screenshot bc im not gonna try to quote it. i said i wasnt going to argue. legitimately said it 12 hours ago. but you ignore it bc why wouldnt you. you LOOOOVE ignoring 90% of what i say and then hammering on 5% and touching on the other 5%

4

Anonymous #1 1h

this is just funny to me now so i want to point it out to others

5

Anonymous #1 1h

Name one point from the "90%" I ignored. Just one. You've had 12 hours and half a dozen comments about not arguing. Screenshotting my comment doesn't answer it either. It just shows everyone what you still haven't responded to.

-1

Anonymous #1 1h

I will ask this again since your keep avoiding it: What experiment proved the scientific method is reliable, without already assuming the scientific method is reliable?

-1

Anonymous #3 1h

you act like the condescending prick in good will hunting but also write like chat gpt and clearly cant read beyond what you want to see

4

Anonymous #1 1h

LMFAOOO #6 had you pegged when they said you cant read the room i just looked below

1

Anonymous #1 1h

going against the room explicitly because I know the room is wrong. Is the exact opposite of not reading the room. What experiment proved the scientific method is reliable, without already assuming the scientific method is reliable?

-1

Anonymous #3 1h

oh my jesus christ you dont even know what reading the room is

6

Anonymous #3 1h

if tommy has 2 apples and i take and eat his two apples, what question am i going to ask?

2

Anonymous #1 1h

Let me remind you who started the condescension…

-3

Anonymous #3 1h

you took that screenshot 14 hours ago but didnt use it until now? what the fuck? i also said i wasnt going to argue that. im just having fun atp

8

Anonymous #1 1h

screenshots don't expire lol. and "just having fun" is what people say once they realize they can't answer. you've written like 15 comments about not arguing. so for the 4th time: what experiment proved the scientific method is reliable without already assuming it's reliable? you can’t objectively claim your measurement system is proven and then not prove it.

-2

Anonymous #1 1h

On the other hand, I used logic to prove how your claim doesn’t hold up.

-2

Anonymous #8 1h

the only reason i’m up right now is because i have a shift in 3 hours…

-3

Anonymous #3 1h

screenshots dont expire was not the point, something you apparently cant grasp unless its outright stated. the point was why the fuck are you just screenshotting comments and then holding them. you making a scrapbook? and again, if you cant differentiate me making fun of you for 15 comments because youre intolerable and making it readily apparent you either cant or have no interest in reading subtext that everyone else can understand while also somehow manufacturing your own

7

Anonymous #1 1h

im not arguing that point man. i dont know if your situation is that you cant read and comprehend so you take a screenshot and throw it into claude or whatever so you can get your redditor honor as an imbecile who argues something not said nor remotely implied. whatever is wrong with you is concerning but also your persistence with it is amusing and you double, triple, quadruple, quintuple and so on double down on it makes it borderline hysterical so yes i have fun with it

5

Anonymous #3 1h

there is absolutely nothing condescending about this. you only feel that way because you have a childish attitude, juvenile intellect, and can't handle reasonable and polite criticisms ⬆️ THAT was condescending (and true)

1

Anonymous #4 1h

im sorry yikyak doesnt really let me follow the response path, im assuming youre talking about #3's 14 hour hold screenshot (lol) and then saying #3's comment was condescending? i could be wrong i just wanna know

1

Anonymous #1 1h

yeah, #3 sent a screenshot of you making very reasonable criticisms that weren't at all condescending to try and deflect from their own condescending comments. very odd

1

Anonymous #3 1h

This is not "grad school level philosophy" holy crap 😭 you think you're a genius, don't you? Saying "science is scientifically proven" is a completely meaningless sentence, as is "science isn't scientifically proven." "Science" is just a way of knowing things. Now, when using the scientific method, we say in many cases you can't "prove" something in science, only disprove things. We have theories and lass because they help describe and predict the universe around us.

2

Anonymous #4 1h

lol you opened this thread with "tell me you didn't pay attention in middle school science." you're not exactly the condescension police. and I never denied being condescending, I literally said we both were. the point is #1 called me condescending while doing the exact same thing. that's not deflection, that's pointing out hypocrisy. still waiting on anyone to answer the actual question btw

0

Anonymous #3 1h

As long as a theory or a law continues to describe and predict reality, it is essentially true. We just don't say "it has been proven" because in most branches of science, you can't prove that something will be true in every thinkable scenario.

5

Anonymous #9 1h

DISENGAGE DISENGAGE THIS GUY IS A FUCKING LUNATIC DONT SPEND YOUR TIME HERE unless you lowkey wanna join in on making fun of him because he cant read subtext at all and acts miles above us even though he literally is incapable of following or is choosing not to follow what is said

2

Anonymous #9 1h

Theories and laws*

5

Anonymous #9 1h

you literally just said science can't "prove" things, only disprove them. that's my whole point, thanks for agreeing. and here's where it actually gets graduate level: science can map every neuron in your brain and still never measure what it's like to be you. that's the hard problem of consciousness. the most real thing you know is the one thing science can't touch.

-2

Anonymous #9 1h

see, this is an actual conversation. "you can't prove it'll be true in every scenario" is literally the problem of induction, which is my point. and "it works so it's essentially true" is pragmatism, a philosophical position, not a scientific result. I'm not saying science is useless. I'm saying its foundations are philosophy, and people who treat it like a religion forget that.

-1

Anonymous #1 1h

telling people to disengage in all caps after 14 hours of not disengaging is crazy work

-2

Anonymous #3 1h

14 hours of not disengaging? theres a 14 hour gap lmfao

5

Anonymous #1 1h

I woke up to more of the same tantrum and here you are still continuing it. It makes no difference to me.

-2

Anonymous #3 1h

You didn't seem to understand the point of my comment. I was basically saying just because we can't "prove" things in science, that doesn't mean it's useless. It is still used to describe and predict (as I said) natural phenomena. As long as a theory or law continues to describe things accurately, it is as good as true/"proven." Also, why are you trying to prove that you're smart? Nobody here knows who you are. It doesn't matter. Finally, I'm aware of the "problem of other minds," but I don't-

4

Anonymous #3 1h

-see how that's related to the conversation.

3

Anonymous #1 1h

Lol yeah, he does seem pretty crazy. Just thought I'd throw my hat into the ring for a bit.

3

Anonymous #9 1h

*they.

-1

Anonymous #3 1h

Your long comment thread honestly reads like you don't have a true point you're trying to argue, instead you seem to be trying to prove (ha) that #1 over there is stupid and wrong.

5

Anonymous #3 1h

lmfaoooo this is why i came back, not to argue some point that youre gonna yabble on about incessantly and horrendously. i cant help but laugh at the absurdity of what you say. you hold onto a 14 hour screenshot, have been back and forth with people damn near the entire time (17h, 14h, 6h, 1/2h, now) and then say that i have been here the whole time (17h, 14h, now)

2

Anonymous #3 1h

I just assumed that someone as pompous and condescending as you could only be a man. Apologies for the misgendering, you're truly breaking the glass ceiling

9

Anonymous #3 1h

sure lets share our pronouns now why not get familiar ill take any and all. i guess #3 is they/them

2

Anonymous #9 1h

lmfao

1

Anonymous #1 1h

I literally mentioned multiple times that i am trans

0

Anonymous #9 1h

I understand exactly what your point is. That’s how I refuted it. I never said science is useless. All I said is that it cannot prove itself. I care because “science is truth” is how my existence as a trans person has even been able to come under attack by random strangers, because scientism is the culture of modernity.

1

Anonymous #9 59m

funny how fast "science is just a way of knowing things" turned into misgendering me for a laugh. that's exactly what I've been talking about this whole time. you can't answer the argument, so you go after who I am. fuck you.

-1

Anonymous #3 58m

mustve happened when you were arguing with another person because that was never something that was the subject of anything i saw -- though why would that stop you, youre pretty content ignoring the room

2

Anonymous #3 58m

they literally apologized because they didnt know and now its doing it for a laugh?

1

Anonymous #2 57m

Could be satire

2

Anonymous #1 57m

also this entire time i had been referring to you as he and him and you never stopped me for a second?

2

Anonymous #9 56m

Y’all are a bunch of fake ass liberals. All I’m saying is that science cannot prove itself. Truth can be subjective. It is not only objective.

-2

Anonymous #3 56m

now we're "fake ass liberals" what on earth is happening

1

Anonymous #1 55m

No you have been saying “you”

-1

Anonymous #1 55m

Would it kill you to think for a second?

-1

Anonymous #3 54m

i do try to use more gender neutral language but this definitely was not that and you never said anything about it

1

Anonymous #3 53m

whatever i think is wrong and stupid and does kill me so yea

1

Anonymous #1 53m

Are you trying to justify yourself?

-2

Anonymous #9 51m

you confused the hard problem of consciousness with the problem of other minds. different problems. other minds is about whether anyone else is conscious. the hard problem is that science still can't explain why experience exists at all, even your own. and you say I have no point, but you agreed with it twice, then made an "only a man could be this pompous" joke about a trans person. that's not progressive, that's bigotry with better vocab.

-1

Anonymous #3 50m

oh my god bruh im pointing out my own mistake which was made while not knowing youre trans because you have no obligation to say that of yourself but randomly did to #9 when i guess they ticked you off so but never to me. you are a basket of unknowables and good lord i dont know how you came to the conclusion that i was justifying myself. what do you even think i was justifying??

1

Anonymous #1 47m

Seriously what the fuck is your problem? I have no obligation to correct every time you misgender me but you obviously believe in bioessentialism which is exactly the thing I’ve been arguing against this entire time because I am against bioessentialism no matter what room it happens in

-1

Anonymous #1 46m

You don’t get to tell me what is and isn’t true about me. That’s exactly what I’ve been pushing back on since the start. Science cannot prove itself as the truth.

-2

Anonymous #1 45m

I asked you a simple question and you flipped out asserting that I concluded that. calm down

0

Anonymous #1 44m

It seems like you could be justifying your prejudice, which is apologetics, but I prefer to ask questions instead of making statements

0

Anonymous #1 43m

You should turn on your DMs so this stops being a giant fucking performance

-1

Anonymous #3 41m

I DONT BELIEVE IN BIOESSENTIALISM WHY ARE YOU CREATING SUBTEXT THATS NOT THERE AGAIN AND IGNORING WHAT IS the point was that you attack #9 for apologizing, attack me for pointing out my own mistake, and state that we basically should have just known you were trans for that one comment #9 made even though you did not really say anything. you are such a mixed bag of unknowable accusatory chaos i cant believe people coexist with you

2

Anonymous #1 41m

so you’ll point out your mistake of misgendering me but you won’t point out your mistake of circular reasoning?

-1

Anonymous #3 41m

maybe make a statement once in a while then jesus christ holy fuckaroony

2

Anonymous #3 40m

BACK TO IGNORING SHIT WE GO!

2

Anonymous #3 40m

soorryyy more fun with a crowd

2

Anonymous #1 39m

The only reason I’m “unknowable” is because I don’t fit your assumptions and you refuse to let go of archetypal thinking. That’s not my problem.

-2

Anonymous #3 38m

YOURE UNKNOWABLE BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO READ THE ROOM AND APPARENTLY DONT KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS AND THEN APPLY SELECTIVE HEARING TO READING TO MAXIMIZE INSUFFERABILITY

1

Anonymous #1 38m

And now you’re tone policing me. Let me remind you who brought up thinking skills in the first place

-1

Anonymous #1 37m

YEAH I REFUSE TO CONFORM TO HEGEMONIC THINKING. I’M TRANS. HELLO???

0

Anonymous #10 37m

what on earth is going on here

2

Anonymous #3 37m

THERES A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "I THINK DIFFERENT IM TRANS" AND "I CAN READ A ROOM LIKE A FUNERAL MEANS I SHOULD BE SAD"

2

Anonymous #1 37m

THE ONLY ONE HERE MAXIMIZING YOUR SUFFERING IS YOURSELF

-1

Anonymous #1 36m

WHEN THE ROOM SAYS I AM DEFINED BY MATTER I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO AGREE

0

Anonymous #3 34m

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DEFINED BY MATTER I AM TALKING ABOUT USING ABUNDANT CONTEXT CLUES TO INFORM YOUR ACTIONS TO FIT THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FIT YOUR WORDS TO WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY MEANT

0

Anonymous #1 34m

JUST BECAUSE I DISAGREE DOESN’T PRECLUDE MY DESERVINGNESS OF DIGNITY

-1

Anonymous #1 34m

WHY DON’T YOU OPEN YOUR DMS

-1

Anonymous #5 34m

why is everyone yelling

2

Anonymous #5 33m

Because #1 blew a fuse and I like matching people’s energy

0

Anonymous #3 33m

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DESERVINGNESS OF DIGNITY WHO IS TAKING THAT FROM YOU ALL THATS BEING SAID IS JUST TAKE A SECOND TO CONSIDER THE CONTEXT IN WHICH YOU ARRIVE INTO A CONVERSATION. THATS ALL ANYONE HAS BEEN SAYING TO YOU

1

Anonymous #3 32m

BECAUSE THE PERFORMANCE IS FUN IM ABOUT FUN I THINK THIS IS FUN

0

Anonymous #3 32m

ah okay have fun 🤩

2

Anonymous #1 32m

YOU THINK TORMENTING TRANS PEOPLE IS FUN???

0

Anonymous #3 32m

IM LITERALLY GIGGLING AT THE ABSURDITY OF THID

1

Anonymous #3 31m

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON ABOUT HOW DID THIS TURN INTO BEING ABOUT YOU BEING TRANS IVE BEEN DOING THIS TGE WHOLE GODDAMN TIME BEFORE I KNEW THAT

2

Anonymous #1 31m

you are the problem.

-1

Anonymous #1 30m

please tell me youre giggling and not red faced with anger over this. idk if either way would make me laugh harder over the other or if it would just make me sad

1

Anonymous #1 30m

YOU HAVE, BITCH!

-1

Anonymous #3 30m

LITERALLY EVERYONE HAS DISAGREED WITH YOU

2

Anonymous #1 30m

I’m actually pissed. You should be sad.

-1

Anonymous #3 30m

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NOW

2

Anonymous #3 29m

recipe for classic french baguette

2

Anonymous #1 29m

mmm love me a good baguette

2

Anonymous #11 28m

i think theyre real but i have said they write like ai which is probably an indictment of their ai use

3

Anonymous #1 28m

i never heard an ai be that angry before

2

Anonymous #11 27m

Reiterating an age old argument I’ve made to countless people because it’s the position I hold doesn’t change depending on how I reiterate. This is a genetic fallacy.

-1

Anonymous #5 27m

plus they keep switching from lowercase to proper grammar

2

Anonymous #3 27m

PUMPKIN STRUDEL PLOOPY

1

Anonymous #1 26m

i brought out my secret weapon of ploopy. youre in danger now

1

Anonymous #5 26m

real person using ai probably

2

Anonymous #1 26m

Open your dm’s bitch

-1

Anonymous #5 26m

yea thats probably it

3

Anonymous #3 26m

CINNAMON ROLLS BUBBY

1

Anonymous #5 25m

Why don’t you ask me genuinely instead of theorizing in a circle jerk? The scientific process won’t help you understand my position.

0

Anonymous #1 25m

I’d love to give the benefit of the doubt but i’ve read my fair share of ai generated slop (like an unhealthy amount) and its sooo eerily similar

2

Anonymous #1 25m

Fuck you.

-1

Anonymous #3 24m

ok which is it?

2

Anonymous #5 24m

I am a human tf???

-1

Anonymous #3 23m

are you using ai?

2

Anonymous #3 23m

you can be human and use ai……..

0

Anonymous #5 23m

yes. and I’m also using my judgment.

-2

Anonymous #3 23m

ah ok good to know thank you

6

Anonymous #11 22m

you can use AI without offloading cognition. you don’t know what my process looks like.

-2

Anonymous #3 22m

your process looks like you cant stand on your own argument alone and need someone else to help you prove it

2

Anonymous #1 21m

You think I’m still interested in reasoning with you? lmao you have shown that you are beyond reason.

-1

Anonymous #3 21m

RASPBERRY PLASTIC TICKLE BEAR

2

Anonymous #1 20m

If you actually want to talk open your dm’s

-1

Anonymous #3 20m

zoo wee momma its almost like thats what i said 15 hours ago. do you have that screenshotted? for your ai to write a response on?

2

Anonymous #1 20m

I hope you realize how incredibly stupid you are making yourself look

-1

Anonymous #1 19m

Eh actions speak louder than words

-1

Anonymous #3 19m

NOOOOOOO WHAT EVER WILL I DO??? IM USING DIARY OF A WIMPY KID STAND INS FOR SWEARS AS INSULTS AND IT MAKES ME LOOK SILLY?????

2

Anonymous #1 18m

Yeah, it’s weak-minded.

-1

Anonymous #11 18m

i guess i didnt actually comment it but i was going to respond to this comment saying they write like chatgpt. that was 14 hours ago. absolutely pinned them

1

Anonymous #3 17m

FUCJKKKKK MY LIFE IS RUINNEEDDD

1

Anonymous #3 17m

IM SO WEAK MINDED FUCKKKKK JUST PUT ME DOWN ALREADY IM NOT WORTHY OF LIFE NOR BASIC DIGNITY TAKE IT ALL AWAY FROM MEEE

2

Anonymous #11 16m

you have no idea how many ignorant assholes I’ve had to iterate this to and you have no idea how exhausting it is. are you against liberation?

0

Anonymous #3 16m

on a first actual serious note, fuck you for using ai. USING AI FOR YIKYAK COMMENTS? DO YOU WATCH AI FRUIT LOVE ISLAND TOO? JESUS FUCKING CHRIST LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR OF OUR SPECIES

0

Anonymous #1 16m

Look in the mirror. Are you proud of how you’re acting? It seems more like shame.

-1

Anonymous #3 15m

I am I want us all to be taken to prison and harvested like cattle. Are you against the new world order???????????

5

Anonymous #11 15m

YES YES YES YES YES I WANT THIS YES YES YES YES

3

Anonymous #1 15m

I’m a computer scientist you fucking idiot.

0

Anonymous #11 15m

Get help.

0

Anonymous #1 14m

ALL HAIL THE SUN GOD ALL HAIL THE SUN GOD ALL HAIL

2

Anonymous #3 14m

FUCK IM SO ASHAMEDDD MY REPUTATION AS AN ANONYMOUS YIKYAK COMMENTER THAT TAKES THEMSELVES ENTIRELY SERIOUSLY AND EVERYTHING SERIOUSLY AND CANT READ A ROOM IS DEADDDDD alright cook me up ai's reponse to that you fuckwit

1

Anonymous #1 13m

I know more about AI and human computer interaction than anyone here. I went to school specifically for it. Fuck out of here with your ad hominem strawman bullshit

-1

Anonymous #3 13m

oh my bad i thought you were graduate level philospher I DONT FUCKING CARE THAT YOURE A CS PERSON. THAT HAS ZERO BASIS IN THE FUCK YOU FOR USING AI FOR YIKYAK COMMENTS. AGAIN, FUCK YOU FOR THAT

0

Anonymous #3 13m

hey if you’re really this worked up im starting to feel a bit bad for you so just want to say in case you genuinely can’t read the subtext, these people are just messing with you

2

Anonymous #3 13m

I literally am a comp sci major but go off

2

Anonymous #1 13m

Way to ignore me.

-1

Anonymous #5 12m

yeah, you fucking bitch I’m autistic. that doesn’t negate anything I’ve said.

0

Anonymous #1 12m

AI is an accessibility tool. Don’t make me accuse you of being ableist too…

1

Anonymous #3 12m

oh geez okay carry on then

0

Anonymous #3 12m

genuinely i believe you are far far far closer to a ai loving alpha male debate bro philosophy larper in your behavior than you are to being trans. whatever you got going on is fucking nuts

2

Anonymous #5 11m

Whatever. Y’all are what’s wrong with our culture.

0

Anonymous #5 11m

ive literally been saying it the whole time. its not about reading social cues or understanding subtext when the subtext is being yelled at them very explicitly. this is just someone being a lunatic

3

Anonymous #11 10m

GLORY GLORY GLORY GLORY

2

Anonymous #1 10m

I’m a cross dressing barista who serves customers with a smile in my voice. you don’t know anything about me. just because you asked for my bad side doesn’t mean it’s my only one.

-1

Anonymous #1 9m

yeah you’re right i just felt like i should try just in case

2

Anonymous #11 8m

So you should know what sustainable compute is… And you should know that the cognition research goes both ways. Slop is a human laziness problem, not an AI problem.

-1

Anonymous #1 8m

You are such an asshole. I didn’t think it could get much worse but here you are dropping the bar into hell.

-1

Anonymous #3 7m

Fuckkk i made a meme making fun of you saying something that was proving my point about your behavior being far closer to an ai loving alpha male debate bro philosophy larper

1

Anonymous #1 7m

Still waiting on that experiment…

-1

Anonymous #3 6m

^^^ uses ai to generate yikyak comment argument instead of writing it personally. Human laziness = generated slop? thank you for confirming. ✅

2

Anonymous #3 6m

"slop is a human laziness problem" they say, embodying sloth as they use chatgpt to write their yikyak comments for them

2

Anonymous #3 5m

still waiting on chat ppt to respond

1

Anonymous #11 4m

I am ANYTHING but lazy. Using a tool that helps me stand up against people who normally send me into paralysis is not laziness, it’s the exact fucking opposite of laziness. It’s determination you condescending fuck

-1

Anonymous #3 3m

something something marcus dipaola "i have no talent so i need ai to make art for me"

1

Anonymous #1 3m

Bro doesn’t know anything about autism

0

Anonymous #12 3m

a web series would go so hard

1

Anonymous #1 2m

Fuck you and your archetypal thinking. This is why the world seems awful to you. You are blind to nuance.

0

Anonymous #1 2m

I know the difference between society and the world. I suggest you learn it.

0

Anonymous #3 1m

I'm crying you're genuinely deranged. Now I'm just along for the ride.

0

Anonymous #1 1m

No you don’t get any nicely worded shit anymore. Just my unbridled anger

1

Anonymous #9 1m

Y’all are evil asf

1

Anonymous #3 Just now

autism isnt this lunacy ai worshipping debate bro alpha male-esque philosophy larping shit in the same way elon musk seig heiling isnt autism

0