Utopia Talk / Politics / Mental health confusion #4

Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jul 13 07:42:27 (On the "Trans" delusion, the left's terminal acceptance of all immorality, and the bureaucrat's inability to have a conscience outside of Regime-sponsored lawfare)
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jul 13 07:42:38 Thread #3: http://uto...hread=91849&time=1689251575880
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jul 13 07:43:39 Summation of issues: Seb cannot understand this metaphor: "It is not the *image* any more than seeing a convicted psychopath in court is the *crime* itself." Seb.. ✅ Has no conscience / morality ✅ Has zero work ethic ✅ Is learning disabled ✅ Suffers from IQ-induced smooth-brain agnosia (Seb, The Autistic Koala) ✅ Is incapable of good faith, preferring to.. • ✅ project, • ✅ distort, • ✅ straw man, and • ✅ be intentionally dense when he realizes that he'd have to actually have a position outside of the Regime's ✅ Is a Regime sycophant who only repeats the Party's refrains ✅ Is mentally incapable of the effort required to address arguments in good faith Seb's Variation of the Jergul Method: 1) Seb scans replies for key words, finds some random sentence out of context, responds to that one sentence with a straw man or shit-take, and hopes people respond to his shit-take so that he can be involved despite having nothing to offer regarding the central issue of the thread. 2) Use Cunningham's Law — Seb makes false statements so that people have to correct him, they thus teaching Seb the subject at hand and giving Seb enough ammunition to further his obfuscation. 3) If people teach Seb what's going on, he uses blatant revisionism to pretend that he knew the things that they taught him all along while ignoring that anyone can easily point out that he clearly did not know what was going on in his previous responses. 4) When exposed as an idiot, Seb uses, "No you!" logic, trying pathetically to insist that *other* people must be deficient even though he is the one who cannot construct a simple sentence or a rational and insightful argument — something he has perhaps never done in his entire bureaucratic life. 5) Poe's Law — Seb tells himself that it's a good thing that he can ride the edge between appearing to be a fucking idiot or a helpless troll, while he ignores that a life spent practicing either behavior has perhaps made him into both. Seb's Nested Deceptions Loop: • Deception 1: Seb cannot trust that he is being told the truth in good faith. ⬇ • Deception 2: Seb cannot trust citations of the truth and cannot access that truth because the truth might be dangerous, illegal, or harmful. ⬇ • Deception 3: Seb cannot seek out the truth for himself because, even if the truth were *legal*, it might still be wrong to know the truth. ⬇ • Deception 4: If the truth existed, were legal, and were safe to know, then Seb would know it already. ⬇ • Deception 5: Were such truths known by Seb already, he invariably must be an expert in that truth. ⬇ • Deception 6: If others show more authority in that truth than Seb and disagree with Seb's assessment, then these others must not actually be authorities, and only Seb can gate-keep "true" authority. ⬇ • Deception 7: Is your truth undeniably more authoritative than Seb's deceptions? Hmm. Back to Deception 1. The Wandering Seb: "The more I argued with [Seb], the better I came to know [Seb's] dialectic. First [Seb] counted on the stupidity of [his] adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, [Seb himself] simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, [Seb] pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, [Seb] changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, [Seb] immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack [Seb], your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck [Seb] so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. [Seb] had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day. Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of [Seb's circular bureaucracy] or [Seb's] virtuosity at lying. Gradually, [Seb shit the bed]."
Seb Member	Thu Jul 13 07:58:44 CC: See the thing is, anyone can go back through the threads and see the one who keeps introducing obfuscatory red-herrings is you. Like how, for example, how you started raising the question of whether I supported paedophilia and asking me to click on this link to see if I would be disgusted as a way to demonstrate my opposition to paedophilia. This arose when you posted a link that purports that the fact that 40% of Browns students identify as LGBT demonstrates that it must be social contagion (it doesn't) - which somehow in your mind became a question of paedophilia, even though most of these students will be identifying as LGB rather than trans, and in any case none of these identities are in any way paedophilic. But you raised this whole line of discussion when you were pinned down on your false claims that I was "claiming storied experience" with ESG when all I had done was refute your suggestion that I had not come across it until this thread and was simply googling it as I went. You inferred this on the basis that I had previously never posted on it by pointing out it is obscure generally, but not so obscure I would not have come across it professionally given my line of work as maintained for a decade. In your mind, this became a claim that my position on ESG was authoritative based on my experience. I have however made no such claim. It was at that point you decided to change the subject to paedophilia. It is quite clear that you are simply projecting onto me your own inadequacies. But returning to this image you want me to look at: Either you think the image is or could reasonably be interpreted to be CSAM in a legal sense, in which case in sharing the link you are distributing it and trying to exploit it for personal benefit. Alternatively you think the image is or could reasonably be interpreted to be CSAM in a moral sense, though not recognised as such in law. In that case in sharing the link you are not committing a legal offence, but still a deeply immoral one. Finally, you do not think it can reasonably be interpreted to be CSAM, in which case my disgust at it or lack of it cannot reasonably be used to make an inference about support for paedophilia unless you are also illogical or dishonest. If one assumes you are honest, and believe your claims to rigorous thinking, one can only reasonably conclude that you are morally or actually committing a sex offence by distributing material.
Seb Member	Thu Jul 13 08:00:10 The rest of your post is just baseless assertions repeated over and over again. I can't be responsible for the phantom Seb that torments your imagination: that is not a product of my mind, it is a product of yours.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Jul 13 15:40:28 Lulz. Seb just going down his Deception loop again :D The best thing about it is that it just shows that Seb is mentally unable of breaking this loop — even when it’s directly pointed out that it is his NPC programming :D He mentally *cannot* break the loop with a single attempt at good faith :D He *cannot* understand the metaphor :D It at least makes it easy to just watch Seb circle his little track, saying the same script, projecting, and hoping that his little accusations will work despite them already being refuted and examined. He just repeats his false claims and shows that he cannot read and cannot comprehend. But the Wandering Seb will forget all of this tomorrow and repeat the same lies of his supposed victory here. Lol :D
Seb Member	Fri Jul 14 04:45:01 Its a simple question CC.
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Jul 14 05:09:31 Yeah, and you couldn't answer it.
Seb Member	Fri Jul 14 09:40:43 Yes, because you can't articulate why viewing this image you indicate is disgusting would be relevant to the question of paedophilia, but also would not be CSAM itself. What you've described is not, according to you, either CSAM or something that ought to be considered CSAM. Which suggests it is irrelevant in which case I have no need to answer your question as it is clearly diversionary obfuscation. But equally you have said it as a litmus test for paedophilic tendencies, that suggests it is or must be. So, which is it? And can you explain why giving a rationale for why I am familiar with ESG is, in your mind, a claim of "storied experience" and that my opinions should carry authority? You say I am engaging in diversions, but you have drawn us wildly off topic. It was you that raised ESG, it was you that raised this bizarre Paedophile Rorschach test. It only seems fair to ask you to close these topics off.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 14 10:04:23 Remember when I said ”climate change hysteria” and seb wrote a rebuttal and said climate change isn’t a hysteria? Across dozen of topics, hundreds of threads and thousands of posts that I have interacted with him, he has yet to improve beyond such primitive behavior. This is as good as seb gets :-)
Seb Member	Fri Jul 14 10:08:05 Nim: "Remember when I said ”climate change hysteria” and seb wrote a rebuttal and said climate change isn’t a hysteria?" What climate change hysteria do you mean Nim?
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Jul 14 19:07:04 [Nim]: "This is as good as seb gets :-)" lol, yeah. It's pretty sad :D He'll just keep going too. Like, take these few samples: • [Seb]: "asking me to click on this link [...] This arose when you posted a link that purports that the fact that 40% of Browns [...]" He placed my link issue as *after* or concurrent with the Brown-students survey... but I posted the link *repeatedly* *before* the Brown survey — in the entire *thread* before. I.e., he cannot even track the argument to understand that I posted the Brown survey *after* he was evading other topics as a way to see if it was even possible to get him on point without more of his non sequiturs. He was evading reading my posts for *that* long... but he wants me to keep giving him in-depth attention after I bullet-pointed his lies? lol :D • He also keeps repeating this rather pathetic argument where he's hoping I'll worry about "[distributing illegal material]" (oh no! I better tell Turtle Crawler to take it down! Oh wait. It's BS.), but the way that he must keep repeating it is by completely ignoring my arguments, since there is absolutely zero legal or moral concern for such a straw man — it only functions within his impenetrable ignorance, wherein he's made it a Schrödinger's-Cat box that he can never open to find out the actual situation. I even pointed out the core truth by summarizing with the following sentence, but he does not understand the sentence: [CC]: "Again, it is not the *image* any more than seeing a convicted psychopath in court is the *crime* itself." • He also now wants a response for his claim that I dropped the ESG subject because I was "pinned down" (lol), saying, [Seb]: "In your mind, this became a claim that my position on ESG was authoritative based on my experience. I have however made no such claim." Meanwhile, he himself insisted on saying that my understanding of ESG was based in "conspiracy theory", and he insisted on reporting that he's been familiar with ESG since at least 2015 when it was a hot topic in his circles... See the contradiction? He wants to claim that he claimed no expertise, but he's evading the core argument: that he believes that he knows more than myself. So he wants to put himself in a position where he is authoritative enough to claim that the truth is "conspiracy theory" via the source "trust me, bro" while simultaneously claiming that he assumed no position of expertise or authority. This is so incredibly disingenuous that all he can do is attempt to hedge an argument out of whether he *used* the word "expert" or some such rhetorical fallacy. He'll have to find some bureaucratic loophole that lets him evade that he is out of his league on the issue of ESG. So, core argument: He cannot comprehend that his attempts to show that I was wrong or "[conspiratorial]" about ESG *is* him claiming expertise, since to make such a claim he *must* be based in a better understanding. Another core argument is that Seb is indeed autistic/Aspy, likely literally, and therefore cannot understand metaphors that are part of an emotion context (hence why he cannot understand the image metaphor; it requires the understanding that psychopathy can be seen in a person’s presence rather than exclusively through evidence). I would bet that he doesn't understand a lot of social cues in real life and had to learn emotions with flash cards.
Forwyn Member	Fri Jul 14 19:23:15 Does Seb truly believe that 40% LGB rates is normal and just a product of finally removing the shackles of the hetero white man? The future is here, and it is queer!
Seb Member	Sat Jul 15 11:03:44 Cc: "in the entire *thread* before." That may be true. I tend to stop reading your posts when you start just repeating assertions about my character for line after line that aren't supported by argument. It seemed to me you brought it up after browns. Either way it's a spectacular red herring. And you can't even answer basic questions about this supposed purity test. Which tells us everything we need to know. It's a distraction.
Seb Member	Sat Jul 15 11:14:44 "Meanwhile, he himself insisted on saying that my understanding of ESG was based in "conspiracy theory"," It is. You just don't remotely need to be an expert to see that. "But he's evading the core argument: that he believes that he knows more than myself." Not quite. I believe you have accumulated quite a lot of detailed thinking about ESG and the WEF, much in the way that conspiracy theorists obsessed with say, the 2012 Mayan apocalypse might. The issue is that it's faulty logic and thinking based on pilling error onto error to assimilate unrelated facts into a grand narrative that is just fundamentally wrong. Think the midwit meme. That's your, in the middle, crying tears of anger. That's me on the right, saying "They just want the govt to let them sell you stuff". Forwyn: The way it was reported was "not straight". A while back, many straight women who'd had any kind of romantic relationship with another woman (e.g. kissed a girl) would still define a straight. Now people are more likely to identify as being on a spectrum. This creates problems for interpreting this kind of statistic. Terms like straight or heterosexual become less an umbrella term for anyone whose main preference is the opposite sex and more perceived as defining an absolute (zero attraction or romantic/sexual experience with someone of the same sex). That's the real issue with the culture war: less that it is changing people's innate sexuality, more that it is changing how people describe it and talk about it. I don't think that 40% is predominantly people who are exclusively into relationships with those of the opposite sex.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jul 15 20:53:36 [Seb]: "And you can't even answer basic questions about this supposed purity test." lol. Seb's one-sided logic again. And he posts this following sentence in the same comment, sealing the logic: [Seb]: "I tend to stop reading your posts when [...]" I.e., Seb stops reading when it suits him, but he insists that I be totally responsive to all of his new fallacies. It only ever goes one way. He demands total effort from others, they can give it for thread after thread, but he is never answerable to the core arguments of the initial debate, always having more excuses than a teenager showing up for class on Monday after a weekend smoking weed and tagging trains. This is, again, consistent with his department-shuffling bureaucratic thinking; responsibility always rests in some other department. So Seb cannot understand the core metaphor and just keeps evading. He returns to his "Nested Deceptions Loop" (above) and projects, putting the burden on *me* to answer his latest deceptions rather than addressing the question I've been asking since Thread #1 (Thread 1 comment "Mon Jul 03 05:02:26" — i.e., 12 days of Seb evasion). It is basically impossible to keep an ADD kid on task. :p That metaphor, *again* for reference: • [CC]: "It is not the *image* any more than seeing a convicted psychopath in court is the *crime* itself." Re-explained/Re-phrased in last thread comment "Thu Jul 13 06:58:58": • [CC]: "Seb cannot understand that support for a psychopathic murderer (i.e., the thing-in-itself) is the condoning of murder, and he cannot understand that the appearance of a murderer and the recognition of a murderer's comportment is not the murder in itself." But again, [CC]: "I would bet that [Seb] doesn't understand a lot of social cues in real life and had to learn emotions with flash cards." Seb would claim that this is just me "repeating assertions about [his] character for line after line that aren't supported by argument" — but it is directly supported and very relevant to the argument. Seb likely is autistic, and this is why he cannot understand the metaphor after four threads of wasted effort. [CC]: "Meanwhile, he himself insisted on saying that my understanding of ESG was based in "conspiracy theory"," [Seb]: "It is." lol. I knew Seb would take this bait into the next rhetorical fallacy. He's now pivoting from "[I know more of this subject and therefore can say that you're wrong]" to "[Even if I know less than you, I still know that you're wrong via the unsubstantiated thought-terminating cliché of "conspiracy theory"]." Of course, Seb would never directly *admit* that he knows less than myself because underlying his Deception Loop is that he must *never* admit to his impenetrable ignorance. Or could he? Seb, put the issue to rest: will you admit that — regardless of whether or not you agree with my assessments — you know *far* less than myself on the subject of ESG? Meanwhile, this "pilling error" (which, I would guess — based on Seb's persistent grammatical errors as a window into his generally high error rate on *all* issues — is supposed to be "piling error") has no basis in real examples. Seb can give no specific claim to justify a distinction between my factual and heavily cited examples of the motives of ESG and examples of its real world results versus this "conspiracy theory" thought-terminating cliché. That's the thing about Regime sycophants: it's Celebration Parallax ad nauseam. He can only admit the truth if it's phrased in a way which is generous to the Regime. Meanwhile... [Seb]: "That's me on the right, saying "They just want the govt to let them sell you stuff"." Here Seb goes saying this outright false statement again (it is already in the list of his at least 28 outright false statements on ESG, which I listed in Thread 2 comments "Mon Jul 03 03:43:53" and "Jul 08 03:47:56"). Seb has no clue. Re-floating this error while simultaneously claiming "conspiracy theory" shows that Seb's latest rhetorical fallacy is not even backed in his own new comments. That is, his new fallacy is that his possessing expertise is not necessary to call out "conspiracy theory" for ESG, yet his basis for the "conspiracy theory" thought-terminating cliché is *based* in his error (i.e., his error is *directly* from his lack of expertise). He must presume a *false* motive of ESG from his ignorance in order to presume that the true motive is "conspiracy theory". In reality, Seb is wholly wrong about ESG. I will not, of course, fall into his "Deception Loop" or "Jergul Method" by correcting his error explicitly with information that he does not yet know, since he will then simply obfuscate his error by re-interpreting it with the new information so that he is "correct" ad hoc. There is a governance framework which directly expresses ESG's motive in black and white from the mouth of those who made it (directly contradicting Seb), but Seb is unaware of it. Rather than feeding Seb this framework to show that he is incorrect, it is better to let his errors continue so that these errors can be listed to expose his deceptive rhetoric and his lack of character. This stifles his Cunningham's Law manipulation wherein he draws the truth from others who know more than him so that he can deceptively re-interpret his previous false statements while claiming that he knew the new information but simply did not express it previously. Ironically, I have mentioned this motivating framework repeatedly in my articles and totalitarians threads, but Seb cannot be bothered to read and does not even know what to scan to find this information. He could not even Google it since he does not even know enough about the peripheral issues to point him in the right direction. He would simply need to know the information already, but he does not. [Seb]: "Now people are more likely to identify as being on a spectrum." This "identify"/"spectrum" rhetoric itself is a delusion which Seb cannot understand, since, without fail, Seb falls for these semantic distortions. Just as he erroneously thinks that gender is largely decoupled from the reality of sex due to semantic distortions by literal pedophiles such as Dr. John Money, Seb does not understand that this "spectrum" language is itself falsified. [Seb]: "more that it is changing how people describe it and talk about it." And Seb does not understand that these terms being used to change how people describe these things are delusions based in Marxism's use of slave morality to trap people in simulation tangents — much as Seb's entire rhetorical strategy hinges on getting people into useless simulations that evade reality itself.
Forwyn Member	Sat Jul 15 21:52:15 I think the fact that women are more likely to identify as bi or whatever other new Tumblr term because they kissed a girl once or had a crush on a celebrity as a child than they were for the same behavior ten years ago is more indicative of previously stated social contagion. /shrug
Seb Member	Sun Jul 16 06:53:24 Cc: "e., Seb stops reading when it suits him" I stop reading when you are just engaging in lengthy self indulgent posts about what you imagine I'm like. If you want to commit that to writing, fine, but don't expect me to waste time reading it. If you decide after half a page of reeling off a checklist of insults and irrelevant assertions you throw in an actual argument I'll probably have missed it. This is simply you being bad at structuring your thoughts.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 16 06:55:55 I'm on holiday now, prioritising family time, so see you in 2 weeks! Maybe by then you'll have articulated why not being disgusted at an image that is, according to your, no way paedophilic is proof of paedophilia; and why looking at this image is necessary to determine whether or not you are correct on ESG shit.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 16 07:26:52 Forwyn: That assumes that 1950s ethics or 1850s ethics represent some kind of high water mark. It seems to me this social norm of heterosexuality/homosexuality binary needed to be heavily policed with social shaming and on occasion physical violence both extra judicial and judicial. These were far far stronger than this supposed "social contagion" you describe, which in any case is based on positive reinforcement rather than criminalising certain sexualities, beating people who exhibit it up, or socially shunning/ verbally abusing them at every opportunity. That's antithetical to my values - which are laissez faire on private matters. Obviously minors can't consent, but other than that whatever two consenting adults get to to is their business. I really don't see why anyone else needs to judge them. Yet I suspect you have written more and spent more time worrying about this insidious contagion than considering whether the social controls that supposed homosexuality or bisexuality are reversing a centuries long social contagion. A social contagion that - unlike "ESG" - actually was instigated by a secretive, international power organisation that shaped and toppled govts at a whim, set out to control the thoughts of ordinary people why weaponising shame, and even now retains fabulous wealth, power and political influence, and actually does appear to have a string luck to organised coverup of child sexual abuse on a global scale. The collapse of that infrastructure of social control is going to lead to different behaviours, and I honestly don't see this as harmful. As for trans, it's a vanishingly small number of people and there's no real evidence that people are being rushed into making irrevocable changes.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jul 16 08:12:55 [Seb at CC]: "This is simply you being bad at structuring your thoughts." lol. Seb once again shuffling his duties to another department :D [Seb]: "[Yes, I fucked up the entire report, but *your* department may be responsible because they made the report-writing process slightly less efficient for the mentally retarded people within my department, so, honestly, it's not my fault. It's never my fault.]" Seb literally cannot read what I write, but it's not his fault. XD [Seb]: "Maybe by then you'll have articulated why not being disgusted at an image that is, according to your, no way paedophilic is proof of paedophilia; and why looking at this image is necessary to determine whether or not you are correct on ESG shit." I explained it about a dozen times, you pathetic retard. Maybe when you return from vacation you can learn to read. [Seb]: "As for trans, it's a vanishingly small number of people and there's no real evidence that people are being rushed into making irrevocable changes." lol. Delusional nonsense. No one is being rushed, guys! Seb isn't aware of these people being rushed to avoid puberty with puberty-blockers so there must not be evidence of them! ;D [Forwyn]: "more indicative of previously stated social contagion." I'd agree. Social contagions are not new. Even "The Crucible" and the Salem social contagions were largely based in massive role-playing. Looking at "The Crucible" through the lens of teens wanting to rebel and displacing accountability when caught is always illuminating. If you have a group of "adults" and those in charge of society, who are unable to recognize the simple stupidities of a malleable crowd and who are corrupted by some inflexible ideology, then they will erroneously project their inflexibility onto the vulnerable. Taken from Salem to our current social ailments, we have mentally retarded adults, such as Sebbish bureaucrats of the state, who believe that transitioning children is the proper response to their own new religion (as also the Salem religious adults projected their inflexible belief in witchcraft onto children who would say anything to evade punishment). This forces these vulnerable people to believe that self-emasculation is a normal means of solving their growth into adulthood. So, people like Seb are like the parents in Salem: hopeless enablers of a psychosis, not having the mental fortitude to call out insanity for what it is, instead believing the youth, crying, "Witchcraft!"/"Respect pronouns!" Any rational adult who knows and remembers the travails of youth knows that children will act out in irrational ways — with those irrationalities simply being reflections of the current dogmas — but pathetic people such as Seb will take those irrationalities as *continuations* of the current dogmas (taken as absolutes), having no memory and no perspective outside of their current self-deceptions. But the problem in Salem is that fucking idiots like Seb were in charge, and those who could manage perception and judiciousness were strategically limited. On the plus side, people like Seb become the infamous lessons of history. Their very names become forever blackened, like Richelieu, Robespierre, and Sewall. Bureaucratic foxes of procedure believe that they are safe from the risks faced by war-fighting lions.. up until the lions are turned on them.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 16 16:02:10 Cc: "Seb once again shuffling his duties to another department" You seem under the impression that I have a duty to read your nonsense. If you want to make a point, make it, don't bury it in pages of badly formatted irrelevance. If you want to waste *your* time, that's fine. But don't expect me to waste mine.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 17 03:42:52 "If you want to make a poin, make it, don't bury it in pages of badly formatted irrelevance." lol. Peak projection :D Yeah, guys! You should organize your information like *Seb*! .. which is to say... • in a series of disjointed comments that have no concept of the whole argument others previously made but which are him just going back into the buffet line of sentences that jump out at his ADD for whatever random bits he wants grab (as opposed to one comment which incorporates all points made in order to address the full context of an actual argument), • in such a way that shows that he didn't even comprehend the words that he read, • with poor grammar, poor sentence structure, and a learning-disabled child's fragmented sense of good faith argumentation and reason. • consistent with the Jergul Method, Deceptions Loop, Wandering Seb, and Seb's total lack of morality in favor of amoral bureaucratization. Yeah! Let's be like Seb! :D We can start by not reading anything he writes but responding as an authority over whatever we presume he may have written. I will try to apply this Seb System! :D
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 17 03:47:09 Seb System reply to Seb: [Seb]: "You seem under the impression" Umm, no, Seb. I am not underneath any impressionism. It doesn't even make sense that you're bringing up that art movement, though I am an expert in that movement and was talking about it with my fellow bureaucrats in... I want to say... the year 1346, which is when the 2015 SDGs were invented.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 17 03:49:53 Seb System reply to Seb: And I know you'll say that the 2015 SDGs weren't invented in 1346 since they actually existed before that, so I'll just add that precursors existed since I just Googled it and I was wrong but also I was right. [Seb]: "that I have a duty" Hmm. Very strange. I recall you talking about having made a dooty in your pants while we were discussing the 40% Brown study, wherein you argued that Brown pants were appropriate but a prostitute had already heard that joke. Your arguments for that study did not even make sense, since Brown pants cannot hide your poopy smell.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 17 03:51:23 Seb System reply to Seb: [Seb]: "But don't expect me" Please make that sentence shorter. Most of UP's thread titles are less than 40 characters, so please summarize that sentence. Don't expect me to read your sentences. You can waste your time, but I have important things to do, like helping to collapse society by being a Barnacle in the Circumlocution Office.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 17 05:00:29 lol :)
Seb Member	Mon Jul 17 05:33:55 Cc: Long sentences are fine. Replacing people's names with run on sentences describing characteristics that you ascribe to them which are ambiguous (because you use similar adjectives for multiple people in the thread) that are longer than a thread title - that's just self indulgent onanism. It's not that I couldn't read them, track them and figure out what's addressed at me and what isn't. It's that I'm not prepared to waste time and effort doing so. The fact you don't understand this and think it is a question of not being capable of doing so is just another example of your solipsistic sense of self entitlement. You need to decide, do you want to vent your spleen or do you want to make a point, and if you can't figure out how to do both at the same time without the one getting in the way of the other, that's poor style and structure.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 17 05:36:23 TL;Dr: nobody owes you shit and being tedious is a good way to get ignored.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 17 06:12:38 Seb System reply to Seb: [Seb]: "people's [...] with run [...] them [...] for multiple people [...] longer [...] self [...]" This literally makes no sense. It seems like gibberish to me, and I'm super smrt. I work in an office, and we have lots of paper there. In fact, I was just talking to a fellow bureaucrat yesterday, and my fellow bureaucrat said something to me like, "Aren't we very smrt?" And I replied that, yes, "Yes we are very smrt." Anyways, the fact that you don't understand how smrt i iz just shows that you can't make a point. If your words were fewer, I could understand, but because they are too many, and I am so smrt, I cannot understand many word, and that's your fault. "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvPaEsuz-tY
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 17 06:17:38 Seb System reply to Seb: Your arguments don't make sense when I place them out of order and move the words around, Seb. That's just poor style on your part: [Seb]: "same time ... waste time ... I couldn't ... onanism ... if you can't ... prepared to ... adjectives ... are ambiguous ... how to do both ... and effort" This is very parochial of you, Seb. If I can't understand your words, then it is you who cannot understand my words, and if you're incomprehensible to me, then it is your words that are incomprehensible. Also, I am the British now.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 17 06:20:48 Seb System reply to Seb: This additional comment is not constructive, but I just had a thought. I think I saved it to my phone, and I had a few minutes, so I just wanted to submit this. Oh yeah, I think I remembered: why haven't you answered the question I asked you? I think I asked you a few, but I'm not going to be specific. Oh, and why are the questions you asked me so difficult to find? What even is a question mark? How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real? Do you have money for the bus?
Seb Member	Tue Jul 18 04:59:19 "I know you are but what am I?"
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 18 06:17:09 Seb System reply to Seb: "I know you are but what am I!"
Dukhat Member	Tue Jul 18 08:47:57 Cherub Cow accusing others of mental confusion is like Beau Biden accusing others of sex and crack addiction.
Seb Member	Wed Jul 19 04:39:10 This is what I mean by you bring boring. You really don't need me to be involved in your socratic dialogue with a construction of your own imagination.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jul 19 05:23:41 That's cute, Seb. I'm sure you're psyched that you can claim to have done well in these threads despite all of the fuckups that you demonstrated and which I itemized repeatedly in bullet points. You literally could not even read my replies or answer my core arguments — even when I made them shorter than a Dukhat comment — but you think that a sufficient argument is, "[TLDR! LOL!]" It's pathetic and lazy as you are pathetic and lazy. Your ad hoc justifications for that laziness are not fooling anyone with an IQ over 100, which, again, does not include yourself. Relevant section of the Wandering Seb: "Your amazement was great the next day. [Seb] had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 19 05:44:37 So the summary is that seb admits he doesn’t know as much about ESG as CC, he just claims he probably heard the term before CC did. But he asserts that he still understands it better and concludes that *his* version of the WEF conspiracy is the valid one. Because he doesn’t understand words, he doesn’t understand that he described a conspiracy of powerful oligarchs capturing governments and lawmakers to sell you more stuff. Nothing new under the sun bla bla bla, part of the LARP that he totally isn’t claiming a storied experience e.g “this is boring and not new”. Honestly, this is just a stripped down and not researched version of what CC is writing, because he isn’t wrong, he just isn’t nearly correct enough. It is the version you get if you squint at the WEF from far away. We have to remember, seb belongs to a class of people who thought invading Iraq was such a great idea that we should have done it again in Syria only harder and for longer. The guy who thought the Andersen et al covid origins letter was science.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jul 19 06:09:38 [Nim]: "because he isn’t wrong, he just isn’t nearly correct enough. It is the version you get if you squint at the WEF from far away." Sounds about right. He's like the type of person who would watch North Korean propaganda and take it at face value. It's like those stories of Westerners being invited to go down Pyongyang streets, where everything is lit up just for them, but views of shabby side streets betray just a little too much for the façade to be convincing. People with a bit of perception can see the lies of that kind of theater, but Seb just believes the propaganda and ignores the ends of the façade.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jul 19 08:16:42 lol and he would say something like ”sure North Korea has some issues and challanges as do most countries, but those are a far throw away from the western caricature of a failing totalitarian state”.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jul 19 17:00:46 Lol I think we’re onto the ultimate Seb meme ;D
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: