Utopia Talk / Politics / AI response slop

Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 12:16:14 A thread for AI responses so they can be used or studied and not spam the actual arguments. ie: link to thread poster timestamp prompt/model ====== outout Mostly because I want to post comparisons between different AI's on the same thread.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 12:48:01 http://uto...hread=94581&time=1748964252740 Entire thread Tue Jun 03 10:24:12 Model: Meteor 4B v.1 q5 (pocket pal, top p 64) Here are the condensed logical arguments of Pillz and Nimatzo in 5 objective, symbolically representative sentences: * Nimatzo: Socialist Arab states experienced collapse due to their inability to forge a cohesive national identity and adapt strategically to global powers. Monarchies, leveraging older ethno-tribal legitimacies, demonstrate greater inherent stability by fostering such cohesion. * Pillz: The "socialist" alignment of certain Arab states was fundamentally an anti-imperialist, anti-American stance. Their subsequent collapse was primarily a direct consequence of US intervention and geopolitical confrontation, not intrinsic flaws of socialism. The complex internal demographic makeup of these nations amplified their vulnerability to this external opposition, contrasting with the stability of monarchies often backed by pragmatic US alignment. --- Which user (nimatzo or Pillz) is correct? Why? Use reasoning and show it. ((I had gemini 2.5 flash create that summary after a length discussion I'll post later as a paste bin probably - it isn't the best response (4o, Grok3, gemini 2.5 flash all did much better) but for a 4b model running on a phone it isn't terrible either.)) ((Also this isn't meant to be taken as a proof within the other thread, I just ran the thread (and this summary) into multiple AI's as part of a comparison test I've begun)) ======== Pillz is likely the more accurate assessment, though both arguments contain elements of truth. Here's a breakdown of why: **Pillz's Argument:** * **Anti-Imperialist Drive:** Pillz correctly identifies the core motivation behind the socialist alignment of many Arab states – resistance to American and Western influence. This was a deliberate strategy to assert national sovereignty and avoid neocolonial control. * **US Intervention:** The collapse of these states is directly correlated with US-led interventions (e.g., Iraq, Libya). The interventions destabilized these nations, exacerbating existing internal divisions. * **Demographic Complexity:** Pillz highlights a crucial factor: the diverse ethnic and religious makeup of these Arab states. This complexity made them vulnerable to manipulation and division by external forces. * **Monarchies and Alignment:** The contrast with monarchies, often backed by the US, is pertinent. Monarchies, with their established legitimacy, were less susceptible to external destabilization. **Nimzo's Argument:** * **Internal Flaws:** Nimzo points to potential inherent weaknesses within socialism, which could be seen as contributing to the collapse. However, this is a more speculative and less demonstrable argument. * **Generalization:** Nimzo’s argument tends towards generalization, failing to account for the wide range of socialist experiences and implementations. **Why Pillz is Stronger:** The evidence supporting Pillz’s argument – the documented history of US interventions and the demographic complexities of the targeted Arab states – is far more compelling and directly linked to the observed outcomes. While Nimzo’s argument isn’t wrong *per se*, it's less grounded in historical reality. **Conclusion:** While both arguments offer insights, Pillz’s account, emphasizing the geopolitical context of US intervention and the internal dynamics of these nations, provides a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the collapses of the targeted Arab states. It correctly identifies the role of external actors and internal vulnerabilities in shaping these historical events.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 13:48:44 Funny how when Pillz posts, he wins, but when an outsider asks both Groth and ChatGPT, Nimatzo wins. According to both bots, Pillz insults instead of debating and both use unsupported arguments. E.g.: "Nimatzo stays on-topic, refines his thesis with each post, and engages with counterpoints. He introduces some irrelevant concepts, such as "slave morality." Pillz: Uses sarcasm and mockery ("Lol. Just lol") in place of substantive rebuttal. His critique of China is historically shallow (e.g., conflating Cold War proxy conflicts with China's strategic posture toward the U.S.). Pillz tends to veer into personal shots and snide asides (“because you're Swedish, not strictly stupid”), weakening his argumentative credibility. Verdict Nimatzo builds a multi-layered, coherent, and historically based thesis that—while debatable—invites engagement. Pillz, though more rhetorically forceful, offers less analytical depth and resorts to ad hominem tactics that detract from his credibility. Winner: Nimatzo (by clarity, structure, and historical depth).
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 14:00:57 Not that I read either since both are guaranteed to be racist garbage, but its rather funny how Twitchy prods his little sentient chatbot to give him the answers his ego hungers for.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 14:02:15 And both noted that Nimatzos reference to Nietzche were irrelevant and unrelated (i.e. just using famous quotes to pretend he's actually read Nietzche)
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 14:04:21 (slave morality being an integral component of christianity, according to him)
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 14:11:13 Here wtb, we will work our way up to gemini. http://uto...hread=94581&time=1748964252740 Entire thread Tue Jun 03 10:24:12 Model: Grok 3 (mobile app) Here's a a thread debating the Socialism vs. Tribalism in Arab states. Identify posters chronologically, then using in-depth logic and reasoning, evaluate their argumentation, track user comments and arguments backwards and forwards recursively to contextualize everything, and then give me an evaluation, give me an assessment as to the quality of each user's arguments and who is effectively winning through logic. ========= (Thoughts by Grok 3) Okay, let's start by identifying the posters in chronological order: nimatzo (PostID 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10) paramount (PostID 2) pillz (PostID 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15) williamthebastard (PostID 11) seb (PostID 12) Now, let's evaluate their arguments one by one.nimatzo starts the discussion by suggesting that Arab states that adopted socialist models have experienced collapse or instability, while monarchies rooted in tribal structures have been more stable. He uses examples like Iraq, Syria, and Libya versus Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Kuwait. paramount counters by arguing that the instability in Iraq, Syria, and Libya is due to US interference rather than their socialist models. He points to Sweden as an example of a successful socialist country, but notes that its success declined after the assassination of Olof Palme, which he attributes to US influence.nimatzo responds by narrowing the focus to Arab states and questions whether socialism creates prosperity or if prosperity allows for socialism. He also suggests that Sweden's success might be due to factors other than socialism, like the decline of tribalism due to the Church's influence. pillz agrees with paramount that US foreign policy played a significant role in the instability of Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and argues that socialism was not the primary factor. He also mentions Egypt as an example of an Arab nation that has been effective at navigating geopolitics. nimatzo counters pillz by arguing that the leaders of Iraq, Syria, and Libya were not good at playing the game of power, as they provoked the US without a effective strategy to deal with the consequences.pillz responds by listing various Arab nations and their statuses, suggesting that nimatzo's comparison is too narrow and ignores the impact of US foreign policy. nimatzo then brings up China as an example of a country that played its cards right by not provoking the US until it had built up its power. He also suggests that monarchies have an advantage due to their ethno-tribal legitimacy, which socialism cannot provide. pillz criticizes nimatzo's arguments, stating that they are based on bad ideas with no basis in fact.seb chimes in, agreeing with the foreign policy angle and suggesting that countries that aligned with the West during the Cold War benefited from stability, while those that didn't faced economic headwinds.Finally, pillz criticizes nimatzo's comparison of China to Arab states, pointing out that China's situation was different and that nimatzo is ignoring historical context.Now, let's evaluate the quality of each user's arguments. nimatzo's initial argument is interesting, but it seems to oversimplify the complex geopolitical situations in the Arab world. His focus on socialism versus tribalism ignores other factors like foreign intervention, economic policies, and regional conflicts. His comparison to China is also flawed, as China's situation is vastly different from that of Arab states.paramount's argument about US interference is valid, but his example of Sweden is not directly comparable to Arab states due to different historical and cultural contexts.pillz provides a more nuanced view, acknowledging the role of US foreign policy while also considering other factors. His criticism of nimatzo's arguments is well-founded. seb's contribution is brief but supports the foreign policy angle, which seems to be a significant factor in the stability of Arab states. williamthebastard's comment seems to be a non-sequitur and doesn't contribute to the discussion.Overall, pillz seems to have the strongest arguments, as he considers multiple factors and provides a more comprehensive view of the situation. nimatzo's arguments, while thought-provoking, are too narrow and ignore important context. paramount's point about US interference is valid but could be expanded upon. seb's comment is supportive but brief, and williamthebastard's comment is irrelevant. So, based on logic and reasoning, pillz is effectively winning the argument. To assess the quality of each user's arguments and determine who is effectively winning through logic, we need to evaluate the strength, coherence, and depth of their reasoning. Let's break down the contributions of each poster, considering the context of the entire thread. Overview of Posters and Their Positions nimatzo: Argues that Arab states adopting socialist models (e.g., Iraq, Syria, Libya) have faced collapse or instability, while monarchies with tribal structures (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait) have been more stable. He later ties this to national identity, suggesting that tribal/monarchical systems foster stronger cohesion than socialism. paramount: Counters that instability in Iraq, Syria, and Libya is due to US interference, not socialism. He cites Sweden as a successful socialist example but notes its decline after Olof Palme's assassination, which he attributes to US influence. pillz: Agrees with paramount that US foreign policy, not socialism, is the key factor in the instability of certain Arab states. He argues that nimatzo's comparison is too narrow and ignores geopolitical realities. seb: Briefly supports the foreign policy angle, suggesting that alignment with the West during the Cold War brought stability, while opposition led to economic challenges. williamthebastard: Makes an off-topic comment that doesn't contribute to the discussion. Evaluation of Arguments 1. nimatzo Initial Argument (Post 1): nimatzo sets up a binary comparison between socialist Arab states and monarchies, suggesting that tribal structures provide more stability. This is an interesting starting point but oversimplifies the complex factors at play in the region.Response to paramount (Post 3): He narrows the focus to Arab states and questions whether socialism creates prosperity or if prosperity enables socialism. He also introduces the idea that tribalism was mitigated in Europe by the Church, allowing broader identities to emerge. This adds depth but doesn't directly address paramount's point about US interference.On Power Dynamics (Post 4): nimatzo argues that leaders of Iraq, Syria, and Libya were "not very good at the game" of power, as they provoked the US without a strategy. This is a valid point about geopolitical strategy but still doesn't fully engage with the role of external intervention.China Comparison (Post 9): He contrasts Arab states with China, arguing that China avoided direct confrontation with the US until it was stronger. This is a flawed analogy because China's geopolitical context (size, history, global influence) is vastly different from that of Arab states.Identity and Monarchies (Post 9): nimatzo suggests that monarchies have an advantage due to "ethno-tribal legitimacy," which socialism cannot provide. This is an intriguing point about national cohesion but lacks evidence and ignores that socialist states like Iraq and Syria had their own forms of identity-building (e.g., Ba'athism).Slave Morality (Post 10): He introduces the concept of "slave morality" in leftist and Shi'a ideologies, which he claims erodes national identity. This is a provocative but tangential point that doesn't strengthen his core argument. Strengths: nimatzo raises thought-provoking ideas about identity and power dynamics. His focus on internal structures (tribalism vs. socialism) is a unique angle. Weaknesses: He downplays or sidesteps the significant role of external factors (e.g., US intervention) and overgeneralizes about socialism and tribalism. His analogies (China, Sweden) are not directly comparable to Arab states. 2. paramount US Interference (Post 2): paramount argues that US meddling, not socialism, caused instability in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. He points to Sweden as a successful socialist example but notes its decline after Olof Palme's assassination, which he attributes to US influence. Sweden Example: While Sweden's socialist policies were successful for a time, the comparison to Arab states is weak due to vastly different historical, cultural, and geopolitical contexts. The claim about US involvement in Palme's assassination is speculative and not directly relevant to Arab states. Strengths: paramount correctly identifies US foreign policy as a critical factor in the instability of certain Arab states. Weaknesses: His Sweden example is not analogous to the Arab world, and his argument lacks depth beyond blaming the US. 3. pillz US Foreign Policy (Post 5): pillz agrees with paramount that US intervention, not socialism, was the primary cause of instability in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. He notes that these countries were on the "wrong side" of US policy due to their alignment with the Soviets.Egypt and Lebanon (Posts 5 and 6): He cites Egypt as an effective player in geopolitics and Lebanon as an example of instability without a strong leader or US invasion. This adds nuance by showing that not all non-monarchical Arab states failed due to socialism.Critique of nimatzo (Posts 8, 13, 14, 15): pillz consistently challenges nimatzo's narrow focus, pointing out that nimatzo ignores the impact of US policy and the diversity of Arab states. He also criticizes the China comparison, noting China's unique context and history of proxy conflicts (e.g., Korea, Vietnam).Arab Identity and Monarchies (Post 15): pillz argues that nimatzo's view of Arab identity is overly simplistic and that monarchies like Saudi Arabia are not inherently superior but are propped up as US client states. Strengths: pillz provides a balanced, multi-faceted analysis that considers both internal and external factors. He effectively counters nimatzo's oversimplifications and offers specific examples (e.g., Egypt, Lebanon) to support his points. Weaknesses: While his critiques are strong, he could further elaborate on why socialism itself wasn't the root cause of instability in Arab states. 4. seb Foreign Policy Angle (Post 12): seb briefly supports the idea that alignment with the West during the Cold War brought stability, while opposition led to economic challenges. This reinforces the points made by paramount and pillz. Strengths: seb's comment is concise and directly relevant to the discussion. Weaknesses: It lacks depth and doesn't engage with the socialism vs. tribalism debate. 5. williamthebastard Off-Topic Comment (Post 11): His comment is irrelevant to the discussion and doesn't contribute to the argument. Strengths: None in the context of this debate. Weaknesses: Distracts from the main discussion. Assessment of Argument Quality nimatzo: His arguments are intellectually stimulating but ultimately too narrow. He focuses on internal structures (socialism vs. tribalism) while downplaying the overwhelming impact of external factors like US intervention. His analogies are weak, and he doesn't adequately address counterarguments. Quality: Moderate paramount: He correctly identifies US interference as a key factor but offers a limited analysis. His Sweden example is not directly relevant, and he doesn't engage with the socialism vs. tribalism debate. Quality: Low to Moderate pillz: His arguments are the most comprehensive and logically sound. He considers multiple factors (geopolitics, identity, history) and effectively challenges nimatzo's oversimplifications. He also provides relevant examples to support his points. Quality: High seb: His brief comment is accurate but lacks depth. It supports the stronger arguments made by pillz and paramount. Quality: Moderate williamthebastard: His comment is irrelevant and doesn't contribute to the debate. Quality: Low Conclusion: Who is Winning Through Logic? pillz is effectively winning the argument through logic. His responses are well-reasoned, consider multiple variables, and directly address the flaws in nimatzo's position. While nimatzo raises interesting points about identity and power, his failure to account for external factors and his reliance on weak analogies undermine his argument. paramount and seb provide supporting points but lack the depth and consistency of pillz's contributions. ========= (output) Chronological Identification of Posters The thread "Utopia Talk - Politics - Socialism and tribalism" features the following posters in chronological order based on their first posts :nimatzo (PostIDs: 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10) - Initiates the discussion. paramount (PostID: 2) - Responds to nimatzo. pillz (PostIDs: 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15) - Engages with nimatzo and paramount. williamthebastard (PostID: 11) - Makes a single comment. seb (PostID: 12) - Adds a brief perspective.Overview of the Debate The discussion revolves around nimatzo’s opening claim that Arab states adopting socialist models (e.g., Iraq, Syria, Libya) have faced collapse or instability, while monarchies rooted in tribal structures (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait) have been more stable. Other posters challenge this, emphasizing external factors like US foreign policy over internal governance models. Below, I evaluate each poster’s arguments for logic, coherence, and depth, tracking their contributions across the thread. Evaluation of ArgumentsnimatzoInitial Claim (Post 1): nimatzo posits that socialist Arab states (Iraq, Syria, Libya) collapsed or became unstable, while tribal monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait) remained stable. This sets up a binary comparison but lacks evidence beyond correlation, ignoring external influences like foreign intervention. Response to paramount (Post 3): He narrows the scope to Arab states, questioning whether socialism drives prosperity or if prosperity enables socialism. He suggests Sweden’s success stems from the Church reducing tribalism, not socialism. This adds nuance but sidesteps paramount’s point about US interference and introduces an unrelated historical factor (the Church in Europe). Power Dynamics (Post 4): nimatzo argues that leaders of Iraq, Syria, and Libya were poor at geopolitics, provoking the US without a strategy. This shifts focus to leadership competence, a valid angle, but still doesn’t address external aggression’s role. Counter to pillz (Post 7): He likens catastrophic failures of these regimes to failing a stress test after decades of rule, suggesting they should have pivoted like Egypt or Jordan. This reinforces his strategic failure argument but downplays how US actions limited their options. China Analogy (Post 9): nimatzo contrasts Arab states with China, which avoided direct US confrontation until stronger. He argues this shows smart power play, unlike Arab socialist states. The analogy is flawed—China’s size, history, and global role differ vastly from Arab states. Identity and Monarchies (Post 9): He claims monarchies have "ethno-tribal legitimacy" that socialism can’t replicate, tying stability to identity. This is an interesting hypothesis but lacks empirical support and ignores socialist states’ own identity-building efforts (e.g., Ba’athism). Slave Morality (Post 10): He introduces "slave morality" in leftist and Shi’a ideologies, suggesting it erodes national identity. This is tangential, speculative, and doesn’t bolster his core argument. Assessment: nimatzo’s arguments are thought-provoking, focusing on internal structures (socialism vs. tribalism) and leadership strategy. However, they oversimplify complex geopolitics, underweight external factors like US intervention, and rely on shaky analogies (China) and unproven claims (tribal legitimacy). His logic is coherent within his framework but incomplete. paramount US Interference (Post 2): paramount argues that instability in Iraq, Syria, and Libya stems from US meddling, not socialism, while monarchies like Saudi Arabia are stable as US vassals. He cites Sweden’s socialist success until Olof Palme’s assassination, which he attributes to the US. The US interference point is strong, but Sweden’s relevance to Arab states is questionable due to different contexts, and the assassination claim is speculative. Assessment: paramount correctly highlights US foreign policy’s role, a key factor nimatzo overlooks. However, his argument is underdeveloped, and the Sweden example weakens his case due to its inapplicability. His reasoning is logical but lacks depth and direct engagement with nimatzo’s tribalism thesis. pillz US Foreign Policy (Post 5): pillz agrees with paramount that US intervention, tied to Soviet alignment, not socialism, caused instability in Iraq, Syria, and Libya. He challenges nimatzo’s view that their leaders were simply incompetent, noting decades of rule as evidence of skill. Examples (Posts 5-6): He cites Egypt as adept at geopolitics despite not being a monarchy, and Lebanon as unstable without US invasion or strong leadership. These examples broaden the discussion beyond nimatzo’s binary. Critique of nimatzo (Post 8): pillz calls nimatzo’s focus too narrow, listing diverse Arab states (e.g., Iran, Yemen) and arguing that US intervention, not socialism, drove failures. This directly undermines nimatzo’s thesis with evidence of external causation.Response to China (Posts 13-15): He refutes nimatzo’s China analogy, noting China’s proxy wars (Korea, Vietnam) contradict the "cautious" narrative. He also challenges the idea that Arab identity or socialism inherently failed, suggesting monarchies survive as US clients, not due to tribal strength.Identity Critique (Post 15): pillz dismisses nimatzo’s ethno-tribal legitimacy claim, pointing out diversity in socialist states and arguing that Iran’s struggles don’t support nimatzo’s identity thesis. This is a sharp, context-aware rebuttal. Assessment: pillz offers the most robust arguments, blending external factors (US policy) with specific examples (Egypt, Lebanon) and dismantling nimatzo’s oversimplifications. His critiques are precise, evidence-based, and address both logic and context. His reasoning is strong and comprehensive. seb Foreign Policy (Post 12): seb argues that post-colonial monarchies benefited from Western support during the Cold War, while socialist states faced economic headwinds from opposing the West. This aligns with pillz and paramount, reinforcing the external influence angle. Assessment: seb’s point is logical and relevant but brief. It supports the stronger arguments without adding significant depth or engaging nimatzo’s tribalism claim directly. williamthebastard Off-Topic (Post 11): His comment about “jooz” and “Marxismist” is irrelevant and doesn’t engage the debate. Assessment: williamthebastard contributes nothing substantive; his argument quality is negligible. Quality Assessment of Each User’s Arguments nimatzo: Moderate - Interesting ideas about identity and strategy, but flawed by oversimplification, weak analogies, and evasion of external factors. Coherent but incomplete. paramount: Low to Moderate - Valid point about US interference, but shallow analysis and an irrelevant Sweden example limit its strength. pillz: High - Nuanced, multi-faceted, and directly challenges flaws in opposing arguments with evidence and logic. The strongest contributor.seb: Moderate - Accurate and supportive, but lacks depth or originality. williamthebastard: Low - Irrelevant and unhelpful. Who is Winning Through Logic? pillz is effectively winning the argument through logic. His comprehensive approach—addressing US foreign policy, providing counterexamples, and dismantling nimatzo’s narrow focus—demonstrates superior reasoning. nimatzo raises provocative points but falters under scrutiny, while paramount and seb offer valid but less developed contributions. pillz’s ability to contextualize and refute makes him the standout debater.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 14:12:32 Note how wtb couldn't offer the posts examined, the model posted, or the prompt.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 14:13:56 williamthebastard Member Tue Jun 03 14:00:57 Not that I read either since both are guaranteed to be racist garbage, but its rather funny how Twitchy prods his little sentient chatbot to give him the answers his ego hungers for.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 14:15:56 You really should stop projecting
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 14:18:20 So, if I was Nimatzo, I’d do the same checkup on as many chatbots as he can think of, and he will doubtlessly and very mysteriously receive completely different responses than Twitchys
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 14:20:04 And he should also note that slave morality is a founding keystone of the christianity morality he says he believes in, according to the guy who coined the concept
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 14:26:57 "So, if I was Nimatzo, I’d do the same checkup on as many chatbots as he can think of" Actually, I wouldnt for a second if I was having a serious debate, since its an idiotic, anti-intellectual toy when used like that
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 14:33:06 I said in my post this has no barring on the debate and is a part of ongoing testing I'm doing across models. I understand that following multiple posters and their arguments and counter arguments is impossible for you, but that doesn't mean we should rule out the possibility (and fact) it isn't impossible for AI and attempt to evaluate the abilities of various AI's on identical or like tasks (results in experiments run on you return null results)
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 14:38:52 He should also note that the guy who coined the concept of slave morality also preferred Islam to Christianity for that exact reason.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 14:41:34 These are the kinds of problems that make a person and his arguments look foolish when he references philosophical concepts from a Tiktok clip that he knows nothing about
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 14:44:07 I make a thread to post AI spam I end up with 6/16 posts The rest are wtb talking to himself And this is not even unusual. Lol
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 15:49:19 See, the trouble with Nietzsche for contemporary fascist rightwing extremists is that while he certainly was a conservative, he was 10 times deeper. Fascists who have always misappropriated him have done so because they only read the surface and are too ignorant to notice the 10 layers to everything he says. He was a conservative who believed that some people are talented and other people are untalented, and it would be a crime for the talented to be hindered in any way by the untalented. Which is how he understands ”the meek shall inherit the Earth”. Thats the untalented demanding to rule the world, in his opinion. But he also despises a talented person being cruel to an untalented. He just thinks the untalented should never be allowed to get in the way of the talented. However, he doesnt judge talent or high civilization at all by shallow economic wealth or level of engineering technology or iPhones or rockets to Mars. He much prefers the artist to the engineer. The engineer is a fairly low person, in his view, while the artist is life-affirming and reaches to the Gods and celebrates life. Neither does he judge how well a civilization is doing by the snapshot moment that the observer happens to live in, as extremists like Nimatzo do. Islamic and Christian and other regions have risen and sunk up and down all through history. In fact, he demands any thinking person to have the duty of to not being blinded by staring at the zeitgeist and trend of his own few seconds of existence in history.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 15:57:49 Or, since you idiots prefer the words of a machine to the words of humans: " What did Nietzsche think of technology? 1. Ambivalence Toward Modernity Nietzsche was deeply critical of modernity, which includes the scientific and technological mindset. He saw it as part of a broader trend of rationalization and mechanization that led to the decline of spiritual depth and vitality in human life. In this sense, technology, as part of the modern apparatus, was suspect. “The greatest event of recent times – that ‘God is dead,’ that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable – is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe.” This “death of God” also symbolizes the rise of secular, technical rationality, which Nietzsche feared would lead to nihilism and a loss of higher values. 2. Will to Power vs. Mechanization Nietzsche's concept of the will to power — the fundamental drive toward growth, strength, and self-overcoming — contrasts sharply with the way technology can standardize, automate, and pacify human behavior. He would likely view technological dependence as antithetical to self-mastery. Technology could be seen as both a tool for extending human power and a trap that dulls the instincts and fosters herd behavior. 3. Critique of Efficiency and Utility Nietzsche distrusted the Enlightenment values of utility, progress, and comfort — all of which are tied to technological thinking. He feared they would create a society of the “last men” — people who desire only safety, convenience, and mediocrity, having lost the heroic will to create meaning." 4. Art vs. Technological Thinking Nietzsche championed art, myth, and aesthetics as life-affirming forces. He opposed the cold, instrumental reason behind science and technology. He feared that reducing the world to calculable, controllable processes flattens existence. 5. Proto-Existential View on Tools In a few passages, Nietzsche acknowledges the role of tools and machines in shaping the human world, but he always framed them as subordinate to human creativity, power, and values. When technology becomes an end in itself, it represents decadence. Summary: Nietzsche saw technology as a double-edged sword: It could extend human potential (as a tool of the will to power). But more often, it risked undermining authenticity, creativity, and higher values, contributing to nihilism and mediocrity. He would likely critique our modern technological society as decadent, overly focused on comfort and control, and a threat to the kind of heroic, tragic individualism he admired.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 16:04:17 "See, the trouble with Nietzsche for contemporary fascist rightwing extremists is that while he certainly was a conservative, he was 10 times deeper. Fascists who have always misappropriated him have done so because they only read the surface and are too ignorant to notice the 10 layers to everything he says." Which is why Ayn Rand initially called herself a Nietzschean until finally someone got her to read him in a bit more depth and she realized he wasnt spouting the stupid superficial nonsense she believed in at all, at which point she didnt like him anymore
Paramount Member	Tue Jun 03 16:15:53 I wish I have saved all of Hot Rod’s posts (I only have few saved somewhere) so we could ask AI to analyze him.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 16:20:30 We can have all of hot rods posts. I just haven't downloaded that far back yet and haven't gone through the trouble of exporting them from nhill's db because that's require doing everything twice which is painful and slow. But my current project is to use google colab to unsloth+gpro a Gemma 3 PT model, using posters as fine tuning sets to reinforce personas. Ideally this helps the AI engage with content from UP better, without needing to trip moderation or content filters on colab. At a minimum I can get it to refuse or avoid in the style of x or y poster depending on context.
Pillz breaker of wtb	Tue Jun 03 16:21:25 This would be UP-GTP v0.0.1 if it works
williamthebastard Member	Tue Jun 03 17:22:07 It is delicious irony, of course, when someone invokes slavery morality - the rotten core of christianity, according to the man who came up with the theory - to argue that christian nations are superior to Islamic nations - Islam being a superior religion for not succumbing as much as christianity to slavery morality, according to that theorist lol. Its getting his argument exactly 100% backwards.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jun 05 08:02:19 Of course, Nietzsche didnt like any religions particularly. He just felt that of the 3 abrahamic religions, Islam was the least self-denying and most life-affirming, Christianity taking the worst bits of Judean slave morality and increasing those values even more. He felt that the smartest way to be spiritual, our spiritual nature being extremely important because nihilism is suicidal and very destructive according to his views, was through art.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jun 05 08:06:31 *was through the arts
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jun 05 09:25:30 Trump would, of course, be the ultimate nihilist in Nietzsches view, who doesnt care what he destroys as long as it serves him, because he doesnt believe anything is higher, holier or more important than himself.
williamthebastard Member	Thu Jun 05 09:52:36 "Would Nietzsche relate populistic politics to ressentiment/slave morality? Yes, Nietzsche would almost certainly relate populistic politics to slave morality. Let’s unpack that: Populism as Slave Morality Populism, especially in its resentment-driven forms, fits Nietzsche’s concept of slave morality: It often arises from grievance — the feeling that “elites,” “experts,” or “privileged groups” are dominating or corrupt. It claims to represent “the real people” (a herd notion) against exceptional individuals or institutions. It tends to demonize power, intellect, and distinction — calling them arrogant, immoral, or alien. It appeals to emotion over reason, equality over excellence, and comfort over greatness. He saw populism not as a triumph, but as the herd’s last defense against excellence. Nietzsche’s aristocratic radicalism admired individuals who create their own values and stand above the masses (Übermenschen). Populism often directs moral scorn and envy at such figures. He would likely see populistic politics as: A herd revolt dressed in moral outrage. A political form of slave morality’s revenge — turning politics into a morality play where success is punished and mediocrity is rewarded. A way to avoid the terrifying demand of self-overcoming by dissolving the individual into the "will of the people." Modern Populism and Nietzsche Whether from the left or right, populism often preaches: “They (the elites) are evil.” “We (the common people) are morally pure because we suffer.” “The strong must be humbled; the system must be torn down.” Nietzsche would likely say: This is pure ressentiment. It masks weakness in moral terms, glorifies mediocrity, and suppresses the emergence of truly great individuals. Summary Nietzsche would interpret populistic politics as: A political expression of slave morality. Driven by ressentiment, envy, and the fear of distinction. A symptom of cultural decline, not a solution. He would not praise populist uprisings — left or right — but rather look for the creator of new values who rises beyond the herd, not panders to it."
Pillz breaker of wtb	Thu Jun 05 12:40:46 Seems I figured out by Gemini has such vastly different outputs on the Socialism v. Tribalism debate It seems to believe that I am defending socialism. Responses shift once that misconception is corrected. I just can't understand where that is coming from. My arguments are also often lost, seemingly because nimatzo primed the thread with his 4-concept post and the AI is looking for arguments to support a similar (but counter) framework (which isn't what I'm trying to do). Fascinating.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: