4 ms·

You dont recognize your very own words?

by aydyn 1y ago

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> Have you ever used copilot? Its Garbage with a capital G [sic] Haha! Gotcha! You don't recognize your own words?! Oh no I do, but my words made sense in the context I wrote them. They don't make sense here. It turns out words have meanings, and you can't generally copy/paste little substrings from one conversation into another haphazardly. Feel free to connect the dots between what I said and your response, if you'd like.
- aydyn 1y ago
  Oh yes words have meaning, some people can understand them.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    I guess I'll just assume there was no connection to be drawn. It's truly amazing how all the "curious" "just asking questions" types cannot get literally 3 exchanges into a conversation without short circuiting.
    - aydyn 1y ago
      "Deport people I disagree with" is not a post worth engaging with seriously. You couldnt get one exchange deep, so Im not too worried.
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        Ah we're dealing with a comprehension problem. Let me explain then. The point of "deport people I disagree with" was to highlight it as an illegal solution, much like the "don't give due process" solution. If we are to take your solution seriously (of simply ignoring our Constitution), then we have all sorts of "solutions" on the table, including ones like "deport people I disagree with." That is to imply that neither of these are actual solutions because both of them would require violating our Constitution. I suppose I made an error expecting I was speaking to someone with the cognitive firepower required to understand analogies and implicature, so I hope this helps.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    In the time it took you to make this snide comment on HN, you could have explained your quote which was evidently incomprehensible to all except yourself.
    - aydyn 1y ago
      You complaining about a post being snide lol funny how that doesnt apply to an obvious bad faith argument like "deport people I disagree with".
      - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
        That obviously was not "the argument" being made, LOL. Check your carbon monoxide detector. Then come back and try to connect the dots between your non-sequiturs.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
        That doesn't look like something made in bad faith to me, given that we're seeing threats of precisely that from the usa president [1]. Unfortunately, it's hard to conclude that you're correct in your personal determination of bad faith, because you haven't explained that quote [0] which was evidently incomprehensible except to yourself. Are you sure you want to talk about the topic? Clearly explaining what you meant there [0] would be a good start if so. Why not just say what you mean, and we can all have a civil discussion? Everybody wins then, right? Not that I'm forcing you to discuss anything civilly if you're not into it. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44466687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44466687 1: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/2/can-trump-strip-musk-and-mamdani-of-their-us-citizenship https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/2/can-trump-strip-musk...
        aydyn 1y ago
        That root post made a very civil request: what are realistic alternatives to mass deportation? Let's recap what kind of responses were made: * "It's your job to come up with an alternative" (not helpful) * "Just let them all stay" (not realistic) * "Actually Republican want illegal immigration, not Democrats, so they can rile up their base" (retarded) * Lots and lots and lots of ad hominem: "check your carbon monoxide monitor" The responses overall has just been completely lacking in any thought and lacking in any civility. It's a collective tantrum full stop. > Clearly explaining what you meant there [0] would be a good start if so. Don't gaslight. I reiterate that it was a direct response to a bad faith comment. There is nothing unclear about it. He suggested an unrealistic course of action which while he would be personally happy with, goes against what the vast majority of people would consider reasonable and hence fails the request for a "realistic alternative". > We simply deport anyone who makes the argument he's making The response is clear: that's unrealistic and not up to him. He understood exactly what it meant but didnt like his very own words used against him.

You dont recognize your very own words?

by aydyn 1y ago

You dont recognize your very own words?

> Have you ever used copilot? Its Garbage with a capital G [sic] Haha! Gotcha! You don't recognize your own words?! Oh no I do, but my words made sense in the context I wrote them. They don't make sense here. It turns out words have meanings, and you can't generally copy/paste little substrings from one conversation into another haphazardly. Feel free to connect the dots between what I said and your response, if you'd like.

aydyn 1y ago
Oh yes words have meaning, some people can understand them.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  I guess I'll just assume there was no connection to be drawn. It's truly amazing how all the "curious" "just asking questions" types cannot get literally 3 exchanges into a conversation without short circuiting.
  - aydyn 1y ago
    "Deport people I disagree with" is not a post worth engaging with seriously. You couldnt get one exchange deep, so Im not too worried.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      Ah we're dealing with a comprehension problem. Let me explain then. The point of "deport people I disagree with" was to highlight it as an illegal solution, much like the "don't give due process" solution. If we are to take your solution seriously (of simply ignoring our Constitution), then we have all sorts of "solutions" on the table, including ones like "deport people I disagree with." That is to imply that neither of these are actual solutions because both of them would require violating our Constitution. I suppose I made an error expecting I was speaking to someone with the cognitive firepower required to understand analogies and implicature, so I hope this helps.
- ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
  In the time it took you to make this snide comment on HN, you could have explained your quote which was evidently incomprehensible to all except yourself.
  - aydyn 1y ago
    You complaining about a post being snide lol funny how that doesnt apply to an obvious bad faith argument like "deport people I disagree with".
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      That obviously was not "the argument" being made, LOL. Check your carbon monoxide detector. Then come back and try to connect the dots between your non-sequiturs.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      That doesn't look like something made in bad faith to me, given that we're seeing threats of precisely that from the usa president [1]. Unfortunately, it's hard to conclude that you're correct in your personal determination of bad faith, because you haven't explained that quote [0] which was evidently incomprehensible except to yourself. Are you sure you want to talk about the topic? Clearly explaining what you meant there [0] would be a good start if so. Why not just say what you mean, and we can all have a civil discussion? Everybody wins then, right? Not that I'm forcing you to discuss anything civilly if you're not into it. 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44466687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44466687 1: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/2/can-trump-strip-musk-and-mamdani-of-their-us-citizenship https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/2/can-trump-strip-musk...
      - aydyn 1y ago
        That root post made a very civil request: what are realistic alternatives to mass deportation? Let's recap what kind of responses were made: * "It's your job to come up with an alternative" (not helpful) * "Just let them all stay" (not realistic) * "Actually Republican want illegal immigration, not Democrats, so they can rile up their base" (retarded) * Lots and lots and lots of ad hominem: "check your carbon monoxide monitor" The responses overall has just been completely lacking in any thought and lacking in any civility. It's a collective tantrum full stop. > Clearly explaining what you meant there [0] would be a good start if so. Don't gaslight. I reiterate that it was a direct response to a bad faith comment. There is nothing unclear about it. He suggested an unrealistic course of action which while he would be personally happy with, goes against what the vast majority of people would consider reasonable and hence fails the request for a "realistic alternative". > We simply deport anyone who makes the argument he's making The response is clear: that's unrealistic and not up to him. He understood exactly what it meant but didnt like his very own words used against him.