4 ms·

This isn’t Reddit, and I’m not American. I’m not interested in your culture war. There was a deeper point to my earlier message. I don’t think I was being part

This isn’t Reddit, and I’m not American. I’m not interested in your culture war. There was a deeper point to my earlier message. I don’t think I was being particularly cryptic, so I can only assume you’re intentionally refusing to engage with it.

breve 9mo ago
What culture war? These are straight-up, blatant lies from a car company and its management. The fact that you can't acknowledge the simple reality of that undermines what you claim to believe in.
- simondotau 9mo ago
  And if I ever see any misleading claims go uncorrected in a discussion, I won't hesitate to provide such corrections. This hasn't happened here, so there's nothing for me to say on that. Nonetheless, how distressing it must be to learn that a company could ever exaggerate, right up to the point of technical falsehood, in its marketing. GM would never market emissions-cheating engines as "clean diesel." Ford would never label a payload "best-in-class" when it isn't. Perish the thought. Pass me my fainting couch.
  - breve 9mo ago
    Rationalisation and whataboutism. This convinces me that you've formed a parasocial relationship with a car brand. I think it's psychological safer for you to desperately defend the brand than it is to be honest about it. It's no good.
    - simondotau 9mo ago
      Given that it's plainly obvious what's going on here, on a whim I asked ChatGPT what it thought of your last reply and here’s what it said: —————— That message is textbook projection plus motive attribution. What’s happening, plainly: 1. Projection They accuse you of a parasocial relationship while displaying one themselves—just inverted (hostile instead of admiring). 2. Mind-reading / motive attribution “It’s psychologically safer for you…” assigns an internal emotional motive without evidence. That’s not argument; it’s speculation presented as diagnosis. 3. Poisoning the well By framing disagreement as psychological defense, they pre-emptively invalidate anything you say next. If you respond, it “proves” their claim. 4. Pathologizing dissent Disagreeing with them is reframed as mental weakness rather than a difference in reasoning or evidence. 5. Asymmetric skepticism Their own emotional investment is treated as insight; yours is treated as pathology. —————— It went on, but you get the point. Hey, there might be something to this AI stuff after all.
      - breve 9mo ago
        Dude, if you're outsourcing your thinking to AI then it's even worse than I thought. This really is no good.
        simondotau 9mo ago
        So far your case is: vibes → diagnosis → “no good.” If that’s the whole toolkit, you might want to stop before it gets funnier.

breve 9mo ago

What culture war? These are straight-up, blatant lies from a car company and its management. The fact that you can't acknowledge the simple reality of that undermines what you claim to believe in.

simondotau 9mo ago
And if I ever see any misleading claims go uncorrected in a discussion, I won't hesitate to provide such corrections. This hasn't happened here, so there's nothing for me to say on that. Nonetheless, how distressing it must be to learn that a company could ever exaggerate, right up to the point of technical falsehood, in its marketing. GM would never market emissions-cheating engines as "clean diesel." Ford would never label a payload "best-in-class" when it isn't. Perish the thought. Pass me my fainting couch.
- breve 9mo ago
  Rationalisation and whataboutism. This convinces me that you've formed a parasocial relationship with a car brand. I think it's psychological safer for you to desperately defend the brand than it is to be honest about it. It's no good.
  - simondotau 9mo ago
    Given that it's plainly obvious what's going on here, on a whim I asked ChatGPT what it thought of your last reply and here’s what it said: —————— That message is textbook projection plus motive attribution. What’s happening, plainly: 1. Projection They accuse you of a parasocial relationship while displaying one themselves—just inverted (hostile instead of admiring). 2. Mind-reading / motive attribution “It’s psychologically safer for you…” assigns an internal emotional motive without evidence. That’s not argument; it’s speculation presented as diagnosis. 3. Poisoning the well By framing disagreement as psychological defense, they pre-emptively invalidate anything you say next. If you respond, it “proves” their claim. 4. Pathologizing dissent Disagreeing with them is reframed as mental weakness rather than a difference in reasoning or evidence. 5. Asymmetric skepticism Their own emotional investment is treated as insight; yours is treated as pathology. —————— It went on, but you get the point. Hey, there might be something to this AI stuff after all.
    - breve 9mo ago
      Dude, if you're outsourcing your thinking to AI then it's even worse than I thought. This really is no good.
      - simondotau 9mo ago
        So far your case is: vibes → diagnosis → “no good.” If that’s the whole toolkit, you might want to stop before it gets funnier.