You implied it, pretty strongly. Don't be a weasel, if you're calling someone chatgpt because of their opinion, you're clearly suggesting that you believe someone with that opinion (opposing your opinion) can't be real.
I implied that I suspect Patrick might be a bot. I suspect that for many reasons, none of which have to do with their opinion.
NOT *"believe"*, **suspect**
NOT *"is"*, **might be**
NOT *"everyone"*, just **Patrick**
NOT *"because of their opinion"*
I never said I believe this conspiracy theory. I find it compelling, but I don't see a smoking gun.
I never said my "heuristic for deciding who is real" is if someone believes what I believe. It isn't.
I never said it's "hard for [me] to believe that someone who disagrees with [me] don't [sic] exist". I know people who don't agree with me exist.
I never said I "find it suprising that someone who disagrees...". I don't.
That's at least 8 false assumptions all rolled up in your comment.
I'm not "[being] a weasel". I'm pointing out your straw-man.
I don't owe you an explaination of why I made the comment I made, but since you asked so "nicely":
My main reason for suspecting Patrick might be a robot is that my other conversation with him devolved quickly into nonsense. They wrote a garbled sentence that seems to be about the author hiding behind plausible deniability, but it's not clear. Then they claimed it was about "bias" and instead of clarifying what they meant to write, they claimed I was being intelectually dishonest. Like I was pretending to not understand a mangled sentence or something. They said OP was guilty of being "dishonest" and repeatedly failed to even address what she said that was a lie or misleading.
At first, I suspected English might not be their native language, but they denied any gramtical errors and use vocabulary that sugests otherwise. However, they seemed incapable of addressing previous comments and changed the subject nearly every reply.
I think it's dumb that someone posting so many replies in the comments of a single article would tell others to touch grass. I don't think that indicates a robot. Just a hypocrite who lacks self-awareness.
I think it's suspect that their account is so new and they only have one friend who's also replying to this one comment thread, but I'm also very new to sub-stack, so I don't think that's a smoking gun. Also, their handle "disruptingtheechochamber" doesn't particularly smack of bot. YouTube is crawling with bots and a big clue is usually a name like "VenomFang-a8e9fjen". When I see that, I check their profile and usually it's obvious. Like their account is brand new.
Over half of all engagement is generated by bots, so you start out with 50/50 chance any comment is from a bot apriori. I know Reddit, YouTube, Facebook, and many others are infested. I don't know about Substack.
Nope. I never said any of that. That's a pretty lousy straw-man you got there.
You implied it, pretty strongly. Don't be a weasel, if you're calling someone chatgpt because of their opinion, you're clearly suggesting that you believe someone with that opinion (opposing your opinion) can't be real.
So what *are* you saying then, if not that?
I implied that I suspect Patrick might be a bot. I suspect that for many reasons, none of which have to do with their opinion.
NOT *"believe"*, **suspect**
NOT *"is"*, **might be**
NOT *"everyone"*, just **Patrick**
NOT *"because of their opinion"*
I never said I believe this conspiracy theory. I find it compelling, but I don't see a smoking gun.
I never said my "heuristic for deciding who is real" is if someone believes what I believe. It isn't.
I never said it's "hard for [me] to believe that someone who disagrees with [me] don't [sic] exist". I know people who don't agree with me exist.
I never said I "find it suprising that someone who disagrees...". I don't.
That's at least 8 false assumptions all rolled up in your comment.
I'm not "[being] a weasel". I'm pointing out your straw-man.
I don't owe you an explaination of why I made the comment I made, but since you asked so "nicely":
My main reason for suspecting Patrick might be a robot is that my other conversation with him devolved quickly into nonsense. They wrote a garbled sentence that seems to be about the author hiding behind plausible deniability, but it's not clear. Then they claimed it was about "bias" and instead of clarifying what they meant to write, they claimed I was being intelectually dishonest. Like I was pretending to not understand a mangled sentence or something. They said OP was guilty of being "dishonest" and repeatedly failed to even address what she said that was a lie or misleading.
At first, I suspected English might not be their native language, but they denied any gramtical errors and use vocabulary that sugests otherwise. However, they seemed incapable of addressing previous comments and changed the subject nearly every reply.
I think it's dumb that someone posting so many replies in the comments of a single article would tell others to touch grass. I don't think that indicates a robot. Just a hypocrite who lacks self-awareness.
I think it's suspect that their account is so new and they only have one friend who's also replying to this one comment thread, but I'm also very new to sub-stack, so I don't think that's a smoking gun. Also, their handle "disruptingtheechochamber" doesn't particularly smack of bot. YouTube is crawling with bots and a big clue is usually a name like "VenomFang-a8e9fjen". When I see that, I check their profile and usually it's obvious. Like their account is brand new.
Over half of all engagement is generated by bots, so you start out with 50/50 chance any comment is from a bot apriori. I know Reddit, YouTube, Facebook, and many others are infested. I don't know about Substack.
Satisfied?
You’re on the money. 💙🇺🇸💙
You're a seriously troubled little goofball lmao.
Takes one to know one.
At least I know how grammar works, dipshit.