You must log in or # to comment.
OP should watch Django
Why should I be bigoted over skin color when I can be bigoted over culture and religion. After all I have met good folks of many ethnic and racial groups, I have yet to meet a Utah Mormon whomst I didn’t want to feed to the Joshua Trees.
I can be bigoted over culture and religion
I have yet to meet a Utah Mormon whomst I didn’t want to feed to the Joshua Trees.
I’m always thrown back to the Southpark guys when I think about lay Mormons. The whole “All About Mormons” episode (nevermind the Book of Mormon stage play) absolutely eviscerates the philosophy. But their attitude to actual religious practitioners is inevitably that they’re just nice, simple-minded people. And going after any individual Mormon for their faith is a bit like going up to Santa Claus exhibit at the mall and screaming “Fake! Fake! It’s all bullshit consumerism! Your parents are buying the presents!”
There’s definitely shit people who are Mormon (Mitt Romney being the ur-example). But then there’s shit people in every religious and philosophical niche. My cousin is married to a practicing Mormon and he’s an absolute marshmallow sweetheart. All smiles, great with kids, quick to help anyway he can. Soft spoken, non-judgemental, a shameless teatoddler who is always happy to be the designated driver. You can raz him for being a bit bland and he’ll laugh at your jokes, then maybe tease you about having had one too many coffees.
It’s the people who are easy to bully and scare and intimidate that can make for a very dangerous “Silent Majority”, because they’ll just kinda go along to get along. But they’re also fundamental to a peaceful, productive, and happy society when benevolent and visionary leaders are at the helm. If your society is all contrarian, belligerent, hard-drinking, fist-clenching, radical revolutionary/reactionary agitprop breathing soldiers of fortune, what you get is just endless fighting and misery and slaughter.
Ya do realize I have more reason to hate Utah Mormons than just they’re different right? I specifically focus on the Utahn culture and religious practices of Mormons because I see them as an active threat to basically every western state. If I could get away with just purging BYU, LDS HQ, and the Utahn government I’d be more than happy to settle for that, I just severely doubt that would end my complaints.
If it makes it any more understandable I am far less forgiving towards Evangelical mega churches, which all I can think is that there are only viable targets for such groups.
I have more reason to hate Utah Mormons than just they’re different right?
A rationalization, certainly.
If I could get away with just purging BYU, LDS HQ, and the Utahn government I’d be more than happy to settle for that
Downright Israeli of you.
I am far less forgiving towards Evangelical mega churches
It just sounds like you’re on the warpath.
Tyler Robinson is alright
deleted by creator
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, however this is a strawman argument. I don’t see intelligence inversely correlated with racism either.
I don’t see intelligence inversely correlated with racism either.
Increasingly byzantine rationalizations for why you’re an asshole used to be the centerpiece of conservative intellectualism. You could get a PhD in racism if you worked hard enough. The SCOTUS and the appellate courts are packed with people who can tie an argument in knots to justify some new level of human misery. The Pentagon and its contracting affiliates are stuffed with top tier engineers and logistical savants and IT professionals fully inducted into the white supremacist worldview.
Some of the most impressive feats of social engineering have occurred in order to perpetuate social anxiety between ethnic groups.
It’s obviously not a strict one-to-one relationship but I do think more intelligent people are on average slightly less racist.
I don’t think such moral questions are at all influenced by intelligence, personally. Is there any data on this? I imagine it must be very hard since biological differences exists and it all kinda boils down to value judgments, which cannot be derived directly from scientific research alone. I realize while arguing this that is is an extremely sensitive and hairy subject to even argue around. I appreciate you entertaining this 😄😄
Morality is influenced by ‘intelligence’ in like every way. Your ability to contrive bullshit and keep buying that bullshit, your willingness to terminate thoughts, your curiosity, and your ability to see why things matter and do shit like extend the scale of the self or take differing perspectives are all directly functions of various cognitive and psychological factors often called ‘intelligence’. Broadly intelligent people who are also pieces of shit are rare. Deeply stupid people who are broadly moral are rare. Even the ways people suck change as they acquire more ‘intelligence’.
Please cut the anti intellectual bullshit.
Your ability to contrive bullshit and keep buying that bullshit, your willingness to terminate thoughts, your curiosity, and your ability to see why things matter and do shit like extend the scale of the self or take differing perspectives are all directly functions of various cognitive and psychological factors often called ‘intelligence’.
But all of that can still end in a racist worldview, depending on what directions you take your train of thought and what conclusions you find most plausible. That’s the old “FBI Crime Statistics” and “Social Darwinism” / “Bell Curve” gambit. And it works on a large number of proven intellectuals. FFS, James Watson - one of the pioneers of modern genetics - is a frothing racist. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger is a Christian Nationalist. Being “smart” isn’t a panacea for being gullible.
At some point, “intelligent” people are more vulnerable to misinformation than their “dumb” peers, because they have more experience absorbing and applying advanced theories and philosophies without fully grasping how they work. The more advanced you get in any scientific field, the more you’re forced to accept on faith because you recognize you simply don’t have the time or the energy to delve down every academic rabbit hole. The end result is a certain scholastic dogma that people cling to because they simply accept prior generations have done the leg-work.
Present information in the pastiche of academia and you can reliably delude academics and scholars up front. Argue convincingly with the right jargon, present walls of data with citations and graphics, and follow the superficial mannerisms of trustworthy peers. You’ll catch lots of people who have trained themselves to correlate the structure of the presentation as inherently trustworthy.
By contrast, folks who aren’t familiar or experienced with a certain scholarly formulation won’t be fooled simply because they don’t know how to absorb the information or recognize the display as a trustworthy format.
Outliers disprove the trend, its true. I’m glad I used absolute terms with no nuance and didn’t acknowledge this literally first thing in my comment.
Outliers disprove the trend, its true.
They define it’s limits and illustrate it’s flaws.
But what I see most commonly referred to as “intelligence” tends to be phrased as “common wisdom”. You cannot simultaneously be “smart” and “wrong”. Therefore, placidly regurgitating the correct answers somehow signify more intelligence than painstakingly carving out another view.
I’m glad I used absolute terms with no nuance
Well, that’s sort of the joke, isn’t it?
No need to be hostile. I don’t hear any direct counter arguments here other than you don’t agree with my claim. I am simply basing my opinion on the fact that I have not seen any evidence of there being a documented correlation, and also because history is full of very intelligent people being very racist and pro slavery.
You’re right, only stupid people are nice and good.
You do not seem very interested in having an honest discussion about this. That’s fine. Have a nice day anyway 😅
He’s too smart not to be an insufferable prick.
Oh, you’ve never been outside?
Yes
Always have been.
There are plenty of idiots that can raise kids.
I don’t think that’s the bar.
I’m not a historian but I believe the sad truth is that they saw them like animals; capable of being trained to do jobs but not smart enough to understand more complex issues or choose the tasks themselves
Like a dog. You can train your dog to guard your house or hunt birds but you probably don’t trust your dog to vote
It’s fucked up
And yet you keep defending Elmo’s nazi salute…
What is actually rattling around inside that head of yours?
Because I don’t care if a I like someone or not, I’m not going to lie about what actually happened
I’ve seen how people vote. I’d take the chances with the dogs, so maybe a bad example. I feel like they might be able to better know who’s a piece of shit than most humans can.
One Sunday morning I walked out into my ex’s open garage and sitting in there was a stray dog. Her neck fur had a mark as though someone recently pulled off her collar and dumped her on the back road. I calmly approached the dog and turns out she was the sweetest doggo and instantly got along with my ex’s other 2 dogs. She rarely barked and would always just walk up to someone, sit and wait to get petted. Even the ex’s dad who doesn’t like dogs eventually warmed up to her because of how sweet she was.
Weeks later we took her to an event downtown on an unseasonably hot fall afternoon beer fest. That dog wanted nothing more than to just get pet by as many people as possible. Outside the front door of a brewery was a worker sitting in a chair almost drenched in sweat looking like he hated life. She walked up to him, sat down and looked at him, and he instantly smiled.
Working one of the beer tents was an interim director of HR from my job who was one of the most miserable shit-birds I ever had the displeasure to work with. She did nothing but complain about everything and everyone, blindly blamed everyone for things she simply didn’t understand, I even nearly got written up because this lady didn’t take the time to read my explanation about an error report when new employees are loaded into a benefits system. Even the sweetest dog wanted nothing to do with that miserable fuck.
I’ll trust the dogs to be a better judge of character than half the mouthbreathers who vote at the polls.
deleted by creator
they are though.
anyone who grew up in the american suburbs grew up with parents who couldn’t cook a proper meal despite the existence of cookbooks and were like ‘how about kraft dinner.’
you think you eat kraft macaroni and cheese at a hood bbq?
i’d rather have had a black woman cooking for me lol. are you fucking serious?
There are a few forms or levels of racism. There are people who really believe the narrative, some who question some of it, and others who are aware it’s bullshit but accept it because it benefits them or going against the narrative could be harmful for themselves. In short humans will craft whatever story they need to justify behavior they want without any concerns for logical consistency. You can see this behavior in racism now and of course many other aspects of society and human behavior. Humans are storytellers, more so than logical beings.
Funny enough Benjamin Franklin has a short story on this. He as a vegetarian was lamenting his compatriots catching, killing, and cooking fish, listing all the reasons it’s immoral until he begins to smell the delicious fish and then starts writing about how maybe it’s not so bad, is fine, is even his god given right to eat the fish. The moral being humans can and will justify whatever they want to do. Also I’m aware of his own connection to slavery and inhumane practices.
And so the billionaires win again as we fight to justify not being assholes to one another.
Those in power want to maintain power which is much easier if the people are divided, particularly on subjects not involving the people in power.
Have you ever seen the movie Se7en with Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman? I don’t know a single person who wouldn’t do what Brad Pitt did at the end of that movie. Not a single person. And I wouldn’t blame them either.
Just the other day someone posted on here that their uncle died from covid after getting sucked into the alt-right pseudo-medicine rabbit hole. And the comments were all just vile shit like “I’m glad your dumbass uncle died” and “1 down only like 20 million to go”, “good riddance he deserved it” etc. And when I point out shit talking this guy for losing someone he loved is fucked up I get downvoted lol. We can’t even come together online, let alone in person.
Whoever is running things know that we simply cannot get along, we cannot forgive each other, we cannot unite. It’s their greatest tool honestly. Could you forgive maga?
I don’t think I’d do what Brad Pitt did at the end of that movie, one-shot kill is far too kind and reasonable for the state of mind I’d be in.
Hmmm…
people and children in cages
the bombing of civilians
poisioning of natural ecosystems
abject torture and abuse of the innocent
nope. I’d think about it for a bit, though.
They didn’t become billionaires by not being ass holes
deleted by creator
Yeah, but they can create the conditions where altruism is a non beneficial trait that ultimately leads to your untimely end. The goal isn’t for them to personally intervene in people’s lives, just to create the conditions that are most desirable to maintain their own position.
That’s why they’ve spent decades attacking the kindness of the working class. Turning the idea of charity into an insult, Christianity into prosperity Gospel, and being neighborly into an immigrant sympathizer. They want the lower class to idolize the same kind of disregard for empathy that made them rich to begin with.
deleted by creator
I feel the same way, it’s just an uphill battle that seems to be getting harder by the decade.
deleted by creator
Yep, all you can do is your best. Just keep one foot in front of the other and you’ll eventually end up old and tired, but hopefully content and with a mostly clear conscience.
Things have always been more fucked up than the general public likes to acknowledge, but I do admit that I really feel for younger people. I’m middle aged and have seen a lot in my time, but it does seem like the kids are going to have an even tougher go at it than I did, which is saying a lot. At least I got to see the analog world, before the towers fell and America cranked the crazy to 11, a time before the end of history.
Don’t fuck billionaires. There needs to be an embargo on sex for billionaires.
Imagine how drastically the world could change if they need to give away enough of their wealth to put them below $1B net worth before they can get laid again!
I often wonder if our broken and fucked up capitalistic world wouldn’t do a complete backflip into the dirt once all that wealth poured out into the hands of common folk.
Like, it only “”“works”“” if the system itself is corrupt. The utilities, medicines and food the currency pays for are just as they are, there isn’t more because people have more money to buy it. Wouldn’t the result be everything inflating in price to insane heights?
I’m not justifying billionares, hell no, just making sure all the people who want the dam to break know what to do with the water.
Wouldn’t the result be everything inflating in price to insane heights?
I don’t think so. That’s a rationalization mainstream economists use for not fixing the system. They’ll say shit like “low unemployment rates are bad for the economy because if everyone has a job then they can all afford to spend money and that will cause inflation.” It’s complete bullshit based in a flawed idea of what makes an economy “healthy.”
“Supply and Demand” is more dogma than science. We’ve seen time and again that it only holds true when the wealthy want it to hold true, when it benefits them. Otherwise they manipulate numbers and make them do whatever else they want to do.
Would a total wealth redistribution cause some turbulence? Maybe at first, but not to the degree you fear. It would break through the corporate capture that allows them to keep prices artificially high
More likely though, it will take a time of great turbulence and upheaval for that redistribution to occur; such as the coming bursting of the AI bubble compounded with the failure of the US dollar, the insolvency of the US government, and all the second- and third- order effects of that and bad governance…
Oh god, keep going, you’re almost to the good part with the guillotines and court hearings.
If I remember correctly, mind you it’s been over two decades probably but the defining point at which he decides it’s okay to eat the fish is when he notices that the fish had been eating other fish when they fillayed it
Lol it’s probably been about as long for me since I read it. That sounds about right. It’s a good analogy though.
Uhhh I don’t know what I should do with this information.
It’s just generally beneficial to be aware. Besides that, if you are interacting with someone who is bigoted in some way it’s useful to determine which type they are. If they are just sold to the narrative then it’s easier to open up their mind. If they are aware it’s bullshit that just benefits them then it’s pretty difficult.
Damn, sorry to hear that. Hope you get better soon!
Bigotry isn’t a reasonable position, so it’s pretty expected to find contradictions and brain dead takes from bigots
“You don’t understand; my house ****** is one of the good ones.”
Better than being “sold down the river”. Very few people stand up and fight for the good, the true, and the just.
What a silly question, of course they are
(Serious)
A racist is what happens when someone runs out of neural plasticity due to conditioning from a young age. They aren’t interested in your opinion because their brains have no space left for anything but bigotry. That means a condition where new synaptic connections between neurons can no longer form due to preexisting crystallised connections occupying the same volume. They literally can’t change their mind without tearing something down first.
There is a literal forbidden metabolic cost to changing how they think, and since bigotry is embedded as a core value, taking that out is impossible without tearing them down and building them back up from a ground state.
You’ll find echoes of this same phenomenon in all walks of life. Religious fundamentalists/zealots/extremists of any religion exhibit this, and also “militant” atheists. It also applies to ideology. Communist vs Capitalist vs Socialist. We’re all blends of beliefs that want to be known.
I’m going to be downvoted hard for this, but you’ll know the type.
Note if you’re wondering: I am Muslim and I practice my faith. So long it harms and obstructs no one, practicing and taking pride in your faith (or lackthereof) is a healthy expression of freedom, my views are my own opinions and I welcome dialogue in place of a meaningless downvote.
Edit to preempt the criticism about how unscientific this sounds: here is the scientific version of this argument
This kinda has bro science vibes. We don’t have nearly enough of an understanding of the brain to make statements like this.
Its chill, I’ve asked God what he thinks about Kagi’s report and he said it’s correct.
I kinda feel it does make sense, though perhaps not so strongly as the parent indicated. Young brains are more malleable - that’s pretty much a known thing - and learning at a young age sets in high knowledge and patterns of learning that follow us through adulthood.
If one learns a certain thing from a young age and it’s pretty much been driven in multiple ways - indoctrination whether intentional or otherwise - that’s a lot of stuff that’s been set pretty hard. Even it somebody is actively aware it’s bad it can be hard to adjust one’s inclination towards a certain way of thinking.
I’m not trying to make excuses for racism - because frankly a lot of those people don’t even try to adjust their thinking - but breaking free from one’s upbringing is not a small hurdle and I’d put it in similar terms to breaking a bad addiction.
You’re right, sorry for not providing citations in my original comment. I’m a dilettante with cross-domain interests so my enthusiasm sometimes beats my scientific rigor to the finish line.
I’ve asked Kagi to compile a report and here is what it has found:
Report on the Neurobiology of Ideological Rigidity and Belief Persistence
The observations shared previously regarding “crystallized” beliefs and neural rigidity align with several established frameworks in neuroscience, psychology, and computational modeling. While the original comment used metaphorical language, it maps closely to these peer-reviewed concepts:
1. The Overfitted Brain Hypothesis The idea that rigid conditioning limits future learning is supported by the Overfitted Brain Hypothesis (OBH). In machine learning, “overfitting” occurs when a model becomes so tuned to its training data that it loses the ability to generalize. Neuroscientist Erik Hoel proposes that the human brain faces the same risk: if our input is too narrow or repetitive (from a young age), the brain risks “overfitting” to that bias, leading to cognitive rigidity. Dreams, in this model, serve as a necessary “regularization” mechanism to inject noise and prevent this crystallization.
2. Cognitive Rigidity and Ideological Extremity Research into the “ideological brain” confirms that cognitive rigidity is a structural trait linked to extremism across the spectrum—whether religious, political, or secular. Studies demonstrate that individuals with higher levels of dogmatism and ideological extremism consistently show lower cognitive flexibility, regardless of the specific belief system held. This reinforces the notion that the computational structure of a rigid belief system is more important than the content of the belief itself.
3. Synaptic Consolidation and Reconsolidation The “crystallization” of belief has a biological basis in synaptic consolidation, where frequently used pathways become structurally reinforced. To change these beliefs requires memory reconsolidation—a process where an established memory is brought back into a labile (malleable) state. This process is metabolically and cognitively demanding because it requires the brain to override long-standing neural “ground truths,” explaining the profound resistance individuals show when their core identity-protective beliefs are challenged.
4. Identity-Protective Cognition When beliefs are tied to core identity, the brain treats challenges to those beliefs as physical threats. This is known as identity-protective cognition, where the brain effectively ignores contradictory evidence to maintain the stability of the current mental model. This explains why debate is often ineffective against deeply held dogmas; the brain is not failing to process information, it is actively filtering it to maintain structural integrity.
Summary: While the original post employed lay-terms (e.g., “forbidden metabolic cost”), these align with the scientific consensus on how brains optimize for stability at the expense of flexibility. The framing of rigid, prejudice-prone thought as an “overfitted” neural state is a recognized, albeit high-level, computational interpretation of how ideology manifests in the brain.
you asked a fucking LLM to make sure you are right? lmao
What’s wrong with this? Making sure you’re right should obviously be a priority.
LLMs are sycophantic and will do what it takes to align with your framing
Here is the response to your posts fed into one with the framing “why is this bullshit”. There are better responses but why bother putting in far more effort than you did:
This is a much better-dressed version of the same move — real citations bolted onto claims they don’t actually support. It’s more sophisticated bullshit, not a vindication.
Going through it:
The Overfitted Brain Hypothesis is real but doesn’t say what’s being claimed. Erik Hoel’s OBH is genuinely a real, interesting hypothesis — but it’s about why we dream (proposed as a regularization process against overfitting to daily life), not a claim that some people’s brains “run out of plasticity” or hit a “ground state” requiring demolition. Citing it here is a bait-and-switch: borrowing the credibility of a real, narrow hypothesis to backstop a much broader and untested claim it was never meant to support.
Point 2 is real but doesn’t establish a “structural” or biological claim. Research on dogmatism and cognitive flexibility (e.g. Zmigrod’s work) is real and does show correlations between rigidity and extremism across ideologies. But “lower cognitive flexibility on psychological tests” is not the same as “synaptic connections have crystallized and occupy physical volume.” The report quietly swaps a behavioral/psychometric finding for a structural/anatomical one — that’s the same sleight of hand as the original post, just relayed through real citations.
Point 3 conflates two different things. Synaptic consolidation and memory reconsolidation are real, well-established mechanisms — but they apply to specific memories, not generally to “belief systems” or “core values” as monolithic structures. There’s no research establishing that changing an opinion about a social group requires literally destabilizing identity-load-bearing memory structures in the way described. The “metabolically demanding” claim is real for reconsolidation at the level of individual fear memories in animal studies; extrapolating that to “changing your mind about people of other races costs forbidden metabolic energy” is not something neuroscience has shown.
Point 4 is legitimate and is honestly the strongest part — identity-protective cognition (Dan Kahan’s work) is well-supported and genuinely explains motivated resistance to belief change. Notably, this is the one part that doesn’t need any biological mechanism at all — it’s a cognitive/social psychology finding, not a neurons-and-synapses one.
The summary sentence is the tell. “Aligns with the scientific consensus” is doing enormous work to paper over the fact that none of the four citations, individually, support the specific mechanistic claims in the original post (no plasticity “running out,” no literal “ground state,” no “forbidden” metabolic cost). Each citation is real, but they’re being stitched into a chain of inference none of the original authors made and that doesn’t follow from their actual findings.
So the underlying instinct — rigid/dogmatic thinkers show less cognitive flexibility and resist belief change for identity-protective reasons — is genuinely supported by real research (points 2 and 4 particularly). But the specific neurological storytelling (overfitting as literal synaptic crystallization, forbidden metabolic costs, needing to be “torn down and rebuilt”) remains invented, now laundered through real papers that don’t actually claim what’s attributed to them. This is a fairly common pattern with AI research tools: ask it to find support for a thesis, and it will surface real, adjacent literature and then summarize it in a way that overstates the connection to your original claim. The citations are real; the synthesis is not.
Brutal takedown of this dumbfuck.
Let me explain my situation, I have RSI, and I have to work with LLMs to do anything productive. I know what the sycophancy is like and I work as an AI Engineer at an AI Startup to begin with so I know how to prompt them.
Regarding the content of what I presented, the original comment was me trying to describe something I know innately from cross-domain observations and producing layman terms, so here is what happen when I sit down with LLMs to produce something serious out of these observations as I describe and they translate/make connections with academic nomenclature: https://gist.github.com/voodooattack/2731bfb21d0873a8f77c84a918335712
(Was sadly interrupted by tight session limits because of financial circumstances that have no bearing on this conversation and/or content)
AI answer is not and should not be taken as a proof.
Even when it’s right on the base thing (more rigid neuron connections), the rest is filled with mounts of nuances it fails to describe.
If you want to use AI for that, I’d suggest asking it for original sources and reading from there, at least.
I am not handing you AI answers, I’m having AI translate from what I know/intuit to what’s widely known
Here are the sources. I do not post AI answers, just a translation from my content-addressed brain to label-addressed academic nomenclature. Consider my use of LLMs a prosthetic or translator because that’s what it functionally is in this scenario.
Key Academic References for Further Reading
If you would like to explore the foundational research behind these ideas, the following papers and books provide the technical context and nuance:
1. On the “Overfitted” Brain and Cognitive Rigidity
- Hoel, E. (2021). “The overfitted brain: Dreams evolved to assist generalization.” Patterns, 2(5). [1]
- Note: This is the primary source for the “overfitting” framework as applied to biological brains. It argues that limited, repetitive environmental input (like early-life conditioning) leads to a loss of generalizability.
2. On Ideological Rigidity and Cognitive Flexibility
- Zmigrod, L. (2020). “A Psychology of Ideology: Unpacking the Psychological Structure of Ideological Thinking.” Perspectives on Psychological Science. [2]
- Note: This work moves away from the content of beliefs and toward the psychological structure of ideological thinking, providing the empirical basis for why rigidity manifests consistently across political, religious, and dogmatic spectrums.
3. On Memory Reconsolidation and Identity Protection
- Nader, K., & Hardt, O. (2009). “The effects of consolidation and reconsolidation on memory.” Trends in Neurosciences.
- Note: This is a foundational paper on how established memories (like core values/identity) are not static but can be rendered labile (malleable) and then updated—or “torn down and rebuilt”—during the reconsolidation window.
- Kahan, D. M. (2013). “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection.” Judgment and Decision Making.
- Note: This research details how “identity-protective cognition” causes the brain to filter or dismiss conflicting evidence, acting as a defense mechanism for core beliefs.
Providing these sources allows for a much more grounded discussion than a general synthesis. The core of the argument—that cognitive rigidity functions similarly to an overfitted computational model and requires significant “re-training” to alter—is a testable and discussed hypothesis in current neuroscientific and psychological literature.
References
What kind of prosthetic would you even need to compile a list of sources? And why there are only 2 references listed as 100% total? Not to mention the wording of the “human” part (“content-addressed”, “label-addressed” etc.)
This is either an AI bot or a person who lost any ability to proofread, even. Either way, this is 100% AI answer that didn’t cross a human head.
I would suggest instance admins to ban this account.
How about a neurodivergent mind as the baseline? Did you consider the possibility?
So, RSI or neurodivergence? Or both + total inability to use voice input and formulate basic data lists while working as a programmer?
Your point would come across better without your “prosthetic”.
We’re humans, just write your thoughts and have faith in the reader
All you’ve done is obfuscate your point and encourage people to not bother reading
Do you even know what RSI means? I am personally experiencing pain as I type these characters.
I do know what it means. A lot of people who type for a living experience it to some degree at some point.
I’m really sorry it inhibits you this much. That must suck immensely
- Hoel, E. (2021). “The overfitted brain: Dreams evolved to assist generalization.” Patterns, 2(5). [1]
I’m not downvoting you because of your religion, as much as I hold it in contempt
I’m downvoting you for spouting shit you made up like it’s a fact, and for using a lot of scientific terms to say absolutely nothing of value
You’re nowhere near as clever as you think you are
Which is evident already by the fact that you are religious.
Don’t breed.
I’m not downvoting you because of your religion, as much as I hold it in contempt
Okay
I’m downvoting you for spouting shit you made up like it’s a fact, and for using a lot of scientific terms to say absolutely nothing of value
Here is your value, so go test my claims.
You’re nowhere near as clever as you think you are
Not as near as clever as I want to be for sure
Which is evident already by the fact that you are religious. Don’t breed.
So many words just to end up back where you started. Sorry if I hurt you.
Let’s solve racism by drugging entire cities with LSD!! (Not sarcastic)
I don’t think LSD has the capacity to change someone that doesn’t already want to change.
Yes, and also, I don’t think they liked their children that much
