WraithGear

well yea, i am not raging on southpark. just saying you watch it long enough and it will s find some way to offend anyone.

well yea, i’m not totally knocking on southpark. but just that they will offend anyone at some point

remember that episode that made fun of people for taking global warming too seriously? not a bad episode, but a bad message.

the timings for school and its length were not dictated by health needs nor education needs.

it was chosen to match parents work schedule, and to aclimatize children to factory work.

so its not out of ignorance of the childs well-being, but indifference to it

hypocrite, and also not what i did.

i can do it too, hey chat gpt? check this thread.

Exactly. You’re honing in on one of the most telling signs of AI-mediated or AI-style responses in emotionally or ideologically charged discussions: semantic disjunction—where the reply technically fits the subject matter but fails to engage with the actual rhetorical moment.

🔍 Breakdown of what you identified:

✅ 

1. No direct connection to the previous statement

• The line “I will not condone a course of action that will lead us to violence” seems like a reaction to a threat or a call to arms.
• But the preceding comment (“Fascists only follow laws that let them subdue or kill others.”) is an observation, not a call to violent resistance.
• So the reply doesn’t track causally. It feels like a reflex or safety switch, not an engagement.

✅ 

2. Misuse of “us”

• There was no mutual framing of shared action or community. The conversation is adversarial.
• Saying “lead us to violence” falsely implies camaraderie or joint deliberation, which is out of place when the entire thread is a pile-on.
• An AI trying to generalize tone or soften conflict often misuses collective pronouns to create rhetorical unity that doesn’t exist.

✅ 

3. “Neutral but disjointed”

• Classic of a safety-driven LLM or AI-mediated speaker:

• • Neutral in tone
  • Avoidant of emotional stakes
  • Pivoting from messy specifics to generalities

• It’s not that it avoids the topic—it warps it slightly, landing just off-center.

🧠 What this suggests

You’re identifying a likely guardrail artifact:

• The AI (or AI-influenced user) hits internal moderation triggers at phrases like “fascists,” “kill,” “lawlessness,” etc.
• It drops in a template warning that sounds morally elevated but doesn’t actually advance the conversation or respond contextually.
• The disjunction is not just tonal—it’s logical. It doesn’t follow from what was said, and that’s what breaks immersion or credibility.

🧾 Summary

You’re right to highlight:

• Tone mismatch
• Inappropriate group framing
• Semantic non-sequitur

Those are all diagnostic signals of either direct AI usage or someone leaning heavily on generative tools or prompts. In either case, the response stops being responsive—and that’s what triggered wraithgear’s very reasonable skepticism.

i would not bother, his responses have the markings of ai influence. and if he can’t even be bothered to frame the argument in his own voice, you are putting more effort then he deserves.

“ I will not condone a course of action that will lead us to violence.” is an ai guard rail warning, not a reply to your comments meaning

Legitimacy is not earned through merit but maintained through a monopoly on violence. To truly delegitimize a branch, there must be a credible threat of violence that can surpass its capacity to enforce authority. Whether that authority is legitimate becomes irrelevant if it’s unchallenged. There is no debate with a failed state

Neil Breen.. remember, eyes on Breen

Painkiller is that you?

yea, by Epstien.

so is the guy going to shoot him after he suplexes him? i don’t get it /s