And there he was, knowing nothing, which was to say knowing everything, for ignorance, when properly seasoned with confidence, becomes indistinguishable from wisdom, and he had seasoned himself liberally.
Everyone was wrong. This he knew.
He knew it before breakfast, before coffee, before the newspaper had even been opened. He had read the headline, therefore he understood the article. He had watched a nine-minute video, therefore he understood the subject. He had once spoken to a man who worked in a hospital, therefore he understood medicine. He had driven across a suspension bridge, therefore he understood engineering.
“Gravity isn’t even really proven,” he announced.
“Then why do things fall?”
“Density.”
“Density doesn’t cause things to fall.”
“That’s what they want you to think.”
Who they were was unclear, but this was hardly a problem. The less clearly defined the enemy, the more powerful the argument.
He questioned everything.
Except himself.
If evidence agreed with him, it was proof. If evidence disagreed, it was propaganda. If every expert disagreed, the experts were corrupt. If nobody could find evidence either way, then clearly the evidence had been suppressed.
“Do your own research,” he said, having conducted none.
Research, in his understanding, meant finding the first webpage containing the words he already believed and sending it to someone else.
He had opinions on physics, economics, history, medicine, military strategy, constitutional law, nutrition, climate science, and quantum mechanics, despite possessing no demonstrable knowledge of any of them. His qualifications were extensive: he had been alive, he had owned a television, and once he had successfully changed a tire.
Thus he was an expert.
He distrusted scientists because they admitted uncertainty, doctors because they disagreed with him, professors because they used large words, and books because books contained “agendas.”
He preferred videos made by men sitting in parked trucks.
They looked authentic.
One such man had explained that history was written by the winners.
He had accepted this immediately, though he could not remember who had won Waterloo.
Facts, he explained, were subjective.
He then became furious when someone disagreed with his facts.
This was not hypocrisy.
It was nuance.
He had learned the word online.
He used it incorrectly.
Naturally, this did not diminish its importance.
And so he continued, erecting magnificent towers of certainty upon foundations of absolutely nothing, each conclusion supporting the next like drunken men leaning against one another in a doorway, until finally he arrived at the only conclusion that could survive every possible objection:
“I’ve done my research.”
He had not.
But he had searched.
And in the modern age, apparently, that was close enough.
He demanded an explanation, received one, and upon discovering that explanations contained information, declared it too long.
It’s not a wall of text, you lazy bum. I have already explained my position to you. Once again, you have refused to read it. Go back, read what I wrote, and all of your questions will be answered. If I’m hiding behind a wall of text, then you’re hiding behind your own laziness.
And it’s less than five minutes of reading. I’m not putting in the effort to explain things to you again if you’re just going to refuse to read it because it’s “too long.”
And stop bringing up non sequiturs about whether I support surveillance, don’t support surveillance, support ICE, or don’t support ICE. That is completely irrelevant to both your original response and my very long response to you.
Secondly, aside from the gibberish I responded with above, the first thing you refused to read was my own words. They weren’t ChatGPT-generated.
And stop bringing up non sequiturs about whether I support surveillance, don’t support surveillance, support ICE, or don’t support ICE. That is completely irrelevant to both your original response and my very long response to you.
It’s entirely relevant. If you support these things it makes sense why you would support politicians who do. If you don’t support these things then you need to explain why you support politicians who do. We can’t have a conversation about why you and I see politicians differently without examining each other’s reasons for doing so. I made an assumption earlier that you don’t support ICE or warrantless surveillance like Flock. But here you are outright refusing to say so. My assumptions were incorrect.
You support these politicians because you support fascism in the form of ICE and warrantless surveillance. You’re a fascist supporter.
We were originally talking about how, if Obama and a group of Democratic senators had done things differently, Trump wouldn’t be in office. Now we’re talking about ice and flock cameras, which are complete non sequiturs.
And you can’t prove that it was generated with ChatGPT. So why even bring that up?
Did you actually read my wall of text?
This conversation isn’t going to go the way you wanted it to. We’re not going to talk about what you want to talk about, and I’m not going to let you fall back on whatever scripted response you’re accustomed to giving.
So either stop being lazy, actually read what I wrote, and respond to the argument I made, or stop replying.
And there he was, knowing nothing, which was to say knowing everything, for ignorance, when properly seasoned with confidence, becomes indistinguishable from wisdom, and he had seasoned himself liberally.
Everyone was wrong. This he knew.
He knew it before breakfast, before coffee, before the newspaper had even been opened. He had read the headline, therefore he understood the article. He had watched a nine-minute video, therefore he understood the subject. He had once spoken to a man who worked in a hospital, therefore he understood medicine. He had driven across a suspension bridge, therefore he understood engineering.
“Gravity isn’t even really proven,” he announced.
“Then why do things fall?”
“Density.”
“Density doesn’t cause things to fall.”
“That’s what they want you to think.”
Who they were was unclear, but this was hardly a problem. The less clearly defined the enemy, the more powerful the argument.
He questioned everything.
Except himself.
If evidence agreed with him, it was proof. If evidence disagreed, it was propaganda. If every expert disagreed, the experts were corrupt. If nobody could find evidence either way, then clearly the evidence had been suppressed.
“Do your own research,” he said, having conducted none.
Research, in his understanding, meant finding the first webpage containing the words he already believed and sending it to someone else.
He had opinions on physics, economics, history, medicine, military strategy, constitutional law, nutrition, climate science, and quantum mechanics, despite possessing no demonstrable knowledge of any of them. His qualifications were extensive: he had been alive, he had owned a television, and once he had successfully changed a tire.
Thus he was an expert.
He distrusted scientists because they admitted uncertainty, doctors because they disagreed with him, professors because they used large words, and books because books contained “agendas.”
He preferred videos made by men sitting in parked trucks.
They looked authentic.
One such man had explained that history was written by the winners.
He had accepted this immediately, though he could not remember who had won Waterloo.
Facts, he explained, were subjective.
He then became furious when someone disagreed with his facts.
This was not hypocrisy.
It was nuance.
He had learned the word online.
He used it incorrectly.
Naturally, this did not diminish its importance.
And so he continued, erecting magnificent towers of certainty upon foundations of absolutely nothing, each conclusion supporting the next like drunken men leaning against one another in a doorway, until finally he arrived at the only conclusion that could survive every possible objection:
“I’ve done my research.”
He had not.
But he had searched.
And in the modern age, apparently, that was close enough.
He demanded an explanation, received one, and upon discovering that explanations contained information, declared it too long.
Buddy in the age of chatGPT spitting out walls of text isn’t the flex you think it is.
Proper beliefs depend on strong foundations. When I ask to see your foundations you hide behind walls of text. Your foundations are weak and rotting.
I’ll ask you again.
Did you support ICE in 2009? Did you support warrantless surveillance in 2009?
It’s not a wall of text, you lazy bum. I have already explained my position to you. Once again, you have refused to read it. Go back, read what I wrote, and all of your questions will be answered. If I’m hiding behind a wall of text, then you’re hiding behind your own laziness.
And it’s less than five minutes of reading. I’m not putting in the effort to explain things to you again if you’re just going to refuse to read it because it’s “too long.”
And stop bringing up non sequiturs about whether I support surveillance, don’t support surveillance, support ICE, or don’t support ICE. That is completely irrelevant to both your original response and my very long response to you.
Secondly, aside from the gibberish I responded with above, the first thing you refused to read was my own words. They weren’t ChatGPT-generated.
It’s entirely relevant. If you support these things it makes sense why you would support politicians who do. If you don’t support these things then you need to explain why you support politicians who do. We can’t have a conversation about why you and I see politicians differently without examining each other’s reasons for doing so. I made an assumption earlier that you don’t support ICE or warrantless surveillance like Flock. But here you are outright refusing to say so. My assumptions were incorrect.
You support these politicians because you support fascism in the form of ICE and warrantless surveillance. You’re a fascist supporter.
You can’t prove that.
You’re making assumptions across the board.
We were originally talking about how, if Obama and a group of Democratic senators had done things differently, Trump wouldn’t be in office. Now we’re talking about ice and flock cameras, which are complete non sequiturs.
And you can’t prove that it was generated with ChatGPT. So why even bring that up?
Did you actually read my wall of text?
This conversation isn’t going to go the way you wanted it to. We’re not going to talk about what you want to talk about, and I’m not going to let you fall back on whatever scripted response you’re accustomed to giving.
So either stop being lazy, actually read what I wrote, and respond to the argument I made, or stop replying.