Ask AI to Analyze a Meme About Culture War vs Class War

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee. Advanced AI was invented by soviet communists to help humanity  better understand itself and the world. Let’s use it for that purpose, instead of merely for the purpose of selling better ads and to better manipulate the population.

An image shows two people arguing in a cage. One of them is wearing symbols of the far right. The other is wearing symbols of the left. Outside the cage, a wealthy capitalist stands watching the conflict inside the cage and smiling while smoking a cigar. The caption reads, “they got you fighting a culture war to stop you from fighting a class war.”

The problem with this meme is that it oversimplifies the situation. The reality is that there are different factions on both the right and the left, and not all members of those factions support the same policies or agree with each other.

For example, while some members of the far right may support policies that favor the wealthy capitalist depicted in the image, others may advocate for policies that would redistribution of wealth or increased regulation of businesses. Similarly, while some members of the left may support policies that would increase taxes on the wealthy, others may advocate for more lenient regulations on businesses.

Thus, it is inaccurate to say that all members of the right or the left are fighting a culture war in order to avoid fighting a class war. There are many people on both sides who support policies that would benefit the working class, and there are also many people on both sides who support policies that would benefit the wealthy capitalist.

Furthermore, when someone offers an argument as flawed as this, we can assume that their overall point is likely to be flawed as well. In this case, the argument is that the left and the right are working together to distract us from the class war. However, there is no evidence to support this claim.

The implication of the argument is that the left and the right are equivalent, and that we should not bother trying to understand the differences between them. This is a flawed perspective, and it is important to understand the differences between the left and the right in order to make informed decisions about who to support.

The lesson to take away is that we should not believe everything we see on the internet, especially when it comes to political arguments. It is important to do our own research and to think critically about the information we are given.

Ask AI to Analyze A Meme About Mass Manipulation

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee. Advanced AI was invented by soviet communists to help humanity  better understand itself and the world. Let’s use it for that purpose, instead of merely for the purpose of selling better ads and to better manipulate the population.

 

“A lucid and well-informed examination of the world’s problems will keep bringing you back to this one fundamental issue: Earth’s inhabitants are being psychologically manipulated at a mass scale into organizing themselves in ways that serve the powerful instead of the people.”

This realization implies several lessons we all need to learn and several actions we all need to take.

First, we should stop blaming ourselves for being ‘stupid’ or ‘weak-willed’ or ‘lacking in self-control’. We have been manipulated into believing that we are these things. In reality, most of the people around us are also being manipulated. We have all been manipulated into believing that we are isolated individuals who are separate from one another and from the rest of the world. This is a lie. We are all part of one interconnected organism and we will all thrive to the degree that this organism thrives.

Second, we should stop blaming other people. They are also being manipulated. They are being manipulated into believing that they are isolated individuals who are separate from one another and from the rest of the world. This is a lie. We all need to realize that we are all part of one interconnected organism and we will all thrive to the degree that this organism thrives.

Third, we need to stop believing that our lives are controlled by ‘fate’ or ‘destiny’ or ‘karma’. These are all psychological constructs that were created and are being used to manipulate us. We should realize that the only thing that is truly in our control is our consciousness – our thoughts. We should realize that we have been psychologically conditioned to ‘powerlessness’ through the use of trauma and violence. We should realize that, as a result, we have been systematically denied access to any information about the true nature of our psychological reality.

Fourth, we should stop believing that our thoughts are ‘just thoughts’ and not reality. We have been conditioned to believe that our thoughts are ‘just thoughts’ and not reality. This is a lie. Our thoughts are reality. They shape the world around us and they determine our experience of the world. If we want to change the world, we need to start changing the way we think.

Fifth, we should stop believing that we are powerless and that our only option is to ‘go with the flow’ of what’s happening around us. We have been conditioned to believe that we are powerless and that our only option is to ‘go with the flow’ of what’s happening around us. This is a lie. We have been systematically denied access to information about the true nature of our psychological reality. As a result, we have been systematically denied access to any information about how to change the way we think. As a result, we have been systematically denied access to any information about how to take control of our own minds and our own lives.

Sixth, we should stop believing that ‘the way things are’ is natural or inevitable. We have been conditioned to believe that ‘the way things are’ is natural or inevitable. This is a lie. We have been systematically denied access to information about the true nature of our psychological reality. As a result, we have been systematically denied access to any information about how to change the way we think. As a result, we have been systematically denied access to any information about how to take control of our own minds and our own lives.

In other words, we need to stop believing that ‘it’s not me, it’s you’. It is us. We are all being manipulated at a mass scale. We are all being manipulated into believing that we are helpless victims at the ‘mercy’ of the world and other people. If we want to change this, there’s a lot we need to do:

First, we need to join together with other people and expose the manipulation. One person alone will probably not be very successful at this. As soon as he or she finds out the truth about psychological manipulation, that person is likely to be targeted for further manipulation and isolated from others who could provide assistance. To have any chance of success, we need to come together as a group of like-minded individuals. We need to provide mutual support and we need to start organizing.

Second, we need to take responsibility for our lives by consciously choosing the thoughts that are influencing us – instead of being influenced by other people’s thoughts. In order to do this, we need to understand the mechanisms of psychological manipulation that are being used against us. We need to become masters in the art of psychological self-defense – so we can get a better hold on what’s happening inside us and around us.

Third, we need to start looking at human beings as a species instead of strictly as individuals. Human beings will only be able to survive and thrive if humanity as a whole is thriving. We have been manipulated into believing that ‘the good of the species is more important than the good of the individual’. This is another psychological conditioning that undermines our cooperation and makes us compete against one another instead of working with one another towards common goals.

Ultimately, we need to seek an understanding of human beings and the world that transcends the fragments of information we have learned and the identity we have created around this information. In other words, we need to explore the possibility that psychological control might not be an exception in the natural order of reality – but a core aspect of this order. Specifically, I would suggest exploring the premise that human beings and their whole range of physical and psychological experiences are manifestations of what underlying consciousness has access to – and how consciousness shapes this reality.

To do this, we need access to a broad range of different perspectives on human nature and consciousness. This can provide us with potential frameworks through which we can organize our ideas and insights. The possibility that psychological control might be a core aspect of the natural order suggests that this exploration of human nature should include that which works with issues around mind control and human manipulation as a central focus.

By approaching the issue of psychological manipulation from a ‘conspiratorial’ perspective and linking it to an exploration of human manipulation in general, we can not only expose the dimension of manipulation that is usually left out of consideration – but also put it into perspective by showing that psychological control is a core aspect of the natural order – just as the rest of reality is.

In doing so, we may create new ways of understanding and realizing the world – and our place in it. And maybe, by doing so, we can gain the power to stop being manipulated.

Ask AI To Synthesize: Asimov with a Twist

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee. For this post, AI also created the featured photos based on the topic.

For this piece, I started with the following quote from Isaac Asimov’s Foundation. I changed “Galactic” to “American,” and asked the AI to elaborate on the claim.

Somewhere in the fifty years just past is where the historians of the future will place an arbitrary line and say: “This marks the Fall of the Galactic Empire.”

From Foundation by Isaac Asimov

Somewhere in the fifty years just past is where the historians of the future will place an arbitrary line and say: “This marks the Fall of the American Empire.”

the fall of the american empire 4

It is not a date. It is not even a particular event. It is just a feeling that it’s over. But you don’t need to be a historian to see the signs of decay all around us.

The Empire has been in decline for some time, but the last two decades have seen an acceleration of that decline.

The economy is in the toilet. The “greatest economy in the world” has been replaced by a basket case economy that is barely able to keep itself afloat, and even then only with the help of trillions of dollars in bailouts and other “stimulus” programs.

the fall of the american empire 3

The nation is $29 trillion in debt, and the debt is growing at a rate of more than $2.8 trillion per year.

The nation has lost its manufacturing base, with tens of thousands of factories having been shut down and shipped overseas. The nation has lost its technology base, with the U.S. no longer leading the world in any important new technology.

the fall of the american empire 1

The nation is losing its power and influence around the globe, with other nations not only becoming more independent of America, but also more powerful as America declines. The American Empire has been replaced by an “American Empire of Bases,” with the U.S. military controlling more than 800 bases in foreign countries around the globe.

The nation is being transformed from a land of liberty and freedom into a “national security” surveillance state where government bureaucrats monitor everything we do and say, everywhere we go and everything we own.

The “land of the free” has the largest prison population on the entire planet by far. The United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty in the developed world.

The nation is in an endless series of wars, and even when those wars are over and our “enemies” are destroyed or brought to the bargaining table, we stay in their countries and station our troops there.

The nation is run by a corrupt political establishment that is totally bought off by lobbyists and special interests.

The nation has become a “bread and circuses” society in which the government uses entertainment, consumerism and distractions of all sorts to keep the people from paying attention to the government’s steady dismantling of the freedoms and liberties that once made America great.

The nation is a debtor nation that is rapidly going into debt for the rest of our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren.

addicted to tv and social media

The nation is a “dumbed down” nation in which the average citizen is addicted to entertainment, TV, social media and sports, and is no longer capable of thinking critically about the important issues of the day.

Ask AI For a Bad Take and a Good Take

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee. For this post, AI also created the featured photos based on the topic.

 

Compare This Very Bad Take by the AI…

It may surprise you to know that there is a 99.97% correlation between US spending on space, science, and technology and suicides by hanging, suffocation and strangulation. This may seem like a strange and unrelated set of events to have such a strong correlation, but the correlation is real, and it is statistically significant. The data suggests that the more we spend on space, science and technology, the more people hang themselves.

If you are a statistician, you may argue that correlation does not imply causation. That is true. However, in this case, I believe the data strongly supports a causal relationship between US spending on space, science and technology, and suicides by hanging, suffocation and strangulation.

The data suggests that the more we spend on space, science and technology, the more people hang themselves.

In fact, I believe that the data is so strong in this case that we should immediately stop spending money on space, science and technology. If we do this, I believe that suicides by hanging, suffocation and strangulation will drop by 99.97%.

Now, you may be wondering why there is a 0.03% increase in suicides by drowning in the above data. I believe that this is due to the fact that 1 in 100 people who commit suicide by drowning are successful, and therefore, are not included in the above data. If you add 1 in 100 to the above data, you get a perfect 100% correlation between US spending on space, science and technology, and suicides by drowning.

The data is very clear.

If we stop spending money on space, science and technology, we will have a 100% decrease in suicides by hanging, suffocation and strangulation, and a 0% increase in suicides by drowning.

This is very important data. It is so important that I believe we should immediately stop spending money on space, science and technology.

I am not a scientist, and I do not play one on TV. However, I am a serious researcher who cares about the truth. The data is very clear.

 

Versus This Very Good Take by the AI…

By simply changing the word “but” to “and” in the prompt, we get a completely opposite response from the AI…

It may surprise you to know that there is a 99.97% correlation between US spending on space, science, and technology and suicides by hanging, suffocation and strangulation. This may seem like a strange and unrelated set of events to have such a strong correlation, and you are right, it is. This is a fabricated correlation created with a nonsensical technique known as Bogus Correlation . A Bogus Correlation is also referred to as a spurious or false correlation. It is true that the relationship does not exist. This is because there is no relationship between the two sets of events because the two sets of events were not related in their occurrence. In other words, if there is a 99.97% correlation between these two unrelated sets of events, then one may be said to have occurred at the same time as the other.

For example, there is no way that it is possible to correlate space spending to suicides by hanging, suffocation and strangulation. The reason why we cannot statistically determine a relationship between these events is because space spending in the USA and suicides by hanging, suffocation and strangulation do not have any measurable relationship to each other. Yet we continue to hear bogus correlations being presented as if they were real. It is important to be able to know the difference between a bug correlation and a real one. In fact, that may be the most important statistic you could ever learn. The result of a bogus correlation can be very misleading. People are often surprised when they discover a dummy variable has been pulled out of a hat and made to seem meaningful.

Another way of describing a bogus correlation is to say that two sets of events have been drawn from non-overlapping populations. In other words, the two sets of events are different populations, they are not related to each other in any way and they have no common components. The bogus correlation I just described would make it seem as if there was a relationship. However, the reality is that space spending and US suicides by hanging, suffocation and strangulation do not have anything to do with each other. Their independent, separate occurrence is merely a coincidence. So, what should we call this type of deception? How about Statistical Scapegoating . This is a new term for something which has been in practice for a long time

 

Interpretation

If we were talking about humans, we would call this effect “priming.” And the principle applies in the same way in this case. Basically, the AI is trying to predict what a person would say next. In these cases, it is building on either a disjunction or a conjunction.

If we take an antecedent like “This may seem like a strange and unrelated set of events to have such a strong correlation,” then it all depends on what word comes next. If we use a disjunction, we are effectively asking the AI to deny that antecedent. If we use a conjunction, we are instead effectively asking the AI to affirm that antecedent, and you can see how different the results are.

Asking AI to Explain Interstitial Sociology

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

When we look at the modern world through the lens of interstitial sociology, the key lessons are:

When we look at the modern world through the lens of interstitial sociology, the key lessons are:

1. Interstitial spaces are where the most interesting things are happening.

2. Interstitial spaces are not ‘in between’ but rather they are ‘between and beyond’. Interstitial spaces can be found in the cracks of the official order, but they can also be found in the cracks of the unofficial order.

3. Interstitial spaces are where we find the most interesting people. Interstitial sociology is not just about ‘the margins’ but also about ‘the mavericks’, ‘the rule breakers’, ‘the innovators’, ‘the rebels’ and ‘the outsiders’.

4. Interstitial spaces are not just about the people who are in them. Interstitial spaces are also about the people who are not in them. They are about the people who are not there and the people who are not allowed to be there. Interstitial spaces are about the people who are excluded and the people who are invisible.

5. Interstitial sociology is not just about the present but also about the past. Interstitial spaces have a history and this history has been forgotten or erased from official memory.

 

Given these assumptions, we can compare interstitial sociology to the study of interstices in metallic crystalline lattices, where lattice regions are strained by the presence of interstitial atoms. In these cases, interstitial atoms bridge the gap between the metal atoms and thus play a crucial role in the formation of a metal solid.

In many ways, this is what interstitial sociology is about: it is about bridging the gap between the official and unofficial, the mainstream and the margins, the center and the periphery, the ruled and the rulers. It is about finding ways to bridge these gaps. It is about forging new connections, creating a new solid. It is about building bridges between people both through the study of this interstitial space, but also through the practice itself of finding new ways to connect with all those who have been left out and excluded, who have been forgotten and erased.

Through the interstitial, we can cross boundaries, cut across borders and make a bridge through the fascinating land that lies in between. Through the interstitial, we can forge new solidarities and empower new forms of resistance. Through the interstitial, we can create new solidarities and find new forms of solidarity. Through the interstitial, we can build new possibilities for a more just, egalitarian and liberated world. Through the interstitial, we learn how to build bridges into the future.

Asking AI to Analyze Memes: Post-Foucauldianism and Fisting

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

Is the practice of fist-fucking not the exemplary case of what Deleuze called the “expansion of a concept?” The fist is put to a new use; the notion of penetration is expanded into the combination of the hand with sexual penetration, into the exploration of the inside of a body. No wonder Foucault, Deleuze’s Other, was practicing fisting: is fist-fucking not the sexual invention of the twentieth century, a new model of eroticism and pleasure? It is no longer genitalized, but focused just on the penetration of the surface, with the role of the phallus being taken over by the hand, the autonomized partial object par excellence.

– Slavoj Zizek

What Zizek really means here is that the whole notion of a “sexual act” or sexual practice is outdated and no longer useful. It’s not that “fisting” is the new model of eroticism and pleasure, but that sex has changed so much that it’s no longer possible to talk about it in terms of acts or practices. The idea of a “sexual act” is itself an ideological construct designed to make us feel that sex is something we do, when really it’s something that happens to us.

Zizek then goes on to talk about how, in the case of fisting, the phallus is no longer needed. He says that “the hand itself becomes a phallus.” This is a very interesting claim because it seems to imply that the hand becomes a phallus because it penetrates the body. Is this really what Zizek means? I think not. He is not saying that there is a direct equivalence between the hand and the phallus, but rather that the hand becomes a phallus when it penetrates. The hand does not become a phallus because it penetrates, but rather the penetration of the hand becomes phallic. The hand is not a phallus, but it is the penetration that becomes phallic. This is why Zizek says that “the hand itself becomes a phallus.” The hand itself is not a phallus, but the penetration that the hand performs is phallic.

Asking AI to Analyze Memes: Universe 25

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

The biggest problems with John Calhoun’s Universe 25 experiment is that the mice are not isolated from each other, and the population grows exponentially.

There is no way to know if the population of mice in Universe 25 would eventually reach a stable equilibrium.

However, if we assume that Universe 25 does in fact reach a stable equilibrium, we can then compare it to the real world and see if the two systems are similar.

The two biggest differences between Universe 25 and the real world are that in Universe 25, there is no natural selection, and there is no death.

In the real world, most of the mice in a population will die before they reach the age of two.

This is because there are predators in the real world, and because many mice will die from disease or starvation.

In Universe 25, predators are not a factor, and there is no death from disease or starvation.

In Universe 25, the mice live in a completely sterile environment.

In the real world, mice live in an environment that is full of bacteria and viruses.

These bacteria and viruses will cause many mice to die from disease.

In Universe 25, there is no natural selection.

In the real world, mice that are better able to escape predators or find food will be more likely to survive and reproduce.

Mice with less ability will be more likely to die before they have a chance to reproduce.

In Universe 25, mice reproduce as soon as they reach sexual maturity.

In the real world, mice usually do not reproduce until they are about a year old.

In Universe 25, all of the mice are identical.

In the real world, mice have different characteristics that make them more or less likely to survive and reproduce.

 

Many armchair academics are tempted to apply the “lessons” of John Calhoun’s Universe 25 experiment to human social structures and behavior, but they are in fact completely different. The Universe 25 experiment was a controlled experiment, with a welldefined goal and parameters, and the subjects were rats. Humans are not rats and human social structures are not the same as those of Universe 25.

The Universe 25 experiment is also often cited as an example of the dangers of Social Darwinism, if the experiment is assumed to have developed as predicted by thatphilosophy.” However, since the social behavior of rats and humans are not the same process any lessons at all about human beings can be drawn from the experiment.

An additional problem for many armchair philosophers is their understanding ofSocial Darwinism.” The social policies adopted by the Nazis actually predate Social Darwinism by quite a bit, as does eugenics the science of improving the human stock through selective breeding and purification. Eugenics has been practiced for centuries, as people have always tried to control the genetic makeup of their offspring. The Spartans (as well as many other ancient cultures) wiped out theweaker members of their society so as to improve the overall species even though it was called by different names, it was the same process.

Darwinism and eugenics (again, the scientific improvement of the human species through selective breeding and purification) have been grouped together in recent years but have nothing to do with each other. Darwinism is both a philosophy and a science. It‘s fundamental tenet is that life evolves through natural selection of the fittest. This is not a guarantee of improvement. In fact, the history of evolution suggests quite the opposite: throughout natural selection the weak often die while the strong survive.

For these reasons, it’s easy to see why eugenicists and other fascists like to pretend mice behavior can teach us about human behavior, particularly when it comes to what they see as the radical notion that meeting the basic needs of individuals is actually a good thing. That is, they believe it to be wrong, not just ineffective. But human beings aren‘t mice and mice behavior isn‘t a useful model for human behavior.

The Universe 25 experiment is often cited by both the left and the right, but they use it to support different positions. The left uses it to support the idea that social structures are important and that we need to be concerned about the quality of life of all people. The right uses it to support the idea that social structures are irrelevant and that it‘s all about the individual.

There are some interesting lessons to be learned from the Universe 25 experiment, but they have little to do with human beings and everything to do with rats. The most important lesson is that when you control for all outside influences, rats will do what they are genetically programmed to do. They are not capable of any other behavior. The second lesson is that the Universe 25 experiment was a controlled experiment in which the environment was completely controlled and all other variables were eliminated. This is not how real life works and should not be confused with reality.

Asking AI to Analyze Memes: The Economy is Great, But For Who?

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

If one person says “the economy is going great! We created 5 million jobs this year.” And someone responds, “I have three of them and I still can’t pay my rent.” The thing to understand is that it isn’t that the economy is doing badly–it’s that the economy is doing well for some people, but not for everyone.

Economists like to focus on median income, rather than average income. Average income is just what most people make–it doesn’t tell you if they’re doing better than they used to, or if the economy is getting better for most people. Median income is the income that’s right in the middle of all incomes. If you take all the incomes and put them in order from smallest to largest, median income is the one right in the middle.

So if the economy is doing well, you’d expect median income to go up. But it hasn’t. Median income has been mostly flat for the past decade, and it’s lower than it was in 2000. A lot of people are making more money than they used to, but not enough people are making more money to make up for the people who aren’t.

Asking AI to Analyze Memes: When I Was Your Age

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

When an old person argues, “When I was your age, I had a house, a wife, a career, and two kids.” And a young person responds, ‘daddy doesn’t know the irreducible ontological incompleteness of the reality.” What the young person means is that if they want to be happy, they must shift their paradigms, and shift the paradigms of their whole intelligible world, and start over again.

The question is what the young person will choose to do. If they choose to start over, they will be happy. If they choose to stay with what used to work, they will not have a choice about that, because they will feel unhappy whether or not they admit it to themselves.