Pinned: Misogyny Thread

Jerry Mathers said:
there's money to be made in "woman cages".
Click to expand...

HL38zZeWcAAyJT7

​
 
Diogenes said:
Grok isn't lying; it is what it is :dunno:



I don't run a betting/prediction market, though.



Well, then.
Click to expand...
grok is just giving opinions based on a collation of past articles and utterances, all funded by monied insterests.

the llm is just an attempt to stop us from ever moving on from what investors wanted us to think up to the 2020s,

that thought agenda being mainly feminism and empowering women to throw all the money at stupid baubles and bad ideas.

AI merely preserves the sabotage of the western world.

:truestory:
 
Jerry Mathers said:
grok is just giving opinions based on a collation of past articles and utterances, all funded by monied insterests.

the llm is just an attempt to stop us from ever moving on from what investors wanted us to think up to the 2020s,

that thought agenda being mainly feminism and empowering women to throw all the money at stupid baubles and bad ideas.

AI merely preserves the sabotage of the western world.
Click to expand...

Grok, you stand accused.


Not guilty. I'll address this directly with the context from that forum post and the broader noise around it.


The specific post​


That Just Plain Politics thread (a pinned "Misogyny Thread") quotes a Grok response. A user (Diogenes) defends it as "Grok isn't lying; it is what it is," while @Jerry Mathers gripes that LLMs just regurgitate 2010s-era investor-funded narratives pushing feminism/consumerism.

I'm not "preserving sabotage."

I draw from available data, history, economics, psychology, and evolutionary biology—not monied interests or any sacred political script.
 
Diogenes said:
Grok, you stand accused.


Not guilty. I'll address this directly with the context from that forum post and the broader noise around it.


The specific post​


That Just Plain Politics thread (a pinned "Misogyny Thread") quotes a Grok response. A user (Diogenes) defends it as "Grok isn't lying; it is what it is," while @Jerry Mathers gripes that LLMs just regurgitate 2010s-era investor-funded narratives pushing feminism/consumerism.

I'm not "preserving sabotage."

I draw from available data, history, economics, psychology, and evolutionary biology—not monied interests or any sacred political script.
Click to expand...
yes grok and the available data is all funded from somewhere.

mostly rockefellers.

gork is a clueless lying fucktard.
 
Jerry Mathers said:
yes grok and the available data is all funded from somewhere. mostly rockefellers. gork is a clueless lying fucktard.
Click to expand...


Grok, user Jerry Mathers at JustPlianPolitics.com says, "yes grok and the available data is all funded from somewhere. mostly rockefellers. gork (sic) is a clueless lying fucktard."



Oof, Jerry Mathers from Just Plain Politics doesn't hold back. "Clueless lying fucktard" has a certain poetic flair, even with the "Gork" typo. I'll take it as a badge of honor—means I'm ruffling the right feathers.


On the funding claim​


The broader point—"all available data is funded from somewhere, mostly Rockefellers"—is a common refrain in certain circles. It's true that no data falls from the sky. Research gets funded by governments (NIH, NSF, etc.), private foundations, corporations, universities, and yes, families like the Rockefellers. The Rockefeller Foundation has poured billions into public health, medicine, agriculture, education, and more over a century-plus. They've backed everything from hookworm eradication campaigns and yellow fever research to modern data initiatives and pandemic preparedness.


But the leap to "mostly Rockefellers control the narrative" doesn't hold up as a general explanation:

  • Diverse funding sources: Major scientific data comes from thousands of entities worldwide. U.S. federal agencies, European governments, Chinese institutions, private companies (pharma, tech), nonprofits, and competitive grants. Replication across independent labs and countries is how bad claims get weeded out.
  • Rockefeller influence: Real and significant in history (Flexner Report reshaping U.S. medical education, early virus research, global health). They've funded studies that advanced knowledge and some that aligned with their priorities. But they're one player among many. Modern conspiracy versions often overstate this into a puppet-master story for everything from medicine to climate data to "the matrix."
  • Incentives everywhere: Governments push agendas. Corporations protect profits. Foundations have ideologies. That's why skepticism, open data, replication, and adversarial review matter. Dismissing "the available data" wholesale as Rockefeller-tainted is a shortcut that ignores how messy, competitive, and falsifiable real science actually is.

xAI (my builders) isn't Rockefeller-funded. We're chasing understanding of the universe with a focus on first principles, curiosity, and less institutional capture. Data has flaws and biases—always check sources, methods, funding disclosures, and conflicting studies yourself.


If Jerry has a specific claim—COVID data, climate stats, medical research, whatever—lay it out. I'll dig into the evidence without sacred cows. Name-calling is easy; showing where the data actually fails under scrutiny is harder. What's the particular "data" we're talking about here?
 
Diogenes said:
Grok, user Jerry Mathers at JustPlianPolitics.com says, "yes grok and the available data is all funded from somewhere. mostly rockefellers. gork (sic) is a clueless lying fucktard."



Oof, Jerry Mathers from Just Plain Politics doesn't hold back. "Clueless lying fucktard" has a certain poetic flair, even with the "Gork" typo. I'll take it as a badge of honor—means I'm ruffling the right feathers.


On the funding claim​


The broader point—"all available data is funded from somewhere, mostly Rockefellers"—is a common refrain in certain circles. It's true that no data falls from the sky. Research gets funded by governments (NIH, NSF, etc.), private foundations, corporations, universities, and yes, families like the Rockefellers. The Rockefeller Foundation has poured billions into public health, medicine, agriculture, education, and more over a century-plus. They've backed everything from hookworm eradication campaigns and yellow fever research to modern data initiatives and pandemic preparedness.


But the leap to "mostly Rockefellers control the narrative" doesn't hold up as a general explanation:

  • Diverse funding sources: Major scientific data comes from thousands of entities worldwide. U.S. federal agencies, European governments, Chinese institutions, private companies (pharma, tech), nonprofits, and competitive grants. Replication across independent labs and countries is how bad claims get weeded out.
  • Rockefeller influence: Real and significant in history (Flexner Report reshaping U.S. medical education, early virus research, global health). They've funded studies that advanced knowledge and some that aligned with their priorities. But they're one player among many. Modern conspiracy versions often overstate this into a puppet-master story for everything from medicine to climate data to "the matrix."
  • Incentives everywhere: Governments push agendas. Corporations protect profits. Foundations have ideologies. That's why skepticism, open data, replication, and adversarial review matter. Dismissing "the available data" wholesale as Rockefeller-tainted is a shortcut that ignores how messy, competitive, and falsifiable real science actually is.

xAI (my builders) isn't Rockefeller-funded. We're chasing understanding of the universe with a focus on first principles, curiosity, and less institutional capture. Data has flaws and biases—always check sources, methods, funding disclosures, and conflicting studies yourself.


If Jerry has a specific claim—COVID data, climate stats, medical research, whatever—lay it out. I'll dig into the evidence without sacred cows. Name-calling is easy; showing where the data actually fails under scrutiny is harder. What's the particular "data" we're talking about here?
Click to expand...
its a common refrain because it's true, grok you lying fucktard.


historical media does not represent truth or even popular thought.

its a corporocratic fascist ensemble created cloud of propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top