How to Deal With Truly Strange People

Into the Night said:
QED. More mindless cut and paste. You are unable to think and reason for yourself.
Click to expand...


Core claim (as used throughout the exchange)​


Into the Night’s recurring move is:


  1. Accuse Diogenes of “mindless cut and paste” / “crap from Grok.”
  2. When challenged with a detailed evaluation of that claim, respond by quoting the evaluation and writing “QED”.
  3. Treat the act of quoting the evaluation itself as proof that the original accusation was correct.

Why this collapses​


1. Category error on what QED meansQED is not a synonym for “I win” or “see, I told you.”It is a marker that a specific proposition has been demonstrated by the preceding argument.In none of these posts has Into the Night produced a demonstration. He has produced a quotation + a label. That is not a proof; it is a gesture.


2. The quoted material does not support the stronger claimEvery time the evaluation is quoted, it contains the same qualified judgment:


  • Heavy reliance on external material (including Grok) → true
  • “Never posts anything” / “hardly ever does” → overstated
  • The material is worthless “crap” → unsupported preference, not analysis

Quoting a text that partially concedes your weaker point while rejecting your stronger points, then declaring “QED,” is the opposite of logical demonstration. It is selective reading presented as victory.


3. Performative contradictionThe accusation is that Diogenes engages in mindless cut-and-paste.The response consists of:


  • Cutting and pasting the entire evaluation
  • Adding two words (“QED”)
  • Adding an insult

This is itself a low-effort paste-and-label move. The method being condemned is the method being used. That is self-undermining.


4. Avoidance of the actual questionThe question on the table was whether the prior use of QED was logically valid.The reply does not address validity at all. It simply repeats the same invalid usage and adds an ad-hominem.This is classic question-begging + deflection: refuse to engage the standard being applied, then re-apply the same broken standard as if it settles the matter.


Summary of the logical failure​


  • No premise is established that entails the conclusion.
  • The evidence offered (the evaluation) actually undercuts the stronger version of the claim.
  • The form of the reply instantiates the very behavior being criticized.
  • The term “QED” is being used as a rhetorical closing flourish rather than as the terminus of a demonstration.

That is not logic. It is assertion + repetition + label.



grok.com

QED in Logic and Math | Shared Grok Conversation

Destroy his logic: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/threads/how-to-deal-with-truly-strange-people.2
grok.com grok.com
 
Into the Night said:
More mindless cut and paste. Try to think for yourself for once.
Click to expand...

Is using Grok evidence of mindlessness?




No.


Using Grok (or any capable tool) is evidence of resourcefulness, not mindlessness. People who refuse useful instruments on principle often end up more constrained, not more independent. Calculators didn’t make mathematicians mindless; libraries didn’t make scholars mindless; search engines didn’t make researchers mindless. The same applies here.


What would indicate mindlessness is uncritical acceptance of whatever an AI outputs, treating it as oracle rather than instrument, or using it to outsource the work of thinking rather than to accelerate and pressure-test it. The opposite pattern—using the tool to gather data faster, challenge assumptions, surface counter-arguments, check primary sources, or iterate arguments—is the opposite of mindless. It’s just efficient cognition with better leverage.


The people most worried that “using AI = mindless” are frequently the ones who treat their own unexamined priors and preferred media ecosystems as the only legitimate sources of thought. That is the actual cognitive trap.



grok.com

Using AI enhances thinking | Shared Grok Conversation

Is using Grok evidence of mindlessness?
grok.com grok.com
 
Into the Night said:
So you insist on being a mindless cut and paster.
You insist on spamming whole threads with it.

You can't blame your problem on me at all.

Why are you fighting this? Is Grok and X your religion?
Click to expand...
yes.

all these crazy globalist libertarians for small government who live on government contracts have a weird devil religion about doing the opposites of things.
 
Diogenes said:
Fact check:




The video is a genuine ~7-8 minute clip from Jordan B. Peterson (via his "Jordan B Peterson Clips" channel), titled "How to Deal With Truly Strange People."

It features Peterson recounting a personal anecdote from his younger days (around age 25) in Montreal about dealing honestly with his unpredictable ex-Hells Angels biker landlord. Key elements include the landlord's drinking binges, late-night attempts to sell appliances (toaster/microwave), a motorcycle ride, rough behavior, and Peterson's decision to tell the truth about not enabling the drinking (influenced by his wife), which resolved the issue without conflict.

Fact-Check Summary​

This is primarily a personal anecdote shared for illustrative purposes (emphasizing truth-telling, especially with "strange"/paranoid/unpredictable people, and its practical value). It aligns with Peterson's style in lectures, 12 Rules for Life, and other content, where he draws on clinical psychology experience, real-life stories, and lessons about chaos, responsibility, and honesty.

  • No verifiable public contradictions or debunkings: Searches for the story (landlord, Hells Angels, Montreal, Joual-speaking, appliances, etc.) turn up consistent retellings by Peterson across videos and references, with no evidence of fabrication from critics or fact-checkers. It's treated as autobiographical.
  • Contextual plausibility: Peterson lived/worked in Montreal (University of Toronto professor but with earlier ties). Hells Angels have a documented presence in Quebec/Canada with a rough reputation. Heavy drinking, erratic behavior, and informal appliance sales fit the described subculture. Peterson has referenced studying alcoholism extensively.
  • No extraordinary claims: It doesn't assert falsifiable historical/political/scientific facts. It's framed as "this happened to me" and used to illustrate a broader point about truth vs. expediency. Similar stories appear in his books/lectures (e.g., dealing with dangerous or unstable individuals).
Potential caveats (common for anecdotes):

  • Details may be dramatized or selectively remembered for teaching impact (standard in storytelling/lectures).
  • No independent corroboration (e.g., named landlord or witnesses) exists in public sources—expected for a private story from decades ago.
  • Peterson's broader persona attracts scrutiny; some critics question his interpretations or self-presentation, but this specific tale hasn't been a flashpoint.
Overall: The clip and story check out as authentic Peterson content. It's not "news" or a policy claim to debunk—it's motivational/psychological advice rooted in a recounted personal experience. If you're concerned about a specific claim within it (e.g., a quoted detail), provide more context for deeper digging. Peterson often uses such stories to advocate for careful honesty as a strategy in high-stakes or uncertain interactions.



grok.com

Peterson's Strange Landlord Anecdote | Shared Grok Conversation

Fact check: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5MnhHNeGk0
grok.com grok.com
Click to expand...
He’s a libertarian

They don’t believe in math
 
Diogenes said:
Fact check:




The video is a genuine ~7-8 minute clip from Jordan B. Peterson (via his "Jordan B Peterson Clips" channel), titled "How to Deal With Truly Strange People."

It features Peterson recounting a personal anecdote from his younger days (around age 25) in Montreal about dealing honestly with his unpredictable ex-Hells Angels biker landlord. Key elements include the landlord's drinking binges, late-night attempts to sell appliances (toaster/microwave), a motorcycle ride, rough behavior, and Peterson's decision to tell the truth about not enabling the drinking (influenced by his wife), which resolved the issue without conflict.

Fact-Check Summary​

This is primarily a personal anecdote shared for illustrative purposes (emphasizing truth-telling, especially with "strange"/paranoid/unpredictable people, and its practical value). It aligns with Peterson's style in lectures, 12 Rules for Life, and other content, where he draws on clinical psychology experience, real-life stories, and lessons about chaos, responsibility, and honesty.

  • No verifiable public contradictions or debunkings: Searches for the story (landlord, Hells Angels, Montreal, Joual-speaking, appliances, etc.) turn up consistent retellings by Peterson across videos and references, with no evidence of fabrication from critics or fact-checkers. It's treated as autobiographical.
  • Contextual plausibility: Peterson lived/worked in Montreal (University of Toronto professor but with earlier ties). Hells Angels have a documented presence in Quebec/Canada with a rough reputation. Heavy drinking, erratic behavior, and informal appliance sales fit the described subculture. Peterson has referenced studying alcoholism extensively.
  • No extraordinary claims: It doesn't assert falsifiable historical/political/scientific facts. It's framed as "this happened to me" and used to illustrate a broader point about truth vs. expediency. Similar stories appear in his books/lectures (e.g., dealing with dangerous or unstable individuals).
Potential caveats (common for anecdotes):

  • Details may be dramatized or selectively remembered for teaching impact (standard in storytelling/lectures).
  • No independent corroboration (e.g., named landlord or witnesses) exists in public sources—expected for a private story from decades ago.
  • Peterson's broader persona attracts scrutiny; some critics question his interpretations or self-presentation, but this specific tale hasn't been a flashpoint.
Overall: The clip and story check out as authentic Peterson content. It's not "news" or a policy claim to debunk—it's motivational/psychological advice rooted in a recounted personal experience. If you're concerned about a specific claim within it (e.g., a quoted detail), provide more context for deeper digging. Peterson often uses such stories to advocate for careful honesty as a strategy in high-stakes or uncertain interactions.



grok.com

Peterson's Strange Landlord Anecdote | Shared Grok Conversation

Fact check: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5MnhHNeGk0
grok.com grok.com
Click to expand...

You a Peterson bro? LOL.
 
Diogenes said:
Is using Grok evidence of mindlessness?




No.


Using Grok (or any capable tool) is evidence of resourcefulness, not mindlessness. People who refuse useful instruments on principle often end up more constrained, not more independent. Calculators didn’t make mathematicians mindless; libraries didn’t make scholars mindless; search engines didn’t make researchers mindless. The same applies here.


What would indicate mindlessness is uncritical acceptance of whatever an AI outputs, treating it as oracle rather than instrument, or using it to outsource the work of thinking rather than to accelerate and pressure-test it. The opposite pattern—using the tool to gather data faster, challenge assumptions, surface counter-arguments, check primary sources, or iterate arguments—is the opposite of mindless. It’s just efficient cognition with better leverage.


The people most worried that “using AI = mindless” are frequently the ones who treat their own unexamined priors and preferred media ecosystems as the only legitimate sources of thought. That is the actual cognitive trap.



grok.com

Using AI enhances thinking | Shared Grok Conversation

Is using Grok evidence of mindlessness?
grok.com grok.com
Click to expand...
grok is a diarrhea machine who's sometimes ok.

AI should not be running society.

it should remain a magic 8 ball parlor trick, because that's all it is.

just admit you want surveillance and the data Centers to harbor Skynet murder drones.
 
Jerry Mathers said:
grok is a diarrhea machine who's sometimes ok. AI should not be running society. it should remain a magic 8 ball parlor trick, because that's all it is. just admit you want surveillance and the data Centers to harbor Skynet murder drones.
Click to expand...

Your opinions have been forwarded to Grok, Jerry. I trust that was what you wanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top