T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Diogenes is delusional and totally dependent on Grok to do his / her / its thinking, but liar? I don't think so.
Help is at hand
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
I'll remind you that before Grok existed I used Google searches to substantiate my posts and debunk other people's when warranted. Grok is better, IMO, Luddite. I prefer not to rely on my recollections when a better source is available.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
It does help to have one. Me? I had to memorize three different nuclear power plants down to damn near every bolt used at one point, among other amounts of prodigious knowledge.
I didn't say it doesn't. It's not infallible (neither is Grok). I do my best to to double check when it's appropriate. Sometimes I even push back on Grok and make him reevaluate. If the answer stays consistent, I accept it after I reverify. Google doesn't do that. If you want to rely on what you think you remember, that's your problem.
Even in nuclear work, 'memorized every bolt' isn't how safety actually works — procedures and checks exist for a reason.
Tbird19482
Verified User
Yes it is and where did I say the taxpayer paid for it?
I said I didn't think Trump paid for it , but now thinking about it Trump is that stupid he just may have.
Last edited:
I know that.
Your poorly-veiled dissembling is plain to see, artless dodger.
I know what I'll do. I'll ask Grok!
Diogenes is justified in ridiculing Tbird19482's responses because they exhibit classic plausible deniability tactics: floating a conspiratorial implication, then retreating to weak "just asking questions" language when challenged, while the original posts reveal stronger assumptions.
Quick summary of the exchange (from the thread):
- The OP (Diogenes) posts a Trump AI-generated satirical video (Dr. Trump giving absurd medical advice, with parody testimonials).
- Tbird19482's early posts:
- "Nice bunch of actors. wonder how much that cost the taxpayers."
- "AI still can cost money. And you can bet Trump didn't pay for it."
- Later escalates to claims like Trump "could have taken a couple of million out of SNAP," MAGAs don't care about hungry kids, etc., and insists Congress should investigate.
- When pressed, Tbird shifts:
- "I NEVER said the taxpayers DID pay for it, I said, I wonder (as a question to myself)..."
- "I wonder IF taxpayers paid for it."
- Demands proof that taxpayers didn't pay, treats the mere possibility as warranting investigation, and questions whether Trump would spend his own money.
- Diogenes repeatedly highlights the flip-flopping with "Hop to it!" (mocking the call for investigation), quotes the earlier statements back, notes the burden of proof is on the claimant, and mocks the inconsistency (e.g., "This you?").
Why the ridicule is fair:
- The initial claim wasn't neutral wondering: Starting with "wonder how much that cost the taxpayers" + "you can bet Trump didn't pay for it" + tying it to SNAP cuts and hungry kids is a clear rhetorical smear. It implies public misuse of funds without evidence. This is a common tactic: plant the seed of scandal, then claim innocence when called on it.
- Shifting burden of proof: Tbird demands others prove a negative ("do you have any proof they didn't?") while admitting no evidence for the positive claim. Diogenes correctly notes the burden is on the person making the accusation. In logic/debate, extraordinary claims (Trump raiding SNAP for memes) require evidence; absence of disproof isn't proof.
- Inconsistent backpedaling: Multiple posts assert confidence ("you can bet," implications of misuse), followed by "I never said it did happen, just wondering." This is textbook plausible deniability—maintaining the smear's emotional effect while dodging accountability for the assertion. Diogenes' quoting and "This you?" directly exposes it, making ridicule a natural response.
- Context of the video: As noted in the thread (and verifiable), it's a private/campaign-style AI meme from Trump's account—standard political content using accessible tools, not a government production. No evidence of taxpayer funding. Treating every Trump post as potential graft is conspiratorial overreach, especially without even basic checks.
Ridicule fits here because the behavior is evasive and bad-faith in a partisan forum spat.
Diogenes isn't just disagreeing—he's methodically highlighting the rhetorical dodge, which invites mockery ("Poor baby. Need a tissue?" etc.).
It's not bullying an honest skeptic; it's calling out someone who implies wrongdoing, escalates emotionally, then pretends it was innocent curiosity.
Classic internet debate move.