I engaged with Mr. Schweizer a bit and found him equal parts well-intentioned and cautiously evasive. He used justifications similar to Mr. Moyer when critiqued on his use of AI, retorting "Is this a substantive argument against it, or an attempt to avoid engaging with it? Thought-terminating cliché – you're not giving a reason why the argument is wrong; you're giving yourself a reason not to address it."
After reading his content (which was a mix of GenAI and AI-translated), my criticism still stands: the descriptor "feminist" attributed to Our Lady cannot be baptized as a form of damage-control. If any derivative of "feminine" or "femininity" were used instead, then many would have been spared a week's worth of tizzy.
This double shell-game being played, of Mr. Matt burdening his audience with assuming his intention rather than judging his speech and of Mr. Schweizer expecting readers to assume the role of editor to an essay he lightly touched, proved tiring enough for this layman.
"Is this a substantive argument against it, or an attempt to avoid engaging with it? Thought-terminating cliché – you're not giving a reason why the argument is wrong; you're giving yourself a reason not to address it."
The reality is, AI "writers" like this are charlatans, confidence tricksters, and aggressively so. It's like the worst caricature of a used car salesmen.
They pump out their slop, and then say things like this to you. They don't even have the decency to make their slop at least feel organic, and rid it of AI clichés.
They don't answer a straight question about their process, and yet try to make you out to be the dishonest one.
They expend no effort on "their work" and yet try to shame you for not expending effort in refuting it.
They need to be told they are charlatans, and mocked until they go away.
The fact they try to guilt the rest of us in this way is just completely brazen.
The roots of feminism - especially 20th century - are Jewish and CIA (sometimes one and the same) abortion promoters, family subverters and societal perverters. We should all be "how dare they place feminism anywhere near Our Lady". We are witnessing the boiling of the trad inc. frog in real time.
I engaged with Mr. Schweizer a bit and found him equal parts well-intentioned and cautiously evasive. He used justifications similar to Mr. Moyer when critiqued on his use of AI, retorting "Is this a substantive argument against it, or an attempt to avoid engaging with it? Thought-terminating cliché – you're not giving a reason why the argument is wrong; you're giving yourself a reason not to address it."
After reading his content (which was a mix of GenAI and AI-translated), my criticism still stands: the descriptor "feminist" attributed to Our Lady cannot be baptized as a form of damage-control. If any derivative of "feminine" or "femininity" were used instead, then many would have been spared a week's worth of tizzy.
This double shell-game being played, of Mr. Matt burdening his audience with assuming his intention rather than judging his speech and of Mr. Schweizer expecting readers to assume the role of editor to an essay he lightly touched, proved tiring enough for this layman.
"Is this a substantive argument against it, or an attempt to avoid engaging with it? Thought-terminating cliché – you're not giving a reason why the argument is wrong; you're giving yourself a reason not to address it."
The reality is, AI "writers" like this are charlatans, confidence tricksters, and aggressively so. It's like the worst caricature of a used car salesmen.
They pump out their slop, and then say things like this to you. They don't even have the decency to make their slop at least feel organic, and rid it of AI clichés.
They don't answer a straight question about their process, and yet try to make you out to be the dishonest one.
They expend no effort on "their work" and yet try to shame you for not expending effort in refuting it.
They need to be told they are charlatans, and mocked until they go away.
The fact they try to guilt the rest of us in this way is just completely brazen.
The roots of feminism - especially 20th century - are Jewish and CIA (sometimes one and the same) abortion promoters, family subverters and societal perverters. We should all be "how dare they place feminism anywhere near Our Lady". We are witnessing the boiling of the trad inc. frog in real time.
Outstanding conferences.
Special request: Some conferences for us fathers.
I know they’d be top-shelf.