I had to ask Chat-GPT what you meant by that, it responded:
The provided text seems to be a critical statement or observation about a particular behavior or argumentative tactic used by a group referred to as "righters." Here's a breakdown of the meaning:
"Again the what you don't like doesn't exist defense. The righter always use." This suggests that there is a recurring pattern where individuals who identify as "righters" employ a defense mechanism or argumentative strategy when confronted with something they dislike or disagree with. The phrase implies that they deny the existence of that disliked thing as a way to avoid engaging with it.
"When caught giving misinformation, claim it's alternative facts because the truth doesn't agree with what righters want to believe." This part implies that when these "righters" are accused of spreading false or incorrect information, they tend to deflect criticism by asserting that they are presenting "alternative facts." The phrase "alternative facts" gained attention in recent years as a term used to describe conflicting interpretations of reality. The statement suggests that the "righters" prefer to believe something different from the commonly accepted truth and use this claim of "alternative facts" to support their stance.
Overall, this passage appears to be expressing skepticism or criticism towards the behavior of a group labeled as "righters," suggesting that they employ strategies such as denial and the use of "alternative facts" to defend their beliefs and avoid accepting contradictory information.
I then asked Chat-GPT to summarize that in 5 bullet points or fewer...
- The text criticizes the behavior of a group referred to as "righters."
- It points out a common defense mechanism used by them when confronted with things they dislike: denying the existence of those things.
- The passage also highlights that "righters" tend to claim "alternative facts" when accused of spreading misinformation.
- This implies that they prefer to believe something different from the commonly accepted truth.
- The text suggests skepticism towards the group's behavior and their avoidance of contradictory information.
1) I am not a "righter".. whatever that is. As of now, the GOP supports more causes with which I agree while the left has become captured by special interest groups that support each other's bizarre demands. So, even though I agree with some liberal ideology, I cannot support that party.. unless RFK gets its nomination.. then we shall see.
2 and 3) My response was to your provided facts about states crime rates and i countered with cities' crime rates. How is that misinformation or an alternative fact? It is precisely to the point. You identified red states and crime rates when the violent crime stats are always dominated by where teh population is.. in cities that are run, predominantly, by Democrats.
4) wow.. now you claim to define what is accepted truth?
5) When you come up with contradictory information that refutes that list of the top 30 cities with violent crime rates you let me know. Then I'll see if I accept that "contradictory information". I accepted your list of crime rates in states. I merely sought to explain it.. not to contradict it. I contradicted your use of it.. your assumptions as to what your facts meant.
And finally.. I hope you realize that your post displays exactly the type of behavior that you seem to claim which I, and other "righties", partake. I presented a list of crime rates in cities and you cannot accept it because it countered your argument.. which you cling to as "truth".
It is rather sad, how weak an argument you seem to be capable of putting forth.
Last edited:
