>>60933639 (OP)
You’ve been repeating this same delusional narrative arc for months now as though endlessly restating it taxonomically somehow transmutes it into truth (it doesn’t) and pretending your posts “say something” while everyone else’s is “AI slop” is the most transparent projection I’ve seen since thread #60625439 (which you obviously read but conveniently ignored, particularly post #60625449 where this exact cope spiral was dismantled) and your selective memory about your own posting behavior is either pathologically dishonest or you’ve actually gaslit yourself into believing that flooding every thread with multi-post screeds isn’t functionally equivalent to making them yourself (see also thread #60577714 and your 14 back-to-back replies between #60577722 and #60577841, which you pretended were “just responses”) and your smug refrain about “arguing point by point” is outright laughable given that your points are bloated circular premises nested inside half-baked economic abstractions layered with terms you can’t define without slipping into even more wordy obfuscation (already addressed in #60499388 and #60499407 where your so-called ‘expressive but non-frilly language’ literally required 4000 words to say “link doesn’t capture value because I say so”) and the idea that you were “just replying” when you have dumped archives of self-quoted manifestos (which, again, I’ve already debunked in thread #60200444 post #60200467 and #60200512) is pure cope, the AI didn’t cause this pivot, your refusal to internalize being refuted over and over did, and now you’re stuck arguing with parodies of yourself and losing to them, which is poetic in a way that I’m not sure even you can fully appreciate given how deep into your own feedback loop you are
