>effortpost about the topic I know well
>(You) thanks chatgpt

>demoralization thread #16716612
Fedposting glowing.

>>16716612 (OP)
stop sounding generic then retard
>anecdotes
>slurs
>broad and judgmental statements
>opinions
^gpt doesn't
gpt does
>stuff weasel words into every asscrack it can find
>appeal to muh consensus
>write like a goody-2-shoes middle schooler with a thesaurus and a paragraph structure guid

tldr skill issue (ur boring)

>>16716622
>if you don’t say nigger in your post, then you’re a chatgpt bot
most 4chan post in existence

>>16716625

>>16716612 (OP)
bob amd vagene?

>>16716622
Thanks for the tip. I'll be writing in ebonics from now on y'all

Show us the post and we'll judge how much of a faggot you are

>>16716685
Pretty sure it's these. Timeline matches up
>>16716368
>>16716562

Op have you tried not sounding like you're a redditor/you're talking to a wall?

I was being more obnoxious and less informative samefagging in this thread bully me instead lol. They all thought I was a bot.
>>16716083

Because they are anti-intellectuals and conformists, conforming to a specifically defined non-conformity. Speaking clearly and intelligently with good grammar and basic formatting isn't "cool" even though it is the best way to communicate complex concepts.

Racism is also against my religion. Imagine thinking you need to use racial slurs in order to communicate your mind. Aren't you supposed to be free thinkers? Then why don't you have confidence in the things you say and feel the need to dumb yourself down or use haram language to communicate?

I do not care if you don't approve of the way I write, it is objectively a good way to communicate. It's not "reddit" or "ChatGPT" it is simply grammar.

Anyone can mimic any writing style they choose to it isn't as hard as difficult as trying to make it seem. The chat gpt esque emotionally detached narrator writing style is just inherently unappealing for image boards.

Imagine interacting with a normal looking person irl and they sound like a matter of fact autist that says "fun fact" before before talking like a mind numbing wikepedia article.

>>16716721

There is an anti-intellectual culture that wants to make it taboo or "autistic" to be an intellectual or communicate intelligently.

Yet we live in a world that is only made possible by science. All of this modern technology, medicine, our natural understanding of the universe.

There is nothing wrong with being an intellectual. Intellectuals are leaders and have built our world. People lack the confidence to call themselves intellectuals and feel like they have to handicap themselves to fit in.

I don't care about fitting into a culture that is securalized and degenerate, hedonistic and backwards. Go ahead and throw your one liners and brain-dead kneejerk ad hominems I don't care. I will express my mind exactly as I choose as I have the confidence to do so.

>>16716725

>autist

Autism is not even a real disease according to the international medical community. You are just anti-intellectual.

On sites like these you are in fact communicating to a wide audience and using basic grammar and formatting makes your thoughts easier to read.

It is simply not possibly to communicate and discuss complex ideas if you do not construct multiple sentences and connect them in a coherent way. If you neglect basic grammar and formatting it becomes difficult to read and easy to skip over.

If your options are edgy one liners or unreadable walls of text there is no way to discuss things that matter with any sort of depth and meaning.

>>16716729

>It is simply not possible* to communicate and discuss complex ideas if you do not construct multiple sentences and connect them in a coherent way.

I care more about expressing my mind effectively than being "cool" or "fitting in" to a culture that is supposedly about thinkingly freely and questioning the status quo.

>>16716721
You say that but then you go spread pajeet memes for bloody bitch Pakistan.

Just kidding(?). Or maybe you're an American fed baiting me to keep posting. Maybe not.

Either way, get ready to be laughed at and discredited as a "mudslime". This is literally /sci/. Nobody believes in that here. 4chan is dominated by the Anglo-American Westerners and armchair Nazis.

>>16716612 (OP)
Hi can you share your effortpost with us so we can see what you're talking about? Thanks

>>16716731
You have to find the right mix of of length and complexity that can get the point across while guaranteeing interaction.

I guarantee there's books you wouldn't read just because of the needlessly technical and verbose way they get around to saying things.

>>16716726
>There is an anti-intellectual culture
>he doesn't fucking know
The people giving you shit are complaining about your opening words. Please understand, you are not intelligent. The larp is detectable and is the source of the complaint.
It's not me, it's you.

to all the faggots whining about "anti-intellectual" movements here, let me tell you upfront: i'm one of them. and i wear that label with honor. what exactly is "intellectual" supposed to mean? when you know what the fuck you're talking about, you are called an expert. every single piece of shit asshole labeled as an intellectual is one who leaves his area of expertise, and pretends to be knowledgeable about it.

this is why cranks and grifters are often called intellectuals. penrose isn't considered an intellectual due to his work pivotal work on physics. no, he's called an intellectual for what he says about technology, the future and other bullshit. it's why assholes like jordan peterson get to be labeled intellectuals.

and if you unironically value calling yourself an intellectual, then fuck you. you're the reason academia, politics and society as a whole are crumbling. stay in your god damn lane. it's so obvious who you are, and easy to sniff you motherfuckers out when you act like experts on everything.

this utter obsession with intellectuals needs to die, and the biggest way to out yourself as a pseud is to be a champion for intellectuals (likely because you see yourself as one, or devoutly follow one in the public sphere).

>>16716842
The error in your point is an implicit assumption that the reliability of someone's message is inherently lowered to an unrespectable level if it strays from the subject-matters they have the most knowledge of. Both the expert and the "intellectual" as you describe it have a relative degree of knowledge, not all or none if it; they both have a duty to be communicate carefully and avoid making claims with indue confidence or insufficient backing. It depends on what they know and don't know and whether their words reflect that scope. One can make claims outside their "discipline" and be right but only through the carefulness of their logic.

In order to have a good general worldview and philosophical positions, one requires a global, interdisciplinary perspective. The truth is that there is one reality and the narrow disciplines taught at a university are about parts of that one reality that are interrelated. The division of areas of expertise is a necessary instrument for individuals to follow their passions and careers, not reflective of holistic truth. Any expert would be missing out not to have a general perspective by which to understand their life.

Where you're right is that the idea of an "intellectual" who is honest, humble and actually intelligent enough not to spread falsehoods and nonsense with a contrived objective in mind is vanishingly rare to unlikely. If they are famous and public, that respectability is probably nonexistent. I personally am naive and don't have an accurate view of people's malice and shallowness, so I'm more right in theory while you're more right in terms of direct description of how people are.

what is blud yapping about :skull: :cry:

>>16716863
>the error in your point is that I didn't understand any of what you said
This is what it looks like when midwits argue.
Yes, >>16716842 is included in this assessment.

>>16716876
>this is what it looks like when smart people make indirect tangential points
>this is what it looks like when shitwits are not impeccably clear
The error in your point is that you're focused on the relation between the arguments at the expense of their content. This whole thread is a show of how genuine discussion and shitposting contradict and mix badly. We're three clicks away from loli porn. It's a clown show.

>>16716907
>focused on the relation between the arguments at the expense of their content
Incorrect. It is focused on the relation of the contained content, and the content's valuation.
>3 clicks
Fucking how. It's 1. Yes, of course it's a clown show, that's why I called those 2 clowns clowns.

>>16716721
Separate grammar from meaning. You can use grammar and proper punctuation; if you would not know a GPT-post by its words alone, then you have missed the point. You are not Einstein because you can use commas; stop wanking yourself off for it.

>>16716842
This opinion would have sucked 100 years ago but "intellectual" now just means a midwit smugger than he has any right to be.

>>16716612 (OP)
99.9999% chance that you should have posted your message in /sqt/ instead of making it a top level post. You're angry because you wanted attention and didn't get it. If you posted in /sqt/ or an existing thread related to your topic, you would have simply received a couple of replies and that would have been it. Not enough attention for you. So instead of you a meta thread, which has given you the attention your mental illness craves. In the end, you are the problem.

>>16716729
>Autism is not even a real disease according to the international medical community.
In that case, why does the DSM even exist?
Difficulty: a sincere, rational response, not a glib emotional one to protect your ego.

>>16716746
>picrel
Padded bra.

>>16716863
there is an anti-academia, anti-intellectual and anti-science movement going on, across the world. when science is used to lock you in your homes for "two weeks", academics say cars on fire are "mostly peaceful" protests and biologists say that men can give birth, the general population begins to question their sanity. for as dumb as people are, they know when they're being fucked over. it's like dogs: they obviously lack intelligence, but we often call some dogs "smart" for picking up certain patterns.

when the smartest, most curious and allegedly best of humanity in terms of brain power are caught lying to actively harm people below them, everything associated with them gets put under scrutiny. if such paragons of intellect lack common sense, have cozy jobs paid for by the blue-collar workers' taxes, and use their cushy position atop the ivory tower to consistently insult the general population, while in the next breath claiming these general people have sociological privilege and use it oppress everyone else---then is it any wonder the population rebels?

instead of calling out people for being anti-intellectual, maybe question what caused such esteemed members of society to go from having revere beyond reproach to receiving disgust and disrespect. the replication crisis (c. 2012), #metoo movement (c. 2017), and other associated progressive movements in the 2010s (supported by academics) as well as the systematic failure of peer review (sokal affair c. 1996; sokal squared c. 2017) coalesced to, within less than a decade, completely destroy the reputation held by the intellectual elite earned over centuries. it's really sad to see, and i think warrants asking a question: how did the academy put themselves in a situation where this can happen? >>16717122