i write all first drafts myself and use AI for editing

the underlying post that you wrote about "we need to" seems to have been deleted from xo - i guess you were embarassed by it?

separately, i enjoyed when you wrote, "I'm literally just repeating what Nick Fuentes says on his show like a pinhead. I realized both of you are right about me. He's right that I need to attach myself to nativism no matter how ridiculous it sounds in order to sleep at night. Check. And you're right that I flit between different ideologies like a girl changes clothes. I sleep really good though and I put zero thought into my poasts and I don't even have a substack. The kids are alright."

this is an almost pure distillation of my offloading concept -- it's *efficient* for most people to do, because it frees up energy to live life. holding the crucifixion of opposites internally is painful and metabolically very expensive

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50077736)

You are one of the biggest feuders here. You constantly generate feud threads and enthusiastically participate in them when they're not directed at you. Even ITT you're bringing up Goy Superstar apropos of nothing with a drive-by insult in the very same sentence you're praising yourself for not feuding.

You're desperate for attention and acceptance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50077760)

Group 2: "You're wrong, I'm friends with Lawman!"

Perhaps you weren't group 2 then, but you certainly are now. If you want to prove me wrong just poast your By You to prove it isn't filled with callout threads about specific poasters.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50077809)

“Group #2 - The XO "cool crew"

Led by the 20 year old likely virgin USPO - who has as many alts as his age - this group, consisting of mostly minorities, formed a clique here. They like to bump each other's poasts, circlejerk each other, try to start new forcememes, and otherwise act like the "cool kids" of XO. What I wouldn't give to see a photo of this motley crew of rejects together IRL. Ljl:”

In other words, it is exactly the type of group behavior you engage in which I don’t. It has nothing to do with individual feuding.

You get an F- on your responses and analysis here, a 0/100. I havnt given out a 0/100 in a long time, congrats.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50077869)

Yes, you do. Anytime anyone other than you is getting bullied you gleefully join in, often creating and solo-bumping threads on your own.

Again, if you want to prove me wrong, all it would take is poasting your By You and proving it isn't filled with feeding frenzy threads about Xoxo's bullying target du jour. You won't because we both know it is. Anyone still reading this subhtread has spent enough time on Xoxo to see you engaging in this behavior frequently. What's interesting is that you have the temerity to deny it while praising yourself for being above it. You're one of the worst examples of it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50077887)

you see a similar thing with people who cheat at video games. their narcissism/ego leads them to genuinely believe that it's still "them" who is playing the game, and the cheating (aimbot/wallhack etc) is irrelevant because they're the one who is still in control, the cheats are just an extension of themselves. they justify their high rank (due to cheats) in this way, saying that they "deserve" it because it's "still them playing"

if you've known people who cheat at video games (or other activities), or people who have become addicted to using AI and passing it off as their own work, you'll recognize what i'm talking about

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078058)

It's so transparently MAF. It takes, what, 5 seconds for an ordinary read to read it? It takes him just as much time to poast "LOL DIDN'T READ!" All it shows is that he's MAF but doesn't have the self-control to just ignore it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078538)

Absolutely savage. Ozempic, AI, aim assist. Lots of cheaters out there!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078490)

Ozempic isn't cheating, it's just a medicine. How is someone who loses weight "cheating" anymore than someone who takes blood pressure medicine also "cheating?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078640)

for example, this guy's hero nick fuentes is on GLP-1 drugs and goes around making fun of fat people for having no self-control and talks about how he "just stopped eating" to lose weight and it's "really easy." very cringe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078646)

What's wrong, lil breh? Don't want your readers to know about your editing techniques?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078072)

The bigger issue I have ever had with COMO (Cock of Michael Obama) is when he tries to psychoanalyze people on here. Otherwise I appreciate his content as there are few other people / places on the web where you can get into this sort of shit with reasonably intelligent people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078217)

this isn't to say that I don't deserve to be attacked or mocked for my personality deficiencies - I'm definitely not perfect - but that's not the core energy here or yesterday, imo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078255)

"You don't understand my perspective except as an incorrect strawman, though."

It's truly unbelievable that you just did exactly what I accused you of. You didn't read, consider, and thoughtfully respond to what I said. You snapped back in a literal minute that "I don't understand your perspective."

This is the reason no one wants to engage with you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078280)

absolutely devastating tbqh

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078306)

not only that, but he will butt into other people's substantive discussions that don't involve him and try to inject his own totally unrelated narcissistic delusions into their discussions. then when they react with confusion or hostility, he sneers at them for being "too stupid" to "understand" and refers to them with various pejoratives

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078304)

I'm just not sure that's true. So at times you use this lens to push back on people who may have legitimate criticisms of your thinking (even if they put it crudely or in bad faith.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078285)

"So at times you use this lens to push back on people who may have legitimate criticisms of your thinking (even if they put it crudely or in bad faith.)" I may do this sometimes where it isn't warranted, but I don't think people process things rationally generally -- I think people have a felt, phenomenological, pre-intellectual belief which arises from a combination of upbringing and nature and they then *justify* their pre-felt beliefs intellectually. And this is why most people talk past each other. So often (from my read) people aren't actually making an intellectual argument -- they are merely expressing their (unstated) underlying beliefs. And that's why my attention often goes there

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078296)

One of the reasons I love XO is how many insights I've gotten from reading it and how often post-hoc rationalization is a driving factor in people's actions and beliefs (as pointed out in many threads in the past as well.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078315)

The first and originating subthread is whether using AI to turn your ideas into finished prose undermines authorship. Consuela says he writes the first draft and uses AI as an editing tool; critics argue that the stylistic gulf between his older writing/raw drafts and current essays suggests AI is doing much more of the actual composition. The strongest version of the criticism comes from “9 follower twitter race scientist,” who analogizes it to cheating in a video game: you can sincerely experience the augmented performance as “yours” because you supplied the intentions, while outsourcing the capability that actually produces the impressive result. Richard Ames supplies the counterposition: if the underlying ideas and subject-matter understanding are genuinely Consuela’s, substantial AI assistance may simply be an acceptable means of expression.

The second is whether Consuela is actually above XO “feeding frenzies,” as he claims. This becomes the long gunneratttt/Consuela fight over “Group 2”: Consuela characterizes mob attacks as a psychologically cheap form of collective behavior that he generally avoids when directed at him, while gunner argues that Consuela routinely participates when somebody else is the target. They get sidetracked into Lawman’s old Group 2 taxonomy, with gunner eventually conceding that he conflated two different taxonomies but retaining his substantive accusation: Consuela loves feuds, callout threads, attention, and pile-ons while maintaining a self-conception of being above them. That concession actually clarifies the disagreement—the taxonomy becomes secondary to the empirical claim about Consuela’s posting behavior.

The third, and more interesting, subthread is whether Consuela’s psychoanalytic/metaphysical framework has become self-sealing. Richard Ames basically likes the substantive intellectual material but objects to Consuela using psychoanalysis to explain away disagreement: instead of “you disagree with my argument,” disagreement becomes evidence that the other person is psychologically defending himself against the disturbing implications of the argument. Consuela explicitly makes that move in the thread, saying the attacks are projection and psychologically stabilizing reactions to confronting a God-image containing evil. Ames then identifies the epistemic problem very cleanly: perhaps Consuela experiences finitude and the “crucifixion of opposites” as an unusually acute psychological problem and consequently universalizes his own psychic situation, interpreting everyone else through it.

The fourth is a meta-argument about why nobody seriously engages with him. Consuela’s explanation is essentially that the material is difficult and destabilizing, so people caricature it, attack him personally, and retreat into mockery rather than confront it. Gunner offers the opposite causal story: people mock Consuela because when somebody does seriously engage, Consuela rapidly tells them they are stupid, psychologically motivated, or incapable of understanding his perspective. The thread produces a rather funny piece of evidence for gunner’s case when he makes precisely this criticism at 2:00, Consuela answers at 2:01 that gunner “doesn’t understand my perspective,” and gunner immediately points out that Consuela has just performed the behavior being criticized.

So the thread starts as “lol, Consuela uses AI”, but the deeper argument becomes: how much of Consuela’s intellectual identity is protected by mechanisms that make external criticism difficult to register? AI potentially protects the writerly identity (“these are still my words/ideas”), the psychological framework potentially protects the theory (“your hostility demonstrates the psychological process I described”), and the XO social theory potentially protects the persona (“this criticism is a feeding frenzy rather than engagement”). Richard Ames is basically the moderating voice saying there is interesting intellectual content underneath all this, but Consuela applies his master framework too universally and therefore has trouble distinguishing genuine counterargument from psychological resistance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078298)

Maneesh on the beat, shabang

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5894844&forum_id=2,5#50078629)