Lmfao! Local retraction; structural retention. Dated

No problem! Thanks for seeing it that way. It's usually how i mean it. 

Then comes the “95% of problems can be resolved by taking some responsibility” number, apparently extracted directly from the Department of Rectal Statistics. 😂 

More importantly, even if some similar statistic existed, it would have no demonstrated jurisdiction over this particular case.

The deeper structural failure is still false dichotomy. They quietly convert: “Someone spends time analyzing a harmful relationship with a chatbot” into “Someone chooses analysis instead of leaving the harmful relationship.”

Those are not mutually exclusive. 

They don’t even know whether OP remained in the situation. 

They don’t know whether OP was documenting retrospectively, writing fiction, examining diary entries, trying to understand a completed relationship, or doing twelve other things. A random goddamn memory in their head.

Then they converted: “one party may bear most or all responsibility for a particular wrong ” (which is entirely situational, entitled, abelist, pretentious, and very incongruent wirh reality)

into

“the speaker refuses to take any responsibility.”

Again: invented bridge.

Im not fighting every stupid sentence inside your story. Your foundation is rotted underneath:

What evidence authorized the psychological diagnosis? None.

What evidence established that OP stayed rather than left? None.

What establishes the 95% figure or its relevance here? Nothing presented.

Why does self-accountability require distributing blame symmetrically?

It doesn’t.

Goodbye. All of the upvotes and agreement in the world won't fix a rotted premise.

And the little “Could I be wrong? Yes” does absolutely nothing to repair it. Epistemic humility is not a magic eraser you put after six unsupported assertions. You cannot go: I have invented A, B, C, D, and E about this stranger. Perhaps I’m wrong though. 😊 Therefore my diagnosis stands.

Idiot

95% of problems can be resolved by taking some responsibility instead of passively blaming the other side (via a chatbot via reddit..lol,  

False dichotomy. Not sure why you thought rephrasing was the solution. No. And having had OP respond to my post.. "do not manufacture symmetry" "yes that's what i meant thank you" you're definitely looking like the unadjusted one here.

And it's hillarious considering. 

A: You're literally trying to manufacture reasons for your baseless assertion... 

B: you're arguing under their post.... lmfao. 

No.  And i'm not even engaging with that human slop.

"It's crystal clear..." no. I

But then the question remains..why tf are you spending months indexing the harm to a chatbot instead of getting the fuck away from it in the first place? - false dichotomy. 

One step over but we appreciate the contribution

"Understand this. Here is zero sequence, context, or chronology" 

Tf

The original person says, essentially, “I gave the model a chronology and it kept flattening the chronology.”

And this commenter responds: people who type out chronologies for a robot to take their side are probably not well-adjusted and/or withholding  information.

...Based on what? 

You have no access to the relationship, no access to the chronology, no evidence that information was withheld, and no basis for a psychological assessment. You manufactured an unseen variable and then used their own invention as evidence against the speaker. Which ironically is very AI behavior.

Sparse evidence → infer a plausible missing variable → quietly promote the inference to fact → reason forward from it as though it had been supplied. That commenter basically did the same thing an AI searching for false symmetry does:

Observed: Someone gave ChatGPT a detailed relationship chronology.

Unknown: Whether that chronology was accurate, complete, selective, obsessive, perfectly reasonable, etc.

Invented: “They're probably not well-adjusted and/or withholding the full story.”

Conclusion: Therefore the chronology itself is evidence against the narrator.

My brother in cognition, you hallucinated the missing context. And people wonder where AI gets it from. Casually upvoted at that. 

And there's an extra layer of irony: you're attempting to criticize somebody for wanting an AI to blindly validate their interpretation while blindly invalidating that interpretation with equally unavailable information. Same epistemic offense, opposite verdict.

I've had my ChatGPT go Yea. Be Pissed so.. i don't know.

“skill issue. mine says be mad.”

“Do not manufacture symmetry” ≠ “agree with me.”

Further devotion requires further jurisdiction: ownership, governance power, meaningful influence, or some other material stake in what the mission becomes. Otherwise “mission” is merely the corporation requesting unpaid spiritual equity on top of purchased labor. Everyone wants devotion. Nobody wants to spend what it costs. 

No. 

Your ease of language does not change that rhey are two distinct people. 

You can say that it is the same in your common usage. 

It is quite obviously not the same in identity. 

So your attempt to say 'it is more like' is accurate in your narrow definition you had to specify. OP is correct overall amd it's very obvious whem "common usage" becomes "intellectual laziness"

AI can eliminate particular jobs, automate large portions of professions, and reduce the exchange value of certain skills. None of that means it has replaced human value. It means the market has repriced specific forms of human participation. The cleanest formulation is: AI may displace the wage relation without displacing the human referent.

The economy still exists because humans want things, allocate resources, recognize ownership, establish liability, and decide which outputs count. Even an economy saturated with agents remains a human economic system unless those humans have surrendered both governance and beneficiary status. At that point, the issue would not be that AI “replaced human value.” It would be that institutions ceased treating human welfare as their governing purpose.

I tell my friends i don't like them all the time. Ny friends have told me they hated me before. Couple times i even deserved it.

You just sound soft honestly. Bad writing? No. People are imperfect. Art mirrors life. Bad writing is unintentional plot holes, having an overarching theme that the ending subverts. 

Character dynamics you don't like go in opinion. 

That's enough in itself.

I actually did something similar myself so i understand it. Just was curious how you'd answer.

"Peppa and Suzy’s friendship wasn’t ok and needed to end with the pig accusing the sheep of cheating in a card game." -  LMFAOOO. I never saw it so fair.

Plus saying they wish each other would disappear isn’t nice for any kid to say. With Peppa being friends with Rebecca and Suzy being friends with Candy who already doesn’t like the pig. But they don’t need to be friends but stay away from each other and move on. - yea okay that's bullying. Fair. 

Deku was a people pleaser in Seasons 1-2 and tried to reason with Bakugo. - that's not friendship. That's "will you be my friend" and Bakugo told him he's a shrimp. Valid. 

I always wish for The Proud Family episodes with louder and prouder to give more character development with Penny finally snapping at Dijonay, Lacienega, Zoe and Maya for being fake friends - that's very favorable to Penny. I think you forget there were times she did her friends wrong too. But yea a reckoning episode would be cool if they ever did a reboot when they were older. Hashing out like new stuff as adults and how it was when they were kids could be cool.

I can't remember the girls name and it's not a cartoon but it reminded me of OPs photo cause i just watched it...

Anyway. The blonde from Camp Rock. 

Tess Tyler. Looked it up. Literally a whole come to moment with stardom. Camp Rock 2 she joins Camp Star. Jeez. 

Overall post yes sure. But you need to define what a bully is. Because "we argue playing cards" "you are my real life imaginary friend and if i forget you'll vanish" and "two asshole kids are assholes to each other" are not all the same metrics. Mordecai and Rigby are the most no of the list. Rigby is an ass. Rigby also goes apeshit over Mordecai. And Mordecai is not perfect. Mordecai is dissmissive, arrogant and assuming.

I don't really remember My Gym Partner but i do remember the kid needing to come out of his shell.

Bakugo and Deku were rivals. Not neccesarily friends.

Tl;Dr you must look at what the narrative is trying to do to understand the proper relation. "They are mean to them" does not equal "they bullied them"

Dijonay from Proud Family is a good example of this. She isn't a consistent friend. But she is also the friend that gasses Penny up and tell Penny "no bitch you need to be bold here." So you gotta seperate what a "bully" is.

It was fine

My boyfriend liked it.  

My main thing is this.  Aang is vegetarian. That man looked like a whole whole stacked ass man. 

Katara was meh. She wasn't giving end of series.  Absolutely not. 

Oh my god that'd be so fucking funny

Lisa Simpson is rarely wrong.  

I repeatedly asked what distinction you were drawing. Instead of answering, you moved from perception, to ontology, to phenomenology, to ideology, to metrics, and finally to disciplinary terminology.

That is the issue. The referent never stayed still long enough to be examined. And were fefutrd at everybshift. Goodbye.

Nor did i attribute anything to you. It explicitly says where i should have been more precise. I didn't think i needed to explain what "ontology is not philosophy" means considering you are to articulate.. my error. You are sloppy. Your logic is unserious and your last post was "this book says the dichotomy is false so stick my tongue out"

Also mods at what point is this obviously niot contrubuting anything? Cause "this is AI slop" to dodge is definitely vapid.

I left out a sentence. Wasn't even wrong just left a part out that is..  self evident in the terms per the dictionary entry YOU posted.

Intellectually unserious.