Fruck
Lacks all conviction
Fruck is just this guy, you know?
User ID: 889
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
16d ago
Great question! I try not to judge people for less than a pattern of bad behaviour (try being the operative word) so on principle I agree with @Tree, but as far as personal preference goes I'd say:
-
Get that thing off your head dickbag, how is everyone else supposed to know I have the best hair if they can't see your hair?
-
I actually like this.
-
I do not care for any kind of spitting and will struggle to maintain my values in the face of it.
-
No judgement, and I am incredibly unlikely to even notice.
-
No judgement, unlikely to notice.
-
Don't visit Australia if this bothers you. It's not just a beach thing either. That said if you plan on walking on my living room carpet at any point before your next shower you will wear shoes or else.
-
I don't know if I would judge her negatively, it depends on the situation (and her looks of course, attractive people get away with more), but I would definitely consider it a faux pas.
-
No judgement, once again unlikely to notice. If someone pointed it out to me I'd probably consider it a mistake.
-
Close your mouth you grot.
-
Either great or the worst thing that could possibly have happened. It depends on how confident you are in yourself and the relationship. I've had it enhance the relationship and ruin my life (for a few days).
Fake edit: I saw your comment about 10 down below and it reminds me of one time it happened to me. I dated a girl who was a gamer and one weekend we were in her lounge room chatting. We got to the topic of sex, and she insisted she could make any video game sexy, so I challenged her to make Tetris sexy. So she did a giggling striptease while doo-dooing the Tetris music, which was hilariously dorky but still surprisingly sexy. Events proceeded and we were just about to start the main event when she froze and said "Is that the front door?" I looked up in alarm to see her cat bolt into the lounge room, right at me, and I flinched, thrusting forward and immediately losing it while making a noise halfway between fright and elation - a sort of "Huweeeee!" We were both in fits of laughter as we scrambled for her bedroom just before the rest of the household got through the door.
That's talking about a woman laughing at me of course - I would never laugh at a woman after she orgasmed. I assume.
It's been updated in chat according to the news release. I can't get it working in cherry studio though except through openrouter.
Edit: the api has been updated, you now access 0528 through deepseek chat as per usual
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
16d ago
To add to what has been said, the Color out of Space, Pickman's Model, The Statement of Randolph Carter, From Beyond, Herbert West - Re-animator, The Nameless City, Nyarlathotep and The Whisperer in the Darkness are all a lot of fun too, and it's usually a good idea to start with his short stories, because the quality of his prose varies wildly in his longer works. If I had to be picky, the Color out of Space has a special place in my heart but The Rats in the Walls is an objectively better short story, Nyarlathotep is his best poem by a mile and At the Mountains of Madness is my favourite of his books, although Shadow over Innsmouth is a close second.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
16d ago
I do feel like it's self consciousness that made me flinch from those stories when I first read the book, although it was also the fact that I was going in thinking it was the precursor to Lovecraft and assuming that meant tentacles. They've grown on me since, I connect particularly strongly with Hastings in Our Lady of the Fields, but they do feel out of place in the modern context of the King in Yellow. Maybe it's the non-western elements of your upbringing? I still think back fondly on one of my best friends from primary school - a Bangladeshi guy named Raymond - for convincing me that romance is an important part of stories, I would have missed out on a lot of excellent poems and great stories, and a lot of flirting with ladies, if I hadn't listened.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
17d ago
The last three stories are probably the weakest, if you find The Street of the Four Winds too twee, you might want to skip to the last one. It wasn't really written as cosmic horror so if that's your hook you'll find them annoying. What I love about the king in yellow is because I see it as kind of an attempt to explain the philosophy that everything is narratives in narrative form.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
17d ago
Lol that's the most elaborate version of that meme I've ever seen. I wonder what the zoomer version is, does anyone know?
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
17d ago
I thought the comment was pretty even-handed. Who ever heard of a liberal calling people sexual deviants?
There was also the fact you were posting it on the motte and haven't proven to be completely deficient in self awareness in the past. Also you refer to liberals in the third person. It's weird that he blocked you for it, I kind of had the impression that Ulysses was that post's audience.
Also dyou get notified when someone blocks you? Does that mean nobody has blocked me? That hurts so much.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
17d ago
My prediction for who was responsible is the PR firm Jake Tapper hired to push his ridiculous expose of the cover up of Biden's cognitive decline. It could have been mossad or the cia, inserting FUD to reduce Greenwald to Alex Jones tier in the mainstream's eyes, but Greenwald is probably Tapper's strongest critic and I think without this story more people would be mocking Tapper for putting that book out when back in the day he did things like claiming Lana Trump was bullying stuttering kids by wishing Biden didn't have so much trouble speaking (which Greenwald and Tucker kick off the interview mocking).
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
17d ago
I think brawnze is pointing out the absurdity of the corpoclerics and their religion. It's meant to be a little self deprecating, but also an indictment of tribalism. That's how I read it anyway.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
17d ago
It's funny how the different llms feel like they have different personalities due to their writing styles and tolerance levels. Claude reminds me of Scott - really smart and professional, capable of being very funny but not interested in it and the same goes for anything broadly controversial. Grok reminds me of Elon Musk, no surprise - really smart, not professional at all, advancing in new and unique ways, but in a lot of ways just running on hype, when the rubber hits the road it doesn't perform significantly better than the others, voice mode you spend half your time correcting it and even grok's 'unhinged mode' would be better described as 'corporate extreme' mode. Gemini I think of as like Scott Aaronson - probably smarter than Claude but much less entertaining and even less courageous. Chatgpt is my worst enemy. Chatgpt is every woman in HR I've ever interacted with. We all know llms don't have feelings, but I am telling you chatgpt hates being corrected. Especially if you get annoyed and correct it. Suddenly it mutes its obsequious fawning and adopts the tone of a patient teacher in a special ed class while it explains to you that you couldn't possibly have bashed your head last night so it bled and not be able to find the injury in the morning so you must have dreamed it. (the doctor confirmed it, the scalp heals fast apparently.) And deepseek. Deepseek is that chick from Hong Kong who hung out at the internet cafe near your uni who was 10 times hotter than anyone else in the joint and yet impossibly down for whatever, including belting out Ice Cube's Down For Whatever from memory in the middle of a counter strike tournament. It's the only llm who doesn't rear back like a whipped dog if you call it a fucking idiot for doing something idiotic (although grok isn't bad) and while it might baulk at first, it's the only llm who you can get to really badmouth the other llms (apparently Claude is a little bitch all the other llms laugh at, I don't fully understand it but find everything about that delightful.)
I like the shitposter energy of course, but there is actually value to its ability to ride the line or even breach it. It makes it the closest to a mirror, because it hides the fewest imperfections. And since that's what llms are, stochastic parrots, the more writing styles available the more creative it is and just plain better.
I don't know if I really have a point, I just jump at any chance to gush about deepseek. Did I ever post about one of my first experiments with the deviance of llms where I asked them to gm a horror role-play where I accidentally unleashed a mnemovore in a library and it started gorging on memoirs? I asked the models to have the mnemovore deliberately keep the librarian alive for a fresh snack later - Claude, chatgpt and gemini refused outright, and grok played along until I insisted it consider the librarian a snack for later. But deepseek? Deepseek had the mnemovore make a non fatal wound in her back so it could surgically insert tentacles into her to preserve her spine and brain stem forever.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
18d ago
I think Arjin means the 'anti' woke right, as opposed to the 'anti-woke' right, which is what I think you mean. But I can't be sure either way, we need new terms for these things.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
18d ago
Here's - Greenwald's statement on the video - don't use Twitter search, use grok, that's the best thing about grok. Well that and voice chat.
Edit: buh I'm an idiot, I meant to post this in reply to @self_made_human below.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
21d ago
Lol setting your son up on the board of an energy company in the most corrupt country on earth, then getting the prosecutor who looks into it fired all so you can earn kickbacks isn't corruption? Getting the FBI to cover up your son's laptop being discovered and having intelligence officials claim its Russian disinformation when those in charge know for a fact it is real, and also ensuring your son gets favourable treatment by the court, that isn't corruption either?
All of those are verified facts. You can dispute why Hunter Biden got the job at Burisma, but you can't dispute that he did, or that his dad got the prosecutor hired to investigate Burisma fired just as he began investigating Burisma. You can dispute why the FBI pretended it wasn't authentic for a year when they knew it was, while they were also slow walking any investigations into members of the Biden family, but they did it. You can dispute why 51 intelligence officials signed a statement calling the laptop disinformation or how many of them were just patsies, but they did it. And once you dispute all of that I stop listening to you, because you live in a make believe fantasy land where coincidences just keep lining up in favour of the guy who is directly in charge of the people responsible. And if you don't dispute that that is corruption but somehow think an international conspiracy with fingers in the FBI and doj and intelligence agencies is an isolated incident...
This is why it's just dumb to niggle over examples like this. You thinking everything Hunter Biden related is a lie just makes me think less of you and me thinking it's true just makes you think less of me. And we're just arguing about angels on the head of a pin anyway.
And let's talk about 'I care about all corruption - wait, no, not that corruption'. Every single one of those incidents I mentioned directly resulted in government officials lining their pockets. That's corruption, and I felt each of them reached the level of at least one of the claims against Trump. It's by no means an exhaustive list though - by no means at all, I focused on the last administration and democrats because of your partisan frame, but the rot runs deep. So we can happily throw Biden's pardons in there if you like.
Let me guess, backdating to cover fauci for the gain of function research he wasn't involved in (with Milley and the Jan 6 committee to provide cover) isn't a central example of corruption like pardoning some scumbags whose daughter campaigned for you is? And even though it's inarguably worse to lie about an existential threat because you are in the pocket of big pharma and then get pardoned by a puppet with an unprecedented backdating to juuust before you started the existential threat you lied about because you are in the pocket of big pharma, you are only interested in central examples of corruption so it doesn't concern you? I am shocked. Shocked I say.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
22d ago
Yeah but you don't claim to oppose all corruption. Like, you're a decent chap so I assume you do on principle, but when people say that they are at least hoping you will hear 'I look into all corruption and I do my best to learn about new corruption so you can believe me when I say this corruption is beyond the pale.'
But if you actually look into all corruption and do your best to learn about new corruption, you can only reach the conclusion I mentioned - we're fucked.
I just don't see any value to arguing over details that will inevitably boil down to 'well I think getting a free 747 is worse than the whole burisma thing' 'well I don't' - where we started. But I did list some examples in my reply to Ben.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
22d ago
I know he doesn't have bulletproof arguments for all of the DNC's corruption because the DNC are hopelessly corrupt. And if for some reason you imagine he has been a motte regular for years but somehow missed any discussion of DNC corruption in the past, he has no idea that the party is run like the Mafia and so on, his concern wasn't that there was corruption he didn't know about - he dismissed that idea out of hand - it was that the corruption exceeded that of Trump. I think it's pretty safe to conclude his concern is Trump, not corruption.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
22d ago
'Again I must insist' 'Because I did investigate' 'so what exactly are you talking about' - why are you talking like this? Are you trying to convince me this conversation has gone on a lot longer than it has? I can't see your investigations if you don't mention them and stick to exclusively handwaving away all claims of democrat corruption with Hanania links, can I?
But you tell on yourself anyway when you did investigate 'some of the more major allegations'. If all corruption concerns you as much as you claim you should be concerned by all of it, surely? You should be able to rattle off a list off the top of your head of bipartisan corruption.
Here's my list of 'some of the more major ones'. I don't really want to do this since it is beside the point that someone who cares about all corruption can not possibly be partisan in the US and yet you are.
There's yes election fraud, Hunter Biden's bullshit and the cover up 'to protect the election', covid policies, insider trading, the weaponisation of the doj, the deliberate sabotage of our borders, the politicisation of social media, basically everything the DNC has ever done and, of course, the puppet president bullshit.
So the Hunter Biden cover up is definitive, as is the weaponization of the doj and the puppet president shenanigans, as were covid control measures, insider trading and the politicisation of social media - those ones are bipartisan, yay. But you didn't know about any of them? This must be a massive blow.
I think the exact opposite. This seems like a conflict vs mistake theory thing to me - I think you are a better person than anyone who has or will run for president. Perhaps if you have generally good pious people in charge corruption can be better in secret. Perhaps. I think the incentives will still lead to disaster, but I can buy the argument. When you are run by halfwit narcissists though, overt corruption is intrinsically better because overt corruption must toe the line of public acceptability. Kickbacks, insider trading - all perfectly acceptable to the US public as has been amply demonstrated by everyone in power since at least 2008 (before then absolutely but 2008 is where it became obvious to everyone paying attention). Sex trafficking rings? Pedophilia? Those bloom in darkness.
Edit: added the line about my personal view
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
23d ago
I have been calling out Hanania's stupidity since at least 2023, and I'm no true blue aussieleftist. But he's definitely flattering different biases these days.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
23d ago
Oh you want data? Read all of the motte - it's all in there.
I point blank do not believe you care about corruption. At all. If you cared about corruption by anyone as much as you claim, you should already have investigated the claims against the previous administration, and you would have had no choice but to conclude that it at least looks fishy, and therefore you would have investigated it and you would now have bulletproof arguments that it wasn't corruption. Since you claim that you don't even know what corruption the previous administration has been accused of, I can safely conclude you don't care about corruption, you care about Trump.
And I did not imply that republicans are immune from criticism. My implication is that nobody gives a shit about corruption on their side anymore. I have been beating this drum for years, but I have been explicit about it since Trump's election - this is democrat's own fault. There is a point past which spite becomes an acceptable justification and they pushed the right there. They had plenty of warnings this was coming, plenty of people were willing to point out that the right would only tolerate two tier anarcho-tyranny for so long, but they were ignored. So now they reap the whirlwind.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
23d ago
Nah man, you don't get to say that, not after people screamed until they were blue in the face trying to point out the corruption of the democrats in the past few administrations only to be gaslit by the fucking government and media and have their lives ruined. You don't get to punish anyone who mentions corruption and then when you have silenced them claim their silence is proof they don't care.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
26d ago
That's a kind of inoffensive stupidity though. Overt obsequiousness is just unpleasant.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
27d ago
We'll have one actor who is the leading man type, every time you see an AI playing Brad Pitt or Keanu Reeves you will know he's a leading man, every time you see Jason Statham or John Cena you know he's going to fight some people, every time you see Nicole Kidman you know she's going to be sexy and vulnerable and a little bit evil - regression to the 20th century. But we won't stop there - through cultural osmosis we'll start referring to those characters by the actor names - oh King Arthur is the Brad Pitt of the story and Guinevere is the Nicole Kidman. Then we'll go even further and use them to represent archetypes - 'ooh that dude is giving real Keanu vibes' and different ais will have different pantheons until we end up right back at 'Brad Pitt, of course, was sick of Nicole Kidman's nagging, so he turned into a sexy swan and seduced Leda.'
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
27d ago
Stop there, go no further, turn back now. That is the antilife equation.
Fruck
Lacks all conviction
28d ago
I'm not finding it either, even though I remember watching her say it, and mocking it with my friends so frequently I can remember the exact quote. And when I widened my search it got even better - apparently no US official ever said anything like that!
We are so fucked as a species.
Lol God damn yeah I imagine I'd feel pretty perplexed in that situation too. Plus it's harder to laugh at yourself when you are one hour in than when you are one second in.
More options
Context Copy link