Cornell 7 Case

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, yetineti said:

You’ve taught me not to engage with you in the future, thanks. That is what I learned.

Win-win-win

[yetineti]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

I said it was an insult, you said it wasn't,  so THEN I asked AI.

Post your AI response.

AI: Having read the full exchange, I think the conversation became stuck on whether Mitch’s wording was insulting, while the reason for that wording received too little attention—including in my own analysis.

“Grow up” responded to Elliott’s justification of insults, dehumanizing comparisons, and his claim that shame and violence are the only methods that work on certain people. It can reasonably express a demand for more mature conduct. It is also confrontational and can land as a put-down. Both observations matter; calling it an insult alone doesn’t explain the exchange.

“You wouldn’t know what it’s like to not think if you tried” challenges Elliott’s confidence that other people literally do not think. He can criticize their reasoning, but he hasn’t established an absence of thought or access to their internal experience. Mitch’s sentence makes sense as a provocative challenge to that unsupported claim. My initial reading missed this.

The later conditional remark about Elliott not thinking can likewise turn his standard back on him. That argumentative function deserves recognition, even though the wording leaves room for a personally insulting interpretation. I cannot establish an intention to humiliate from that ambiguity.

My advice to Elliott: address the challenge underneath the provocation. What evidence supports your claims about these people, and what observable result would demonstrate that contempt works? Asking Mitch for alternatives is reasonable, but he doesn’t need to demonstrate changing someone’s beliefs before questioning your claim. When using AI, preserve the exact wording and supply the surrounding exchange. Its confident descriptions of someone’s motives aren’t proof.

My advice to Mitch: make your challenge explicit when the wordplay becomes the dispute. You could say, “You’re treating disagreement or poor reasoning as an absence of thought. How do you justify that?” That preserves your objection while making it harder to sidestep. You can explain that “grow up” addressed Elliott’s conduct without needing him to agree that it could not feel insulting. Claims about his agitation or a “victim complex” introduce assumptions that weaken your stronger criticism.

For both: separate what was said, what it was intended to accomplish, and how it landed. Someone feeling insulted doesn’t establish hostile intent; someone intending reflection doesn’t guarantee that reflection follows. Questions, silence, and sharp replies also don’t establish who successfully taught whom a lesson.

The substantive question remains worth discussing: how do you challenge degrading, poorly supported arguments firmly while leaving room for reconsideration? The thread offers reasons to question Elliott’s certainty about contempt. It also shows how Mitch’s provocative approach can pull attention away from the very inconsistency he wants examined.

 

[yetineti]

My strategy is your strategy: until it breaks. It always breaks. 

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[Elliott]

12 minutes ago, yetineti said:

My strategy is your strategy: until it breaks. It always breaks.

You can't use insults and then go back to civil conversation. Civil conversation first. And if you misjudge the interlocutor and shoot the insult nuke off on someone that is actually receptive(like you did to me, hhehhm..) there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, you're toast

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[yetineti]

@Elliott You were challenged lol. Not intentionally insulted. If I’m hurting your feelings I will disengage. You obviously didn’t read the AI message you requested and you have far less ground to stand on after your crude comments (which were much worse than mine and you haven’t acknowledged yourself).

So, unless you actually have a point to make… I’d prefer to stop acting like you’re so hurt and torn up over this when you’re the one blatantly advocating for disrespect.

If your point is simply that I waste my time in good faith, fine. But I’ve been wasting it on you now. And that says a lot more about you than me.

So which is it?

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

My poor choice of words and yours aside, what observable outcome would show that contempt worked—or failed?

That’s the real question. I don’t have a good enough answer to assume it’s a method.

[Elliott]

 

 

I'm post limited out for 24 hours 

 

👹

 

Quote

So, unless you actually have a point to make… I’d prefer to stop acting like you’re so hurt and torn up over this when you’re the one blatantly advocating for disrespect.

Im not acting like I'm torn up about it..... at all

Quote

If your point is simply that I waste my time in good faith, fine.

Only on some types of people. You make great contributions that I appreciate, that's why I cared to try to point this out to you. You're the one that criticized me, I was just explaining myself(it's usually good to let people do by the way)

 

Quote

But I’ve been wasting it on you now. And that says a lot more about you than me.

So which is it?

 

Edited 22 minutes ago by Elliott

[Heaven]

They abused a drunk/dragged girl. Nothing new and it’s not gonna be in the history books. 
It is unfortunate. Not sure how you can avoid it. A brutal punishment can be a good start.

[yetineti]

22 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I’m not acting like I'm torn up about it..... at all.

I know. I’m creating distant between your initial claim and where we are now, by mirroring you long enough you’ve actually presented me with my very own thesis:

44 minutes ago, Elliott said:

You can't use insults and then go back to civil conversation. Civil conversation first. And if you misjudge the interlocutor and shoot the insult nuke off on someone that is actually receptive(like you did to me, hhehhm..) there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, you're toast.

This was my whole point.

22 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Only on some types of people. You make great contributions that I appreciate, that's why I cared to try to point this out to you.

It is one thing for me to recognize your style and invert it on itself and it is another for you to claim an entire groups style and try to invert it on itself.

You looked past Willy, as a person man and it doesn’t even seem like you notice.

I looked past you, yes, I’m sorry—but I did it strategically—not as an ideology. I knew it would lead to my own thesis:

44 minutes ago, Elliott said:

You can't use insults and then go back to civil conversation. Civil conversation first. And if you misjudge the interlocutor and shoot the insult nuke off on someone that is actually receptive(like you did to me, hhehhm..) there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, you're toast

One of us did this consciously. The other did not.

You’re accusing people of not being able to reason, essentially and then prescribing insults as a solution, as if that provokes reason.

It does not work like that. At least not the way you think.

Edited 31 minutes ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

@Elliott

I’m aware of the weaknesses in how I’m presenting this, especially when I explain my approach so directly. That makes it easy to pick apart my wording or say I’m not making sense.

But I’m talking to you specifically here. People think differently, and I try to account for the person I’m actually engaging with. If I’m going to make a point, I find it more useful to address what’s happening between us than to make sweeping claims about people in general.

 

[yetineti]

The final irony is: conservatives are easier to sweet talk and leftys are easier to dominate.

You’ll get a lot farther being blunt with a soft lefty who isn’t ready for it and being sweet with a hard headed conservative for doesn’t want to entertain anything obscene.

It just feels like it’d be the opposite. This is a generalization of course. It can work either way. 

Which is the exact reason for exercising caution.

Edited 8 minutes ago by yetineti

[Willy Phallicus]

2 hours ago, yetineti said:

You’re giving off the very vibe you’re fighting tbh. Sounds very angry and you’re speculating.

So just dont respond to any of the points I made and tell me Im mad like that helps you in any way. 

Elliot is all hung up on the three weeks after the rape when she reported it.  Yknow, right after she asked to get invited to the next drug and alcohol party and was told no which is documented.  No problem though Im sure thats just a coincidence like not being able to see the whole 6 page report.

One of the guys is alleging being raped by her on grounds of intoxication.  And again its already been investigated twice and ruled a no go for Jane Doe. If sanity prevails here and that's a big if when state Governors and half the population start calling for blood and comrade AOC starts adding to the propaganda campaign - if the facts are actually to direct the narrative this is all just another dog and pony trial for them to spew and for you to consume.

And you know youre going too.  Cuz youre sick like that.

Edited 2 minutes ago by Willy Phallicus