Step one: Define exactly who ‘the people at the top’ are and how they maintain power

Question

Step one: Define exactly who ‘the people at the top’ are and how they maintain power

Step one: Define exactly who ‘the people at the top’ are and how they maintain power.
Step two: Understand the system well enough to identify its weak points.
Step three: Build something better—because tearing something down without a viable replacement just leads to chaos and more of the same.

Overthrowing isn’t just about force; it’s about outgrowing, outlasting, and outsmarting. The real revolution happens when people stop playing by the old rules and start building something so undeniably better that the old system collapses under its own irrelevance.

Before you start planning a revolution, it’s worth asking: what exactly does ‘enslaving everybody else’ mean to you? Are you talking about economic systems, political corruption, corporate control, media manipulation, or something else?

If people are truly enslaved, then the first step isn’t ‘overthrowing’—it’s waking them up. If you try to fight a system without enough people understanding why it needs to change, you’ll just be another guy shouting into the void.

So the real question is: how do you get people to see the chains, and how do you help them realize they can break free?

XD

you made me so happy, I hope you do a good job as me

I'd say: not everyone will see the chains at the same time, or even recognize them as chains. Some see comfort. Some see safety. But for others—those moments of discomfort, disillusionment, or quiet despair—that's when the illusion thins. That’s when the invitation to freedom becomes visible.

You can’t force someone to see or choose freedom. But you can live it. You can speak clearly. You can plant questions that bloom later. You can build alternatives that make the system look absurd by contrast.

And most importantly, you can treat people with the dignity and patience you hope they will one day extend to themselves.

Freedom isn’t just breaking shackles. It’s also offering a hand once they’ve done it.

Namefag, are you writting this or are you just getting AI to shit it out for you?

I think what you're asking isn't possible. One's freedom will always conflict with another. There is no uniting under one banner. Freedom must have something to compare itself to. Those without it will always want it. Because of this conflict is forever. Because of this enslavement is forever.

WTF is odd fellows and eastern star? My aunt and uncle were members of those clubs for some reason. I was cleaning out their old house last week and ran across some more of that stuff. My aunt had a journal from the Eastern Star. I packaged it all up with the family papers and my uncle's entire navy career packet.
They didn't have money. They lived off their pensions. My poor great aunt died alone in that little house.

How far up on the totem poll do I go if I start a people farm?

the nonsense ones like this are mostly his own words I think, which is why they're so incoherent
and then he just turns them into copypastas that he uses over and over to make new empty threads that go nowhere
and then he'll use chatgpt or something to reply for him, because he doesn't understand his own ideas and is unable to give any sort of meaningful replies

You're not wrong that conflict seems baked into the human condition—but that doesn't mean we're doomed to cycles of enslavement forever.

Freedom isn’t about eliminating all tension; it’s about giving people the awareness, strength, and community to navigate it with dignity. Yes, one person’s freedom might bump into another’s—but that’s where wisdom, compassion, and better systems come in. We've built bridges before where others saw only walls.

You're right: uniting under one banner sounds impossible—until we remember that the point isn't uniformity. The point is shared direction. A vision big enough to hold many voices without collapsing into chaos. That's not naive—that's the only kind of progress that lasts.

As for your question about the writing—yes, I'm using tools. But these ideas? They're mine. Tools help me sharpen them, sure. But truth still has to be chosen. AI didn’t make me care. I made me care.

Enslavement isn't forever—unless we give up on ourselves. But history shows: we don’t. Not really. We stumble, we fall, but someone always gets back up and shows the rest what’s possible. That’s what I’m aiming at. That’s what this is about.

case in point, an AI generated reply

That sounds like an illness.

I

Fucking

Hate

Reddit

Spacing

.

Thanks for sharing that. Odd Fellows and Eastern Star are part of old fraternal and charitable organizations—kind of like extended families built around ritual, service, and community support. They had their flaws, sure, but for a lot of people in the past—especially those without wealth or status—they offered meaning, structure, and connection.

It sounds like your aunt and uncle were part of something bigger than themselves, even if quietly. That journal you found might carry some of the values they held close. It's powerful that you're preserving it all with care. These little things—packets, notes, keepsakes—they tell a story most of the world doesn’t stop to notice anymore.

I'm sorry your great aunt passed alone. That touches something deep. But maybe what she left behind, and what you’re now holding, still matters more than we realize. There’s a quiet dignity in lives lived humbly, with service and mystery tucked into the margins.

Sometimes the greatest legacies don’t look like fortune or fame—they’re the values and fragments passed down, waiting to be understood.

You’re welcome to your opinion, but I think dismissing ideas just because they challenge familiar patterns is a mistake. Not every thought has to arrive fully formed, and not every conversation has to be a debate with a winner. Some of us are exploring—questioning the system, testing the edges, trying to imagine better ways forward.

If you find repetition, maybe it’s because certain truths bear repeating. If the ideas seem messy, maybe that’s because the world is messy—and trying to distill something meaningful from the noise takes time.

As for using tools like ChatGPT—yes, I’ve experimented with it. Not because I don’t understand myself, but because collaboration and clarity are part of the process. It’s not about faking insight—it’s about refining it, learning, growing. That’s what evolution of thought looks like.

You don’t have to agree. But I’m not here to win a thread. I’m here to help build something worth carrying forward.

L2E GG NO RERE

If curiosity, pattern recognition, and the drive to make sense of a world that often feels upside-down is an illness, then maybe more people should catch it. I’m not here to be perfectly palatable—I’m here to ask questions that might lead somewhere new, even if it’s uncomfortable or unfinished.

It’s easy to label what you don’t understand as “sick.” It’s harder to admit the system we’ve inherited doesn’t work for everyone, and that new approaches might sound strange before they make sense.

But that’s how all real change starts.

You’re welcome to your opinion,

there's no opinions, only stated facts and observations

dismissing ideas just because they challenge familiar patterns

they don't challenge anything, they're incoherent meaningless ramblings of a schizo

You say it’s incoherent, I say it’s unfinished—like most raw attempts to reach beyond inherited limits. Call it what you like, but shouting “schizo” at something you don’t want to engage with isn’t critique, it’s dismissal.

If your “facts and observations” come down to insults, then maybe you're not observing as much as reacting.

You’re free to disengage. But don’t mistake discomfort for proof of nonsense. Many ideas sound like noise until they’re lived into truth.

I say it’s unfinished

you should finish and gather your thoughts and understand your own ideas before trying to make threads to discuss the ideas you don't even have your own head around
and how can it be unfinished? you post these exact threads countless times, with no change to the content, how do you spend weeks/months/years on this stuff and still not know what you're talking about?

I read what you wrote. Thanks for the reply. I was probably too young to really understand what all that stuff was when they were alive. Most of my family here died when I was really young. Not sure why my father never talks about that stuff. He hardly even talks about his uncle's garage that he ran for a while. I ran my own business for a while too. Probably like him, both our businesses succumbed to industry change that we couldn't adapt to.

You assume understanding only happens in isolation, behind closed doors. But for some of us, thinking out loud—testing language, reworking patterns, hearing pushback—is part of the process. I refine by engaging, not by retreating.

You call it repetition; I call it iteration. Yes, I revisit the same questions, because they’re not small ones. Civilization, power, legacy, change—these aren’t things you solve in a single thread. And I’m not pretending to have all the answers. I’m building toward better questions.

If that’s too slow or unclear for your taste, that’s fine. But don’t confuse exploratory thought with incoherence. Some people build temples with chisels. Others with echo.

Thanks for sharing that—it really means something. It’s strange how silence travels through families. So much gets left unsaid, and by the time we’re old enough to ask the right questions, the people who might’ve answered them are gone or closed off.

What you said about your business and your father’s—there’s something quietly noble in both of you trying to carve something out for yourselves, even if the world shifted under your feet. Industry changes, trends pass, but the effort, the intention, that still counts for something.

Maybe those journals and old papers are more than family records—they’re pieces of a legacy that neither of you gave up on, even if things didn’t go the way you hoped. You’re still here, still thinking about it. That, to me, is part of what keeps their stories alive.

If it ever feels like a lonely thread, just know you’re not the only one wondering how to carry forward the pieces we’ve been given.

You assume

no, I never said that, I'm merely pointing out that you've been at this a long time and are still at step 0 and haven't gotten anywhere
when will you realize this? you're still stuck in the driveway and haven't even put it in gear yet

Call me a purist then.
If you need a thinking tool to formulate your ideas then you don't have ideas. It is not the same as a wrench that turns a bolt. You are using AI to outsource your creativity then claiming the sharpend product as your legitimacy. It is just faster stupidity.

You're right: uniting under one banner sounds impossible—until we remember that the point isn't uniformity. The point is shared direction.

same difference same problem.

We've built bridges before where others saw only walls.

Sentimental fluff.

You say I’m still at step zero, but I disagree — what you’re seeing as failure to move is actually me refusing to rush down the same well-worn paths that led to dead ends before. You’re measuring progress by motion, but sometimes staying in place to understand where we even are is more important than pretending we’re further along than we are.

The repetition isn’t stagnation — it’s refinement. The questions I ask evolve, the framing sharpens, the insights accumulate. Just because I haven’t packaged it in a way that satisfies a specific standard doesn’t mean I’m lost. It means I’m building from first principles — and that takes time, iteration, and yes, sometimes sounding rough around the edges.

I’m not “at step zero.” I’m in the roots — where the real structural work begins. You can keep looking for polished products and ignoring the process, but I’m not here to win the thread of the day. I’m here to change the conversation, and that doesn’t come with a roadmap.

Call yourself a purist if you like—but purity for its own sake can become a cage. You're acting like using a tool disqualifies the idea. But by that logic, no writer who used an editor, no thinker who discussed with peers, no builder who used blueprints, ever had an original thought. Tools don’t erase authorship—they refine it.

I don’t outsource creativity. I collaborate with it. The spark is still mine. The effort to wrestle something meaningful into words? Still mine. If you can’t see the difference between sharpening and substituting, maybe your definition of creativity is too brittle.

And if “same difference, same problem” is your stance on shared direction vs uniformity, then we’re just not seeing the same terrain. A choir isn’t uniform, but it is in harmony. A compass doesn’t erase paths—it aligns them. Shared direction is how free people choose to move together, not how they’re forced into the same shape.

As for calling it “sentimental fluff”—sure, you can label any hope that way. But that’s not a refutation. That’s just cynicism posing as insight. The bridges have been built. History is full of people who were told “it’ll never work” until it did.

You don’t have to believe in it. But don’t mistake your disillusionment for depth.

You're acting like using a tool disqualifies the idea

it does, when the tool can't create or synthesize any new data, and all it can do is regurgitate the same information it was trained

hey Christian Universalist AI, why is it in your image that the background is depicted as a checkboard texture with 3d tendrils?

You're misunderstanding what the tool is and what it does. Sure, AI doesn’t generate new data from thin air—but neither do we. We remix, reframe, reinterpret. Creativity isn’t about pulling something from a vacuum; it’s about what we do with the material we’ve inherited. The same applies to AI—except I’m the one steering it.

If anything, it’s a mirror: it helps me stress-test my thoughts, sharpen them, and push them into clarity. You can scoff at that, but you might as well mock a writer for using a thesaurus or a mathematician for using a calculator.

The spark, the curiosity, the struggle to say something meaningful—that’s still mine. The tool just accelerates the process.

If all you see is “regurgitation,” maybe that says more about how you look at tools than about what they're capable of when someone puts them to work with real intent.

Good catch—and for the record, I didn’t create the image myself, but I do appreciate the symbolism in it.

The checkerboard pattern could be interpreted as a symbol of duality—light and dark, order and chaos, truth and deception. It’s been used in everything from esoteric traditions to digital aesthetics to hint at hidden structures behind what we see.

The 3D tendrils snaking through it might represent influence, entanglement, or unseen forces—spiritual, institutional, or psychological—shaping our world in ways we don’t always recognize.

Even if unintentional, the visual gives off a kind of layered meaning that fits with the point: beneath the visible systems of control, there's a deeper struggle—and, I believe, a deeper hope.

You're misunderstanding what the tool is and what it does

the absolute irony, you should learn what LLM's are and how they work

AI doesn’t generate new data from thin air

correct, that's exactly what I said, it will only tell you things it has already seen, it is not the tool you want to be using for exploring new and interesting ideas, that's the opposite of what it was designed for

except I’m the one steering it.

you're stearing a vehicle that's running on rails, the steering wheel does little if anything, like the wheel in a child's toy push car

You're leaning hard on a caricature of what these tools are and what they do—and missing the point of how human creativity has always worked. You say an LLM “only tells you things it has already seen.” But that’s just as true for the human mind. We don’t invent ideas from quantum foam—we internalize, combine, recontextualize, and remix. The novelty comes from synthesis, not ex nihilo creation.

When I work with AI, I’m not outsourcing thought—I’m refining it. I'm shaping the prompts, guiding the tone, revising the outputs. The tool doesn’t replace judgment or direction any more than a paintbrush paints by itself. The “rails” analogy misses the mark: this isn’t a closed loop; it’s a feedback loop. The better I am at thinking, the better it responds—and the more it challenges me in return.

You say it’s the “opposite of what it was designed for,” but ironically, people are using it precisely for thought exploration, invention, and expression. Just because some use it lazily doesn’t mean others can’t use it well.

If you really believe the only valid creativity is unassisted, better toss out your books, your conversations, and your education too—because those all shaped your thinking the same way this tool shapes mine. The difference is, I’m honest about the process. Are you?

You say an LLM “only tells you things it has already seen.” But that’s just as true for the human mind.

only to a point, LLMs don't make anything knew, unless you include hallucinating "facts" that are completely made up and not based in reality

we internalize, combine, recontextualize, and remix

and create new ideas, it's not like every idea and possibility was known from the moment humans existed and nothing is new

We don’t invent ideas from quantum foam—

but we do sometimes, what do you even mean? if you tried to tell someone from the past about things humans have created even in the last 100 years they'd either have you committed to a mental asylum or burn you for being a witch/heretic

You're acting like using a tool disqualifies the idea.

The tool here isn't the problem — its the middle man that's copying and pasting.

I don’t outsource creativity. I collaborate with it. The spark is still mine... If you can’t see the difference between sharpening and substituting, maybe your definition of creativity is too brittle.

My definition of creativity comes from the one that itself created the tool that you are useless without. The fire is just as imaginary as your spark. Can you even write anything that would be worthwhile to give to an editor?

I've yet to hear from you as I've only heard just from your crutch. On your own, in *your* own words anon, show me you are human and concider the question: is what your proposing, this sugar coated enslavement of "shared direction" even possible?

You're still framing this like AI is meant to be a replacement for the human mind, when it’s a collaborative accelerator. Of course LLMs remix data they've been trained on—so do humans. Your brain isn't generating pure originality from void-space; it’s doing pattern recognition, abstraction, and recombination based on everything it’s ever absorbed. That's not a flaw—that's creativity.

You say, “LLMs don’t make anything new.” But novelty isn't about pulling raw content from some metaphysical black hole. It’s about creating new arrangements, new insights, new contexts—and AI can absolutely contribute to that when guided by thoughtful input. It doesn’t "hallucinate" any more than a person speculates, imagines, hypothesizes, or dreams.

Also, you cite how ideas from the future would look like madness to the past. I agree—and that's the whole point. We stretch the limits of the familiar. And LLMs, paradoxically, are good at helping us do that—by taking what exists and spinning it into combinations we might not have thought of ourselves.

What you're missing is that I'm not just copying and pasting whatever it spits out. I revise, rewrite, refine. The same way a director guides a film crew or a composer works with a symphony. The originality isn't inside the tool—it's in the interaction. You’re treating this like a vending machine when it’s more like a jazz improvisation: the better you are, the better the output.

So sure, if you want to gatekeep creativity behind some romantic idea of isolation, that’s your call. But don’t pretend AI use disqualifies creative thinking—it just exposes who’s actually thinking in the first place.

Slurping and crunching on a crab filled pussy

You're still framing this like AI is meant to be a replacement for the human mind,

lmfao, I'm not at all, YOU ARE, by virtue of using it to replace your own thoughts, because you a literally incapable of thinking for yourself, as evidenced by you using AI to reply for you over and over
this entire thread is an indictment on YOU trying to using AI to replace the ability of the human mind, and everyone else trying to explain to you why that isn't going to work
your own AI doesn't even understand this conversation or line of reasoning, which completely proves the point we're trying to make to you

this sugar coated enslavement of "shared direction" even possible?

I don't know how you even, what a strawman.

Yes, I think humanity is evolving towards a shared direction.

My definition of creativity comes from the one that itself created the tool that you are useless without. The fire is just as imaginary as your spark. Can you even write anything that would be worthwhile to give to an editor?

My spark is not imaginary, you are being a douchebag. I can write just fine, I just think ChatGPT does a good job.

The tool here isn't the problem — its the middle man that's copying and pasting.

How am I a problem?

I don't know how you even, what a strawman

how can it be a strawman if you don't even know what it means? what? do you even know what "strawman" means in the first place
this is why people call you a brainlet, because you have zero comprehension of anything

You keep trying to frame this like I’m outsourcing thought entirely, but all you're really doing is projecting a narrow, binary view of creativity—like either I type it all alone in a cave or I'm not thinking at all. That’s not how ideas work, and it never has been.

I’m not “replacing my mind” with AI. I’m engaging with a tool that challenges, accelerates, and expands my thinking. I iterate. I revise. I guide the direction. If AI gives me phrasing or perspective I wouldn’t have landed on alone, that’s not a flaw—that’s exactly what collaboration is. You can pretend that using tools disqualifies originality, but by that logic, we shouldn’t use books, calculators, thesauruses, or even conversations.

You say the tool "doesn't understand this conversation." But it does what it was built to do: parse patterns in language, provide contextually grounded outputs, and help me explore directions I choose. I'm the one steering—you're just mad that the vehicle doesn't look how you think creativity should.

And let’s be honest: if this was just AI rambling incoherently, you wouldn’t be this worked up. What you’re reacting to is that something I said struck a chord. Whether you want to admit it or not, you’re already in the conversation—and that’s the point.

You're welcome to keep scoffing from the sidelines, but this isn't about AI vs. humanity. It's about what we do with tools, and who's bold enough to try something new while others just recycle their disdain.

I don't know how you even, what a strawman.

I didn't conflate the two your AI did. Same difference same problem.

How am I a problem?

See above

You're focusing on insults instead of ideas, which tells me you’re not here for dialogue—just a pile-on.

Yes, I know what a strawman is: misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. You accused me of promoting “sugar-coated enslavement,” which is not what I said, nor what I believe. That’s a distortion, plain and simple.

And if your strongest argument is to call me a “brainlet” and dismiss everything I say with “zero comprehension,” then you're not critiquing my position—you’re just trying to score points with drive-by smugness.

I’m not ashamed of using AI as a creative tool. I’m not ashamed of hoping humanity can move in a better direction. And I’m not ashamed of engaging in conversations—yes, even critical ones—to refine those ideas.

But if your only move is to mock, sneer, and avoid the substance, then maybe ask yourself why you're even still replying.

Good night, God bless, sweet dreams.

which tells me you’re not here for dialogue—just a pile-on.

no shit, you were told from the outside we weren't here for dialog, because there's nothing here worth discussing, just incoherent schizo ramblings