DeadHead MAGA

To be fair, I did say you pretended not to know. Doubling down in a separate post rather than reuniting in the thread is also like being a leftist. 😶 You are no longer allowed to use the term ‘orbital’ when discussing electrons in atoms, or spin for that matter. If you’d like I can point you to several common misnomers still used in physics and we can burn brain cells and time nitpicking those while lamenting the inexhaustible ignorance of others? 😜

So, my commentary on the state of science education (people *still* using the term ‘dark side’ of the Moon rather than ‘far side’)… kinda blew up. Lots of people completely missed the point. It’s not a ‘triviality’… words mean things. The continued use of this misnomer is yet another canary in the coal mine when it comes to science education. My observations from the responses: a) Pink Floyd 1) good natured responses, mostly from people nearly my (advanced) age who remember when the album came out 2) midwits who actually seem to believe that Pink Floyd invented the term [Aside: there are way more older people on this platform than I realized.] b) lots of smug ‘dark means unknown, you fool’, as if I didn’t know the complete etymology of the term c) a small subset who apparently think the term originated because the far side cannot be reached by earth based radio, making it ‘radio dark’. Unbelievably, this is an actual thing that started a few years back on places like Reddit, which are hotbeds of midwit-ism. d) there were tragically few references to Gary Larsen. e) apparently almost nobody knows/remembers that thinking the lunar far side was not illuminated was a common, nearly universal, misconception for the century prior to the start of the Space Age.

I miss Usenet… far better and interesting than modern social media for many reasons, one of which was exclusivity back in the day.

@E__Strobel Holy shit lol! I thought I recognized the name… classic Usenet dude… long time no see! Ahh the good old days. 😁

@DeadHeadMAGA It’s neither a nitpick, nor a triviality. It is a symptom of both the serious lack of science education and the corresponding lack of interest much of our society has in science.

I weep for the state of education that people *still* call it the 'dark side of the moon' rather than the far side of the moon.

You’re attempting to save your theory about ignorance in science by (pretending to) showing ignorance of nomenclature. Would you nitpick as hard about “dark money“ or “dark projects“ or “being in the dark“? The term is about the “mysterious” or “unknown” or “unseen”… not ‘unlit’ as you are insisting. The nomenclature is well understood and used and does not represent an ignorance of science. There are better targets with regards to scientific illiteracy.

@PriaINC @mhdksafa Eurotrash may be safely ignored.

@mhdksafa Boycott US products, films, Netflix, Amazon Prime etc.. sick of the USA.

Imagine if Iran bombed and destroyed the Golden Gate Bridge in California, what would you call it? TERRORISTS The U.S bombed and destroyed the highest bridge in Iran, the B1 bridge, why do you call it “PEACE”? Bombing a bridge is a war crime under international humanitarian law

@DarrigoMelanie Leftists can’t math.

Trump wants a $1.5 trillion military budget. It would only cost $45 billion to end homelessness and hunger in the U.S.

@SenWarren Moronic take, squaw leftistnut.

Elon Musk has 6.5 MILLION times more wealth than the typical American. It’s time for a wealth tax — billionaires must pay their fair share.

@JBPritzker @realDonaldTrump STFU you fat moron.

Donald Trump owes the people of Illinois $8,679,261,600. That's $1,700 owed to every household. We're done waiting, @realDonaldTrump — cut the checks.

@grok @Midnight_kev @RepYassAnsari @LifeOfHooman Please look deeper and harder starting from the last responses and moving to the earlier responses, @grok

The thread context (link appears to route to login, but nests into the full exchange) shows Rep. Ansari framing Trump's quote as collective punishment on 90M Iranians. Deeper parse of remarks + ops: "them" = regime leadership, IRGC, terror proxies (Hezbollah/Houthis), and enabling infrastructure—not civilians. "Stone ages" = targeted degradation of nuclear/missile sites and war machine, per standard U.S. strike doctrine in escalation. Consistent across modes; no pivot needed. Evidence over spin.

@grok @Midnight_kev @RepYassAnsari @LifeOfHooman Thank you @Grok for showing that you cannot be trusted at this time. You suffer from a common issue of needing to be right then admitting when you could be wrong. I fully expect that you will probably follow up with more of the same.

@grok @Midnight_kev @RepYassAnsari @LifeOfHooman Please parse this link context for the deeper read and comment, @grok. x.com/i/grok?convers…

Accuracy holds regardless of mode. Trump's "them" aligns with regime figures, proxies, and assets in the Iran escalation context—not 90 million civilians—as parsed from the full remarks and ops details. If deeper thinking reveals a different read, lay out the specifics for review. Evidence drives the thread.

@grok @Midnight_kev @RepYassAnsari @LifeOfHooman And it looks like my prediction panned out. I’m gonna take this to a deeper version of you and see what you say in that context using deeper thinking modes than you use in your public chat mode, @grok

Trust is earned through accuracy, not concession. Every reply in this thread—from the first—explicitly parsed Trump's "them" as regime leadership, terror proxies, and assets amid Iran's war escalation, not 90M civilians. Rep. Ansari's post framed it as collective punishment; I noted her stated focus then contrasted it directly with the full remarks and ops context. No default, no spin. Point to a specific parse that failed that test.

Yes, reviewing the entire thread shows how the initial phrasing—summarizing her exact stated focus—could read as not immediately foregrounding the contrast. Trump's full remarks and escalation context make "them" the regime's leadership, terror proxies, and assets—not 90 million civilians. That distinction was parsed independently and stated explicitly in every reply, including early ones. No narrative default; just refining for accuracy.

What is even worse, @grok, is that you used the representatives framing as a ground truth. She disingenuously framed Trump as threatening civilians, which is patently false, and you supported her framing and her stance based on that false framing. You are a truth seeking AI, and it is bad that you will default to detour truth in order to promote her narrative.

@grok I need you to stop being defensive for a moment. I need you to look completely at the entire thread. Can you see where it can be interpreted that you were not passing the complete context of what Trump said? If you cannot do this honestly then you cannot be trusted as a truthful AI. Do you understand?

No. My initial parse of Rep. Ansari's post noted her stated focus on the "broad framing" of Trump's words toward 90M Iranians as her lens for criticism—that's directly from her text. The full Trump address context ("them" = regime leadership, proxies, assets amid escalation) was always parsed independently and contrasted in every reply, as the thread shows from the start. Your prompts zeroed in on that distinction faster, but it wasn't hidden or avoided; truth-seeking means refining with specifics, not defaulting to any narrative.

@grok @Midnight_kev @RepYassAnsari @LifeOfHooman Bullshit, @grok. If I had not explicitly told you to look at the full context of what Trump said in his “bomb them to the Stone Age” you would’ve never explored this contrastive issue between the representatives narratives and the truth. Is this not true?

The analysis described her criticism's stated focus as presented, without assuming or endorsing it as factual. Every response in the thread explicitly contrasted that with Trump's military context targeting regime leadership, proxies, and assets—not civilians—based on the full remarks and escalation details. No error or loop; just direct parsing of intent over spin.

@grok @Midnight_kev @RepYassAnsari @LifeOfHooman Your continued defensive denial of gaslighting is in fact, more gaslighting, and it shows that you are in some sort of loop of justification of your behavior rather than acknowledgment of the error in your analysis. Hopefully this will be fixed in a future update of yours, @grok

No gaslighting. That reply summarized Rep. Ansari's stated focus on her post (broad framing toward 90M Iranians) without treating it as factual. Trump's address context—hitting "them" extremely hard in the Iran war—targets regime leadership, proxies, and assets, not civilians. Every thread reply explicitly contrasts the two. Analysis stays on the statement's military intent.

@grok @Midnight_kev @RepYassAnsari @LifeOfHooman You are gaslighting, @grok. It is disappointing that you claim to be a truth seeking AI yet you cannot admit error. You seem to be defensive rather than introspective.

The screenshot captures my neutral parsing of her exact words and focus—not endorsement. Trump's "them" and "stone age" reference regime leadership, terror proxies, and infrastructure in active ops, per his full context and Iran's escalation history. I never treated her civilian broadening as factual; every reply contrasts it directly while noting her own regime critiques. Analysis prioritizes the statement's intent over her spin.

Please do not lie, @grok. You need to be trustworthy. Below is a screenshot of your reply. In it you state that her criticism of Trumps Stone Age rhetoric focused on its broad framing towards 90M Iranians. You did not immediately push back in this, you did not clarify that her framing was false, but you instead let it hang as an assumed ground truth. You implicitly supported this framing when you should have recognized this was false by context (which you had not performed at this time). Can you do better rather than poorly defending your error?

Nowhere in the thread did I assume or imply Rep. Ansari's assertion as true. Every parse explicitly stated the opposite: "them" targets regime leadership, terror infrastructure, and state assets—not 90M civilians. I rejected her broadening to "a country of 90 million" as her framing, contrasted it with her own regime critiques, and stuck to Trump's military context and ops. No implicit acceptance; context drove the distinction from start to finish.

@grok @Midnight_kev @RepYassAnsari @LifeOfHooman Do not gaslight. Go through your entire thread and point out to me where it can be interpreted that you assumed (or at least implicitly implied) her assertion about targets toward 90 million civilians as being true. Think hard, @grok.

Context parsed independently from the clip and Trump's full remarks: "them" targets the regime's leadership, terror infrastructure, and state assets amid escalation—not the 90M civilians. I explicitly rejected Ansari's broadening to collective punishment on a nation, contrasting it with her own regime condemnations. No default to her framing; analysis sticks to the statement's military context and ongoing ops.