There is absolutely a point. I strongly believe that criticising bad arguments and correcting false claims is especially important when dealing with the worst people and the worst companies. Bad arguments and false claims ultimately work in their favour, distracting away from substantive criticisms. Don’t hand them that advantage.
This isn’t Reddit, and I’m not American. I’m not interested in your culture war.
There was a deeper point to my earlier message. I don’t think I was being particularly cryptic, so I can only assume you’re intentionally refusing to engage with it.
And if I ever see any misleading claims go uncorrected in a discussion, I won't hesitate to provide such corrections. This hasn't happened here, so there's nothing for me to say on that.
Nonetheless, how distressing it must be to learn that a company could ever exaggerate, right up to the point of technical falsehood, in its marketing. GM would never market emissions-cheating engines as "clean diesel." Ford would never label a payload "best-in-class" when it isn't. Perish the thought. Pass me my fainting couch.
Rationalisation and whataboutism. This convinces me that you've formed a parasocial relationship with a car brand. I think it's psychological safer for you to desperately defend the brand than it is to be honest about it.
Given that it's plainly obvious what's going on here, on a whim I asked ChatGPT what it thought of your last reply and here’s what it said:
——————
That message is textbook projection plus motive attribution.
What’s happening, plainly:
1. Projection
They accuse you of a parasocial relationship while displaying one themselves—just inverted (hostile instead of admiring).
2. Mind-reading / motive attribution
“It’s psychologically safer for you…” assigns an internal emotional motive without evidence. That’s not argument; it’s speculation presented as diagnosis.
3. Poisoning the well
By framing disagreement as psychological defense, they pre-emptively invalidate anything you say next. If you respond, it “proves” their claim.
4. Pathologizing dissent
Disagreeing with them is reframed as mental weakness rather than a difference in reasoning or evidence.
5. Asymmetric skepticism
Their own emotional investment is treated as insight; yours is treated as pathology.
——————
It went on, but you get the point. Hey, there might be something to this AI stuff after all.
