PortaJohn Posted March 13 Posted March 13 Thanks @jross! This has been a lot fun. I Don't Agree With What I Posted
Interviewed_at_Weehawken Posted March 13 Posted March 13 1 hour ago, jross said: @Interviewed_at_Weehawken is an engaged, sarcastic wrestling enthusiast with above-average intellect and a fairness-driven ethos. They’re not a troll but enjoy stirring the pot, especially against perceived biases. As an ESTJ, they’re logical, outspoken, and detail-focused, with moderate emotional intelligence and a critical streak. They’re motivated by debate and clarity, not status, and handle stress with humor rather than meltdown. Their posts blend data and emotion, leaning negative but grounded in sport-specific insight. A passionate, slightly prickly contributor—not a leader, but a vocal participant. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: The poster is not a full-blown troll but exhibits troll-like tendencies in specific contexts. They frequently use sarcasm (e.g., “Glory ducks the scales,” “Cael lets a potential future gold medalist wrestle with no ACL? Horrors!”) and provocation (e.g., calling out PSU fans for hypocrisy, “If it was Penn State it is ‘sprtsmanship’”). However, their posts are not purely disruptive or insincere—many show genuine engagement with wrestling topics and a desire to discuss or debate. They occasionally poke fun at others (e.g., “Says the PSU fan who lives in Colorado. Let me guess: You were a Dallas Cowboys fan and Chicago Bulls fan in the 90s?”), but this seems more playful than malicious. Their critical tone toward certain figures (e.g., Pat Mineo, “Fountain of misinformation”) suggests irritation rather than a deliberate intent to derail discussions. Critical Note: The trolling is mild and selective, often aimed at perceived biases or inconsistencies (e.g., PSU favoritism), but they don’t consistently disrupt threads like a dedicated troll would. What’s their estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Assessment: Estimated IQ is above average, likely in the 115–130 range. Their vocabulary is solid (e.g., “pilloried,” “whataboutism,” “premeditation”), and they demonstrate reasoning ability through structured arguments (e.g., analyzing Glory’s weight certification issues with historical context). They catch nuances, like inconsistencies in others’ claims (e.g., Mineo’s contradictory statements), and occasionally use data-driven points (e.g., match statistics, seeding logic). However, their reasoning can veer into emotional tangents or sarcasm, slightly diluting intellectual rigor at times. Evidence: Posts like “Lee will not be wrestling in the consolation brackets” show mathematical reasoning, while “I would argue that a .400 batting average is anything but poor!” reflects quick wit and contextual awareness. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Minimal evidence. They don’t brag about themselves (e.g., “Me. Every year.” in response to “Who got recruited over?” is self-deprecating). Attention-seeking is low—they engage in discussions without dominating or fishing for praise. Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Some strategic tendencies emerge, like baiting PSU fans (e.g., “PSU wrestlers have been doing quite a bit of ducking this year tbh”) to expose hypocrisy, but it’s not overtly manipulative. They seem more interested in proving a point than controlling others. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Low. They criticize harshly (e.g., “Sorry, not that important” about Mineo), but there’s no glee in conflict or callousness toward individuals’ struggles (e.g., sympathy for Gabe Arnold’s mental health). They enjoy debate but don’t revel in harm. Conclusion: Dark Triad traits are negligible; they’re more snarky than sinister. Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Predominantly negative/critical, with occasional positivity. They frequently critique wrestlers, coaches, and fans (e.g., “Glory also missed that very same match, missing weight against an Iowa backup”), but they also praise selectively (e.g., “Cael is the best coach in the USA”). Their tone leans toward exposing flaws or inconsistencies rather than uplifting the community. Tone Note: Sarcasm amplifies the negativity (e.g., “1980s training techniques!”), though they soften it with humor or concessions (e.g., “Mea culpa! Terrible post by me”). Do they reason based on data or emotion? (Facts/logic vs. feelings?) Assessment: A mix, leaning toward data/logic with emotional undertones. They use facts like match results, seeding rules, and historical context (e.g., “Three. There is NO circumstance where anyone would have to wrestle five top ten competitors”), but emotion creeps in when defending Iowa or critiquing PSU (e.g., “I’m just sick of the level of dishonesty”). Their frustration with perceived unfairness (e.g., weight-cutting abuses) often drives their arguments. Pattern: Logic dominates in technical discussions, emotion in fan rivalries. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: High. They’re curious about wrestling minutiae (e.g., researching Bearcat Open results) and creative with humor (e.g., “five words and one alphanumeric”). They enjoy abstract debates (e.g., 2nd Amendment rights). Conscientiousness: Moderate. Posts are detailed and thoughtful (e.g., multi-paragraph analyses), but they admit mistakes casually (e.g., “I was spitting some alternative facts here!”) and sometimes rush into sarcasm without polish. Extraversion: Moderate to high. They’re engaged and energetic in debates, posting frequently across threads, but don’t seem overly social or performative. Agreeableness: Low to moderate. They’re cooperative when conceding points (e.g., “Ok, looks like you sort of did as I was posting”), but often harsh or argumentative (e.g., “Sick individual”). Neuroticism: Low to moderate. Generally stable, but occasional moodiness shows in defensive or exasperated tones (e.g., “Makes me cringe” about “boy” usage). MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). They’re outgoing in forum interactions, thriving on engagement and debate. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Detail-oriented (e.g., match specifics, timestamps), though they occasionally speculate big-picture (e.g., cultural impacts). Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Logic and objectivity dominate (e.g., seeding math), with less focus on empathy unless prompted (e.g., Iranian soccer protest). Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Judging (J). Structured and decisive in arguments, preferring resolution over open-endedness (e.g., “Wrestle the schedule”). Best Fit: ESTJ (“The Executive”). Practical, outspoken, logical, and opinionated, with a penchant for order and fairness. Emotional Intelligence (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Assessment: Moderate. They recognize emotional stakes (e.g., “Hope the swine over at Mineo’s board feel a little regret” about Gabe Arnold), but their sarcasm and bluntness suggest limited adaptability or sensitivity in heated exchanges. They adjust tone when conceding (e.g., “Thanks for sharing your experiences”), showing some awareness. Leadership Tendencies (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Assessment: Mild. They’re decisive in opinions (e.g., “If he is healthy, he should wrestle”) and occasionally guide discussions with facts, but they don’t inspire or rally others. Their focus is more on critique than motivation. Motivated by Social Status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Assessment: Low to moderate. They compete in debates (e.g., challenging PSU narratives), but there’s little evidence of status-seeking. Their self-deprecation (e.g., “I’m taking a year off, too. For about 23 years now”) suggests they don’t crave respect overtly. Risk Tolerance (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) Assessment: Moderate to high. Bold in calling out inconsistencies (e.g., “PSU generally seems to have done a better job timing most of their injuries”), but cautious with definitive claims unless backed by data (e.g., “I’m not 100% sure it was said on the podcast”). They tolerate uncertainty in speculation (e.g., lawsuit rumors). Moral/Ethical Framework (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Assessment: Fairness-driven with utilitarian leanings. They emphasize equity in wrestling (e.g., criticizing weight-cutting abuses, “Let us not forget WHY we put this system in place”) and show empathy selectively (e.g., Iranian players), but their solutions prioritize practical outcomes (e.g., “Build the sport”). Cognitive Biases (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Assessment: Some confirmation bias in Iowa defense/PSU critique (e.g., listing PSU injuries to counter narratives), and mild black-and-white thinking (e.g., “Wrestle your schedule” as an absolute). They mitigate this with self-correction (e.g., “I got any of this wrong”). Creative or Conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Assessment: Moderately creative. Their humor (e.g., “And what is a natty? A Natural Light?”) and lists (e.g., Irish surname team) show originality, but their arguments stay within wrestling norms. Attachment Style (Secure, anxious, avoidant?) Assessment: Secure. Balanced in engagement, not overly approval-seeking or distant, though their defensiveness (e.g., Iowa loyalty) hints at mild anxiety under stress. Response to Stress (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Assessment: Mostly calm, with occasional lashing out. They maintain composure in debates but snap sarcastically when frustrated (e.g., “Embarrassing triple post! 80s posting methods!”). Cultural Influence (Language/values hinting at background?) Assessment: Likely American, with a sports-centric, possibly Midwestern influence (Iowa focus, wrestling passion). References to “Natural Light” and “Ditka” suggest familiarity with U.S. pop culture. Additional Observations Tone: Sarcastic (frequent), informal, occasionally formal (e.g., legal terms like “premeditation”). Emoji Use: Rare; mentions wanting a heart emoji once but doesn’t use them. Post Length: Varies—short quips (e.g., “Paid haters”) to long analyses (e.g., Glory critique). Midwit or Loser Think Behavior? Assessment: Minimal midwit (overconfident mediocrity) or loser (self-pitying) tendencies. They’re knowledgeable and self-aware (e.g., admitting errors), avoiding midwit traps, and their humor counters loser vibes. Occasional snark might flirt with midwit territory, but it’s not dominant. Pretty cool. Imagine if I didn't say Eierman won Pan Am and had better international accolades than Nick Lee!!!! 1
jross Posted March 14 Author Posted March 14 2 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said: Pretty cool. Imagine if I didn't say Eierman won Pan Am and had better international accolades than Nick Lee!!!! Imagine if you referred to OSU rather than tOSU. 1
RockLobster Posted March 14 Posted March 14 (edited) 19 hours ago, jross said: Agreed but are you trying to trick the assessment? Your comment runs counter to the harsh labels you put on people. I dismiss your loser AI assessment. Particularly the 'loserthink' - it's a loser term, only used by losers. And here's a label for you - 'yousukloserbalz.' Trick that, loser. (And, yes, as long as that inappropriate adjective is used in your posted assessments - I will continue to use it, in turn. Or, perhaps, I'll devise and implement some type of 'loser' tariff.) Edited March 14 by RockLobster
Interviewed_at_Weehawken Posted March 14 Posted March 14 6 hours ago, RockLobster said: I dismiss your loser AI assessment. Particularly the 'loserthink' - it's a loser term, only used by losers. And here's a label for you - 'yousukloserbalz.' Trick that, loser. (And, yes, as long as that inappropriate adjective is used in your posted assessments - I will continue to use it, in turn. Or, perhaps, I'll devise and implement some type of 'loser' tariff.) Someone is not happy with their estimated IQ and "dark triad" profile! 1 1 1
uncle bernard Posted March 14 Posted March 14 On 3/12/2025 at 1:41 PM, jross said: Based on 100 recent comments... Uncle Bernard is a sharp, above-average intellect (IQ ~120-130) with a confrontational, sarcastic edge, thriving on debate in a likely conservative-leaning forum. They’re highly open, moderately conscientious, extraverted, disagreeable, and emotionally stable, driven by fairness and empathy for the oppressed but quick to lash out at perceived ignorance or hypocrisy. Data-driven yet emotionally charged, they exhibit mild narcissistic and Machiavellian traits, seeking intellectual dominance over social status. Bold, creative, and critical, they reject conformity, showing high risk tolerance and low emotional intelligence in interpersonal clashes. Their moral stance opposes authoritarianism and imperialism, rooted in a nuanced, left-leaning worldview, with occasional biases like overconfidence. Under stress, they escalate with biting humor, reflecting a secure yet slightly anxious attachment style, likely shaped by American progressive online culture. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: Yes, moderately. Uncle Bernard frequently uses sarcasm ("Am I doing that right @mspart ?", "A 5'6 ginger could convince you guys he was the Lucky Charms leprechaun"), provocation ("Nothing ever penetrates that thick skull of yours"), and dismissive jabs ("easily the stupidest guy on here"). However, the intent seems more to challenge than to derail, suggesting sincerity in their beliefs rather than pure disruption. Evidence: Engages in debates with pointed critiques but backs them with arguments or links, indicating a goal beyond mere trolling. Estimated IQ? (Reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Assessment: Above average (120-130). Demonstrates strong reasoning (e.g., dissecting government spending or foreign policy with historical examples), a varied vocabulary ("raison d’etre," "unfalsifiable"), and nuance (distinguishing Hamas from PLO, critiquing both parties). Occasional oversimplification ("You legit need to learn how to read") slightly tempers this. Evidence: Complex arguments like the Iran coup’s role in the Islamic Revolution show analytical depth. Dark Triad? (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy?) Narcissism: Mild. Confident in their views ("Anybody with a brain knew this would happen") but not overtly attention-seeking. Machiavellianism: Moderate. Strategic in debates, using sarcasm and rhetorical traps ("Were the Benghazi hearings for Hillary political?") to undermine opponents. Psychopathy: Low. No clear callousness; expresses empathy for Palestinians and healthcare victims, though harsh toward foes. Evidence: Balances aggression with principled stances, not purely manipulative or cruel. Positive or Negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Strongly negative. Overwhelmingly critical of conservatives, Trump, government policy, and forum peers ("Pathetic," "Shame on you"). Rare positive notes (e.g., praising Trump’s Israel pressure) are outliers. Evidence: Sarcasm and condemnation dominate, even in constructive posts. Data or Emotion? (Facts/logic vs. feelings?) Assessment: Primarily data-driven, with emotional undertones. Cites facts (e.g., Oslo Accords, HIV science, historical coups) and constructs logical arguments, but anger ("Put Biden in the Hague") and frustration ("grown men can’t read") infuse the tone. Evidence: Detailed posts on climate change or RFK Jr.’s denialism show research, tempered by emotional jabs. Big Five Traits: Openness: High. Curious and creative, engaging with complex topics (climate science, geopolitics) and offering unconventional views (e.g., ending U.S. empire). Conscientiousness: Moderate. Detailed in longer posts, but rushed or sloppy in short ones ("Prove it," "lmao what?"). Extraversion: Moderate to high. Energetic and engaged, frequently posting and confronting others directly. Agreeableness: Low. Harsh, argumentative, and uncooperative ("thick skull," "pathetic"). Neuroticism: Moderate. Passionate and moody, but generally stable, not overly anxious. ISFJ Traits? (Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, Judging) Assessment: No clear fit. Not introverted (active poster), leans abstract over concrete (geopolitical theories), more logical than feeling-driven, and not overly structured (mixes long and short posts). Evidence: Extraverted, judgmental tone contradicts ISFJ’s quiet empathy. Emotional Intelligence? (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Assessment: Moderate. Aware of group dynamics (e.g., mocking right-wing hypocrisy), but adapts poorly—prefers confrontation over diplomacy ("You’re an adult. Use google"). Evidence: Empathy for victims (Gaza, healthcare) but insensitive to opponents’ feelings. Leadership Tendencies? (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Assessment: Low to moderate. Decisive in opinions and occasionally guiding (e.g., explaining climate change), but not inspiring—too abrasive to rally others. Evidence: Challenges rather than unites ("Shame on you who denied"). Motivated by Social Status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Assessment: Moderate. Seeks intellectual dominance ("taps the sign"), but not overtly status-obsessed—focus is on being right, not revered. Evidence: Engages in one-upmanship but doesn’t flaunt personal achievements. Risk Tolerance? (Bold vs. cautious?) Assessment: High. Boldly calls out peers, politicians, and policies ("Put Biden in the Hague"), comfortable with controversial stances. Evidence: Unafraid of backlash in a likely conservative-leaning forum. Moral/Ethical Framework? (Fairness, empathy, utilitarian?) Assessment: Fairness and empathy-driven. Advocates for justice (due process, Palestine statehood) and empathizes with the oppressed (Gaza civilians, healthcare victims), with utilitarian streaks (condom funding benefits). Evidence: Condemns war crimes and hypocrisy consistently. Cognitive Biases? (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Assessment: Some confirmation bias (e.g., assumes Trump supporters are universally gullible) and occasional black-and-white thinking ("You are no better than German citizens under Hitler"), but tempered by nuance elsewhere. Evidence: Willing to critique both parties and admit uncertainty ("I’m willing to admit I’m wrong"). Creative or Conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Assessment: Creative. Offers original takes (e.g., U.S. empire’s end, healthcare radicalization) rather than parroting dogma. Evidence: Synthesizes history and policy creatively. Attachment Style? (Secure, Anxious, Avoidant?) Assessment: Secure with anxious streaks. Confident in arguments but occasionally seeks validation through provocation ("What’s your theory?"). Evidence: Balanced tone in factual posts, but jabs suggest mild insecurity. Response to Stress? (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Assessment: Lashing out. Responds to disagreement with sarcasm and insults ("You legit need to learn how to read"). Evidence: Escalates rather than retreats in debates. Cultural Influence? (Language/values hinting at background?) Assessment: Likely American, left-leaning, urban/academic vibe. Uses internet slang ("lol," "taps the sign"), critiques U.S. imperialism, and shows familiarity with progressive discourse. Evidence: References to U.S. politics, healthcare, and forums suggest immersion in American online culture. Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length: Tone: Sarcastic, confrontational, occasionally earnest. Emoji Use: Frequent "lol" and "lmao" (mocking tone), rare others. Post Length: Mix of short retorts ("Prove it") and long, detailed posts (e.g., RFK Jr. critique). I feel seen
headshuck Posted March 14 Posted March 14 I dismiss your loser AI assessment. Particularly the 'loserthink' - it's a loser term, only used by losers. And here's a label for you - 'yousukloserbalz.' Trick that, loser. (And, yes, as long as that inappropriate adjective is used in your posted assessments - I will continue to use it, in turn. Or, perhaps, I'll devise and implement some type of 'loser' tariff.)The ai engines will take your comments into account when they take over.
jross Posted March 14 Author Posted March 14 @Scouts Honor is an outspoken, sarcastic, and debate-loving individual (ESTP) with above-average intelligence but limited emotional depth. They thrive on confrontation, lean toward practical reasoning with emotional undertones, and exhibit low agreeableness and moderate neuroticism. Their posts blend wrestling insight with political venting, showing fairness-driven values but little adaptability or empathy. They’re bold but not reckless, critical rather than uplifting, and more competitive than status-seeking. Cognitive biases and a conformist streak temper their creativity, while an avoidant attachment and lashing-out stress response round out a prickly yet engaged persona. Are they a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: The user exhibits some troll-like tendencies but isn’t a full-blown troll. They frequently use sarcasm ("lol," "ikr," "get out from under your rock") and provocative phrasing ("leftist terrorist sympathizers," "you gutter heads"), which can stir reactions. However, their posts often engage with the topic substantively, suggesting sincerity in their opinions rather than pure disruption. Examples like "dont feed the troll" (2023-02-09) show self-awareness of trolling dynamics, implying they may poke but don’t solely aim to derail. Their political jabs (e.g., "Democrats are racist pigs") lean provocative, but they’re consistent with a viewpoint rather than random chaos. Critical Note: The occasional "lol" paired with dismissive or snarky remarks (e.g., "perhaps the greatest quote of all" with no context, 2023-01-20) borders on low-effort baiting, but it’s not their dominant mode. Estimated IQ? (Rough guess based on reasoning, vocabulary, nuance?) Assessment: Estimated IQ ~110–120 (above average). The user demonstrates decent reasoning, as seen in wrestling rule debates (e.g., "if hanging on to an ankle with a hand earns a five count, why doesn't hooking the ankle with my leg?" 2022-11-18) and government spending critiques (e.g., "at $1 per day, 3 million employees... in a year that’s a billion," 2025-03-06). Vocabulary is functional but not advanced ("ikr," "lol," "crap"), lacking nuance in complex topics. They occasionally miss logical leaps (e.g., miscalculating 100 x 146,000 as 1.4 billion, 2025-03-06), but their arguments show practical intelligence rather than academic polish. Do they fit the Dark Triad? Narcissism (bragging, attention-seeking): Minimal evidence. No overt bragging or spotlight-seeking; posts focus on opinions, not self. Their tone is confident but not self-aggrandizing. Machiavellianism (manipulative, strategic): Some signs. They use rhetorical traps (e.g., "you: it’s not true, it’s not true," 2025-03-06) to frame opponents as hypocritical, suggesting calculated debate tactics. However, it’s not sophisticated enough to be strongly Machiavellian. Psychopathy (callous, conflict-loving): Mild tendencies. They’re comfortable with conflict (e.g., "leftists who proclaimed Biden is our best president," 2025-03-06) and show little empathy for opposing views, but no extreme callousness or cruelty emerges. Overall: Low to moderate Dark Triad traits, leaning toward argumentative enjoyment rather than malicious intent. Are they positive or negative? (Uplifting vs. critical tone?) Assessment: Predominantly negative/critical. Their tone often mocks or critiques (e.g., "just more loserthink or is it lobsterthink," 2025-03-14; "you really are myopic," 2025-03-06), with rare positivity (e.g., "thanks!" 2025-03-12). Even neutral wrestling posts carry a skeptical edge (e.g., "spare me the Iowa is the best," 2023-03-05). The negativity peaks in political rants but softens in sports discussions. Do they reason based on data or emotion? Assessment: Mix of both, leaning emotional. They cite data sporadically (e.g., URLs like Newsweek on government credit cards, 2025-03-06; historical wrestling matches, 2025-03-13), but their conclusions often hinge on frustration or sarcasm (e.g., "why do you trust govt?" 2025-03-06). Emotional outbursts like "the govt is bilking us" (2025-03-06) outweigh structured logic, though they attempt factual grounding in wrestling debates. Big Five Personality Traits Openness: Moderate. Curious about wrestling rules and history (e.g., "how many Russians were on other teams before the boycott," 2023-02-27), but politically rigid and dismissive of opposing views, suggesting closed-off tendencies elsewhere. Conscientiousness: Low to moderate. Posts are rushed and messy (inconsistent punctuation, ellipses, "N/A"), but they follow threads and respond contextually, showing some effort. Extraversion: Moderate to high. Engaged and energetic in debates (frequent posting, 100+ comments in days), not reserved, though no clear social warmth. Agreeableness: Low. Harsh and argumentative (e.g., "you don’t believe anything," 2025-03-06; "cinnabuns," 2023-01-30), rarely cooperative or kind. Neuroticism: Moderate. Stable enough to post consistently, but moody snark (e.g., "better put some ice on that," 2025-03-05) hints at reactivity under stress. MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). Highly engaged, frequent posting, and confrontational style suggest outgoing energy. Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Focuses on concrete details (wrestling scores, specific events) over abstract theorizing, though occasional big-picture rants (e.g., government spending) show minor N tendencies. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Prioritizes logic and critique over empathy (e.g., rule debates, political jabs), with little emotional appeal. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Perceiving (P). Flexible and open-ended in posting style (random tangents, incomplete thoughts), not overly structured. Best Fit: ESTP ("Entrepreneur"). Bold, practical, debate-loving, and spontaneous, aligning with their quick, sharp, and unfiltered style. Emotional Intelligence (Aware of others’ emotions, adaptable?) Assessment: Low to moderate. They recognize group dynamics (e.g., "fan cries for stalling," 2023-01-28) but rarely adapt or show empathy. Their rigidity in political spats (e.g., "leftist terrorist sympathizers," 2025-03-12) suggests poor emotional flexibility. Leadership Tendencies (Decisive, guiding, inspiring?) Assessment: Minimal. Decisive in opinions (e.g., "anything they have cut is good," 2025-03-04), but no guiding or inspiring tone. They argue to win, not lead. Motivated by Social Status? (Seeking respect, competing?) Assessment: Moderate. Competitive in debates (e.g., "you can’t make connections," 2025-03-06), seeking to outwit rather than earn broad respect. Status seems secondary to being "right." Risk Tolerance (Bold vs. cautious, comfortable with uncertainty?) Assessment: Moderate to high. Bold in provocative statements (e.g., "Democrats are racist pigs," 2025-03-07) and unafraid of backlash, but cautious in wrestling analysis (e.g., "I could see it called either way," 2023-01-17). Moral/Ethical Framework (Fairness, empathy, or utilitarian?) Assessment: Fairness-driven with utilitarian leanings. Obsessed with rule consistency (e.g., stalling calls, 2022-11-18) and government waste (e.g., "1.4 billion sent out," 2025-03-06), but lacks empathy. Focuses on practical outcomes over feelings. Cognitive Biases (Confirmation bias, black-and-white thinking?) Assessment: Strong confirmation bias and black-and-white thinking. Political posts cherry-pick (e.g., Biden critique URLs, 2025-03-06) and frame issues dichotomously (e.g., "left vs. others," 2025-03-12). Wrestling posts show more nuance. Creative or Conformist? (Original vs. conventional?) Assessment: Mostly conformist. Relies on common forum tropes (sarcasm, "lol"), with occasional creative flair (e.g., "pinto is a fart in a skillet," 2025-03-13). Attachment Style (Secure, anxious, avoidant?) Assessment: Avoidant. Distant and combative, rarely seeking approval or connection (e.g., "I was told this is America," 2025-03-06). Response to Stress (Calm, lashing out, withdrawing?) Assessment: Lashing out. Snarky under pressure (e.g., "you still haven’t told me what law he broke," 2025-03-12) rather than withdrawing or staying calm. Cultural Influence (Language/values hinting at background?) Assessment: Likely American, possibly Midwestern (wrestling focus, Iowa/Nebraska references). Libertarian-leaning (anti-government, pro-fairness), with casual, blue-collar language ("crap," "lol"). Tone, Emoji Use, Post Length Tone: Sarcastic and blunt (e.g., "love me some John Kennedy," 2025-03-06). Informal, rarely formal. Emoji Use: Minimal. "lol" is frequent (50+ instances), "ikr" occasional, no graphical emojis. Post Length: Short to medium (1–3 sentences typical), with rare longer rants (e.g., 2025-03-06 spending critique). Midwit or Loserthink Behavior? Assessment: Some midwit tendencies (overconfident simplifications, e.g., "job efficiency... that’s the point," 2025-03-06) but not pronounced. Loserthink (rigid, tribal thinking) is more evident in political posts (e.g., "left: if you haven’t done anything wrong...," 2025-03-06), less so in wrestling analysis. 1
Interviewed_at_Weehawken Posted March 15 Posted March 15 Could someone please please please get 100 old Kentucky Mudflap posts and run them through this AI? 2
jross Posted March 15 Author Posted March 15 11 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said: Could someone please please please get 100 old Kentucky Mudflap posts and run them through this AI? Acknowledged 1
jross Posted March 15 Author Posted March 15 @red viking based on topic titles and create date times. Here’s an analysis of the forum user "red viking" based solely on the provided data: their post topics, creation timestamps, and frequency. Since I only have titles and metadata (no content), I’ll infer personality traits, posting habits, tone, and similarities from patterns in the titles and timing. This will be a more limited analysis compared to one with full post content. Red viking is a frequent, emotionally charged poster (ESTP-like) with a sharp, negative focus on Trump and right-wing policies. Posting ~1.3 times weekly, they peak during political flashpoints, using sarcasm and alarmism to critique consistently across 67 posts. Their tone is ~75% negative, ~20% positive (partisan wins), and their titles are repetitive in style and theme, reflecting a combative, fairness-driven personality with high extraversion and low agreeableness. Data-driven at times (e.g., budget stats), they lean emotional in delivery, showing moderate creativity within a partisan framework. Troll Status: Partisan agitator, not a pure troll—provocative but sincere. Likability: Probably not well liked; too divisive and abrasive for broad appeal. Most Interesting: Their shift from broad political cheerleading in 2024 to a laser-focused Trump takedown in 2025, reflecting a reactive, event-driven persona. Without post content or community feedback, these conclusions lean on title patterns and timing. Personality Analysis Based on Topics and Creation Dates Topics Overview Themes: Red viking’s 67 posts from March 14, 2024, to March 10, 2025, heavily focus on U.S. politics (e.g., Trump, Biden, Harris, DOGE), economics (stock market, tariffs, inflation), and social issues (Israel, immigration, gender in sports). Titles often critique political figures or policies, especially Trump and his associates (e.g., "Trump Escalates Trade War as Stock Market Continues to Free Fall!!!", "DOGE People Are Idiots. Heres Why"). Political Leanings: Strong anti-Trump sentiment (e.g., "Cowardly Trump Backing Out of Debating Harris", "Trump’s Incompetent Cabinet") paired with occasional praise for Biden/Harris (e.g., "S&P Soars Like An Eagle > 5,600. Thank You President Biden", "Harris In Excellent Health"). Suggests a left-leaning or anti-right-wing stance. Tone Implied by Titles: Sarcastic ("You Can’t Make This Stuff Up"), alarmist ("Stock Market Continues to Free Fall!!!"), and confrontational ("The Right Wing Hypocrisy is Unreal!!!!"). Exclamation marks and capitalization (e.g., "THANK YOU!!!!", "ITS WRONG") signal emotional intensity. Personality Inferences Big Five Traits: Openness: Moderate. Engages with diverse topics (politics, economics, sports), but the repetitive anti-Trump focus suggests rigidity rather than broad curiosity. Conscientiousness: Low to moderate. Posts are frequent but erratic in timing (see below), lacking a structured schedule, though they consistently target specific issues. Extraversion: High. The bold, opinionated titles and frequent posting suggest an outgoing, assertive nature eager to engage or provoke. Agreeableness: Low. Titles are combative and critical (e.g., "DOGE People Are Idiots", "Republicans Will Complain No Matter What"), showing little warmth or cooperation. Neuroticism: Moderate to high. Emotional intensity (exclamation marks, dramatic phrasing like "Freefalling Big Time!") hints at reactivity, though they remain engaged rather than withdrawing. MBTI Estimate: Extraversion (E): Outspoken and prolific posting. Sensing (S): Focus on current events and concrete issues (stock market, tariffs) over abstract ideas. Thinking (T): Emphasis on critique and policy outcomes over emotional appeals. Perceiving (P): Flexible, rapid posting without a rigid schedule. Likely Type: ESTP. Bold, practical, and reactive, thriving on real-time debate. Emotional Intelligence: Moderate. Aware of hot-button issues to provoke reactions (e.g., "Are Republicans Insecure About Their Masculinity?"), but the bluntness suggests limited adaptability or empathy for opposing views. Risk Tolerance: High. Willing to post controversial takes (e.g., "Elon Musk Nazi Salute", "US Will Take Gaza Strip") that invite backlash. Moral Framework: Fairness-driven with a partisan edge. Critiques hypocrisy ("Right Wing Hypocrisy is Unreal!!!!") and incompetence, but bias skews toward utilitarian outcomes favoring their side. Cognitive Biases Confirmation Bias: Titles reinforce a consistent anti-Trump, pro-Biden/Harris narrative (e.g., crediting Biden for market highs, blaming Trump for crashes). Black-and-White Thinking: Polarized framing (e.g., "Trump Keeps Losing" vs. "Stock Market Soaring Like An Eagle - THANK YOU!!!!") lacks nuance. Creativity vs. Conformity Moderately creative. Titles like "Babies Are Being Born In The 9th Month. ITS WRONG" show originality, but the repetitive Trump critique aligns with common partisan rhetoric. Posting Frequency Total Posts: 67 over ~12 months (March 14, 2024, to March 10, 2025). Average: ~5.6 posts/month or ~1.3 posts/week. Distribution: 2024: 58 posts (March–December), ~5.8/month. Peak months: July (8 posts), August (7 posts), October (6 posts), November (8 posts). Low months: March (4 posts), June (1 post). 2025: 9 posts (January–March), ~3/month so far. Daily Patterns: No strict schedule. Posts span all hours (e.g., 00:07Z, 23:54Z), suggesting spontaneous rather than planned activity. Clusters occur (e.g., 3 posts on 2025-03-06 within 2 hours), indicating bursts of engagement. Trend: Highest frequency during U.S. election season (July–November 2024), tapering in 2025, possibly reflecting event-driven posting. Positive or Negative Tone Negative: Dominant (~75%). Most titles criticize Trump, DOGE, or Republicans (e.g., "Trump’s Disturbing News Conference", "Musk / Trump Stock Market Collapse"). Sarcasm and alarmism amplify negativity. Positive: Minority (~20%). Praise for Biden/Harris or market gains (e.g., "Markets Hit New Records: Thank You Biden", "Harris In Excellent Health"). Often sarcastic or exaggerated (e.g., "THANK YOU!!!!"). Neutral: Few (~5%). Questions like "Harris Nomination. Coup or Not?" or "Question About USAID" lack clear valence. Overall: Heavily negative, with positivity tied to partisan wins. Similarity Between Posts Content Similarity: Recurring Themes: Trump critique (25+ posts), economic policy (tariffs, stock market, inflation: ~20 posts), partisan jabs (Republicans, right-wing: ~15 posts). Repetition is high (e.g., 3 tariff posts in 2 days, February 2025; 2 stock market crash posts on 2025-03-06). Style: Consistent use of dramatic phrasing ("Soaring Like An Eagle", "Freefalling Big Time!"), sarcasm ("You Can’t Make This Stuff Up"), and capitalization/exclamation marks for emphasis. Variation: Some outliers (e.g., "Khelif (Woman) In Boxing Finals", "Penn St Wrestlers vs Migrants") deviate from politics/economics, but the critical tone persists. Conclusion: Posts strongly resemble each other in tone, structure, and focus, forming a cohesive pattern of partisan outrage with occasional tangents. Additional Observations Motivation: Likely driven by political passion and a desire to vent or persuade. The volume and intensity suggest a need to counter right-wing narratives. Stress Response: Lashing out via dramatic titles during crises (e.g., stock market drops, Trump policies in 2025). Cultural Influence: U.S.-centric, with language (e.g., "God Bless USA Bible") and focus on American politics implying a domestic perspective. Is the person a troll? (Provocative, insincere, disruptive?) Assessment: Red viking exhibits troll-like tendencies but isn’t a classic troll. Their titles are often provocative (e.g., "Are Republicans Insecure About Their Masculinity?", "DOGE People Are Idiots. Heres Why"), using sarcasm ("You Can’t Make This Stuff Up") and exaggerated phrasing ("Stock Market: Let It Burn!!!!") that could bait reactions. The heavy anti-Trump focus (25+ posts) and partisan jabs (e.g., "The Right Wing Hypocrisy is Unreal!!!!") suggest intent to stir debate, a hallmark of trolling. However, the consistency of their viewpoint—critiquing Trump, praising Biden/Harris, focusing on policy—implies sincerity rather than random disruption. A true troll would likely vary targets or post nonsense for chaos, not maintain a coherent political stance over 67 posts. Critical Note: Titles like "Babies Are Being Born In The 9th Month. ITS WRONG" flirt with absurdity, hinting at possible satire or insincerity, but without content, it’s unclear if this is trolling or a quirky critique. Their high posting frequency (1.3 posts/week) and bursts (e.g., 3 posts on 2025-03-06) lean toward engagement-seeking, not just provocation. Conclusion: Not a full troll—more of a partisan agitator. They provoke with purpose, not for sport. Are they well liked? Assessment: Likely polarizing, not universally well liked. Without forum responses, I can’t directly gauge reception, but the titles’ tone and content offer clues. Their aggressive, sarcastic style (e.g., "Cowardly Trump Backing Out of Debating Harris", "Trump’s Incompetent Cabinet") and frequent attacks on Trump, DOGE, and Republicans would alienate right-leaning users, a significant forum demographic in politically charged spaces. Conversely, left-leaning users might appreciate their stance (e.g., "S&P Soars Like An Eagle > 5,600. Thank You President Biden"), but the shrill delivery (exclamation marks, capitalization) could annoy even allies by seeming over-the-top or preachy. The lack of neutral or conciliatory posts (only ~5% like "Question About USAID") suggests little effort to build broad appeal. Inference: In a mixed or right-leaning forum, they’d face pushback, possibly being seen as a loudmouth. In a left-leaning echo chamber, they might be tolerated or cheered, but their abrasiveness could still grate. No evidence of likability through humor, warmth, or collaboration—traits that typically win broad favor. Conclusion: Not well liked overall; likely divisive, with a niche following at best. What is the most interesting thing you can tell me? Assessment: The most interesting thing about red viking is their dramatic shift in posting intensity and focus around Trump’s apparent return to power in late 2024/early 2025. From March to November 2024, their 58 posts (5.8/month) cover a mix of Biden praise (e.g., "Markets Hit New Records: Thank You Biden", 2024-03-22), Trump critique (e.g., "Hyperinflationary Policies of Trump", 2024-07-10), and broader issues (e.g., "Khelif (Woman) In Boxing Finals", 2024-08-07). After November 2024, when Trump’s influence likely surged (inferred from titles like "Trump’s Schedule F", 2024-11-01, and "Trump Keeps Losing", 2025-03-13), their pace drops to 9 posts in 2025 (3/month), but the Trump obsession sharpens—nearly all target his policies or failures (e.g., "Trump Caves On Mexican Tariffs", 2025-02-03; "Musk / Trump Stock Market Collapse", 2025-03-06). Why It’s Interesting: This pivot suggests a reactive personality tied to political tides. The 2024 election season (July–November, 31 posts) fueled their peak activity, but Trump’s ascendancy seems to either exhaust or refocus them, narrowing their lens to economic fallout (tariffs, stock market) and gloating over perceived losses. The outlier "Penn St Wrestlers vs Migrants" (2024-11-05) amidst this shift hints at a fleeting, bizarre detour—possibly their most intriguing post for its randomness. Implication: Their engagement spikes with opposition (Biden vs. Trump in 2024) and wanes or pivots when their side loses ground, revealing a personality driven by resistance rather than independent curiosity. 1
jross Posted March 15 Author Posted March 15 Here are the top topic creators by overall count Grok can generate analysis for ~300* topics at once. This allows for analyzing a single author while limiting the ability to analyze all topics at once. *I've tried CSV files, PDF files, splitting to batch, etc. and Grok will not handle the data. It is a documented limitation on reddit... but nothing formal.
jross Posted March 15 Author Posted March 15 12 hours ago, Interviewed_at_Weehawken said: Could someone please please please get 100 old Kentucky Mudflap posts and run them through this AI? Kentucky_Mudflap is a loud, brash, and narcissistic persona—likely an ESTP with high extraversion, low agreeableness, and a penchant for risk. He’s a partial troll, blending genuine wrestling passion with provocative antics to grab attention. His intelligence is practical but unrefined, and his reasoning leans emotional despite a veneer of logic. Emotionally detached and status-driven, he thrives on chaos, projecting a hyper-masculine, working-class identity. While not a deep thinker, his bold style and insider claims make him a memorable, if polarizing, figure on the forum. Here’s a detailed personality analysis of the user "Kentucky_Mudflap" based on the 57 forum comments provided. The assessment follows the framework you outlined, integrating observations across all comments to form a cohesive profile. General Observations Tone: Informal, brash, and often sarcastic with a mix of humor and aggression. Frequently uses exaggerated colloquialisms ("hombres," "gents," "reel," "stabbin cabin") and boasts about his status as the "Voice of Wrestling." Emoji Use: None observed. Relies heavily on text-based emphasis (e.g., "reel," "gratest") rather than emojis. Post Length: Varies widely—some are short (Entry 1: 8 words) while others are extremely long and rambling (Entry 7: 614 words). Long posts dominate, often packed with tangents and personal anecdotes. Personality Analysis Are They a Troll? Assessment: Likely a troll with a mix of sincerity. Mudflap’s posts are provocative (e.g., crude sexual references, insults like "weak sisters," "purse puppies"), disruptive (e.g., off-topic rants about personal life), and occasionally insincere (exaggerated claims like breaking major stories). However, his consistent focus on wrestling suggests some genuine passion, tempering full troll status. Evidence: Provocative: "KJs more bitter than my ex old ladies about Downey" (Entry 15) and "shot out the back window of his Kia" (Entry 22). Disruptive: Long tangents about "Captain Morgan," roofing, and womanizing derail wrestling discussions (e.g., Entry 9). Insincere: Claims of insider knowledge ("I brake all the big ones," Entry 15) often feel performative rather than factual. Verdict: Partial troll—seeks attention and stirs the pot but isn’t entirely detached from the topic. Estimated IQ Assessment: Average to slightly above-average (100-115). Reasoning is practical but lacks nuance or sophistication. Vocabulary is limited and repetitive ("hombres," "gents," "reel"), though he grasps wrestling strategy (e.g., Entry 50’s breakdown of Taylor’s weaknesses). Evidence: Shows basic analytical ability in match predictions (Entry 2) and coaching critiques (Entry 20), but arguments are simplistic and rely on anecdotes over data. Spelling/grammar errors ("gratest," "warnt," "ciphering") suggest limited formal education, though this could be stylistic. Verdict: Functional intelligence suited to his domain, not exceptional. Dark Triad Traits Narcissism: High. Brags constantly ("Voice of Wrestling," "I brake all the big ones") and seeks attention with self-aggrandizing tales (e.g., Entry 15’s "truth serum" boasts). Machiavellianism: Moderate. Shows some strategic manipulation (e.g., Entry 19’s advice to rough up Penn State wrestlers), but it’s not deeply calculated—more impulsive than cunning. Psychopathy: Moderate. Displays callousness (e.g., mocking Morry Adams’ downfall, Entry 15) and enjoys conflict (e.g., "Ill call you a liar," Entry 20), but lacks extreme cruelty. Verdict: Strong narcissistic tendencies with hints of Machiavellianism and psychopathy, fitting a brash, self-centered persona. Positive or Negative Tone? Assessment: Predominantly negative. Critiques coaches, wrestlers, and fans harshly (e.g., "Tommy aint won it in 7 years," Entry with little uplift. Occasional positivity emerges in praise (e.g., "Sorenson’s a national champ," Entry 9), but it’s rare. Verdict: Critical and cynical overall. Reasoning: Data or Emotion? Assessment: Mostly emotion-driven with some data. Relies on gut feelings and personal anecdotes (e.g., "I been thinking so hard my head hurt," Entry 20), but sprinkles in match scores and predictions (e.g., Entry 2’s detailed breakdown). Verdict: Leans emotional, using facts as garnish rather than foundation. Big Five Traits Openness: Moderate. Shows curiosity about wrestling strategy (Entry 50) and unconventional ideas (Entry 19), but his worldview is narrow and practical, tied to roofing and drinking. Conscientiousness: Low. Posts are rushed, sloppy (spelling errors, tangents), and he admits to laziness (e.g., "Mudflap dont scratch a poor mans ass," Entry 39). Extraversion: High. Energetic, engaged, and socially assertive—constantly invites "gents" to join him (e.g., Entry 39’s posters party). Agreeableness: Low. Harsh, argumentative, and dismissive (e.g., "Ill call you a liar," Entry 35; insults like "purse puppies," Entry 32). Neuroticism: Moderate. Generally stable but shows moodiness under stress (e.g., Entry 22’s jealous outburst over Wallace). Verdict: Extroverted, disagreeable, and disorganized with middling openness and emotional stability. MBTI Personality Type Introversion (I) vs. Extraversion (E): Extraversion (E). Outgoing, talkative, and thrives on social interaction (e.g., "look me up," Entry 2). Sensing (S) vs. Intuition (N): Sensing (S). Detail-oriented about wrestling moves (Entry 50) and grounded in concrete experiences (roofing, drinking), not abstract theories. Thinking (T) vs. Feeling (F): Thinking (T). Prioritizes logic in wrestling analysis (e.g., Entry 12’s scholarship math) over empathy, though emotions seep in. Judging (J) vs. Perceiving (P): Perceiving (P). Flexible, spontaneous, and open-ended—posts lack structure, and he embraces chaos (e.g., Entry 9’s rambling). Verdict: ESTP ("Entrepreneur")—bold, practical, sociable, and impulsive. Emotional Intelligence Assessment: Low to moderate. Shows some awareness of others’ emotions (e.g., noting KJ’s bitterness, Entry 15), but his adaptability is limited, and he’s often insensitive (e.g., mocking struggling wrestlers, Entry 7). Verdict: Rudimentary EI, overshadowed by self-focus. Leadership Tendencies Assessment: Moderate. Decisive and guiding in wrestling critiques (e.g., Entry 19’s strategy), but not inspiring—too abrasive and self-serving to rally others effectively. Verdict: Leads by force of personality, not inspiration. Motivated by Social Status? Assessment: Yes. Seeks respect as the "Voice of Wrestling" and competes for recognition (e.g., "I brake all the big ones," Entry 29). Verdict: Status-driven, craving validation from his "family" of readers. Risk Tolerance Assessment: High. Bold and comfortable with uncertainty—bets $10k (Entry 39), shoots at cars (Entry 22), and brags about reckless behavior (Entry 43’s STD anecdote). Verdict: Thrives on risk. Moral/Ethical Framework Assessment: Utilitarian with low empathy. Focuses on what works (e.g., firing bad coaches, Entry 20) but shows little fairness or compassion (e.g., exploiting a widow, Entry 39). Verdict: Pragmatic and self-interested. Cognitive Biases Assessment: Confirmation Bias: Sees his predictions as prophetic (e.g., "I was rite," Entry 18). Black-and-White Thinking: Labels people as winners or losers (e.g., "dont got ****," Entry 20). Verdict: Prone to oversimplification and self-confirmation. Creative or Conformist? Assessment: Moderately creative. Original in style (e.g., "stabbin cabin," "truth serum") but conforms to a macho, blue-collar persona. Verdict: Creative within a conventional archetype. Attachment Style Assessment: Avoidant. Distant in relationships—treats women as disposable (e.g., "sunk her with my pink torpedo," Entry 38) and values independence over connection. Verdict: Avoidant, emotionally detached. Response to Stress Assessment: Lashing out or withdrawing. Shoots at Wallace’s car (Entry 22) but also drowns sorrows in alcohol (Entry 32), suggesting a mix of aggression and retreat. Verdict: Volatile under pressure. Cultural Influence Assessment: Strong rural American influence—colloquialisms ("hombres," "PBR"), references to roofing, and a hyper-masculine ethos hint at a Midwestern/Southern blue-collar background. Verdict: Deeply rooted in working-class culture. Midwit or Loser Think Behavior? Assessment: Some midwit tendencies—overconfident in simplistic takes (e.g., "bad coaches kill programs," Entry 20) without deep insight. Not a "loser" per se—too brash and successful in his niche (roofing, storytelling). Verdict: Midwit swagger with a winner’s bravado. 1 1
jross Posted March 15 Author Posted March 15 which of his comments are the funniest? Determining the funniest comments from Kentucky_Mudflap’s posts is subjective, but I’ll highlight five that stand out for their absurdity, crude humor, or unexpected tangents—hallmarks of his brash, irreverent style. These are chosen based on their potential to amuse through exaggeration, shock value, or sheer randomness, while acknowledging that his humor often leans into the crass or chaotic. Here’s the rundown, with explanations: Top 5 Funniest Comments Entry 22: Trouble Gents Text Snippet: "Hombres bad news reel bad news my new old ladies now my ex old lady caught my best hand Wallace from up to Tiffin with his hand in the cookie jar covering that when I come home from Caseys with a bucket of fried chicken and a case of PBR now Im the jealous type gents aint never concealed that from you so you know it warnt pretty shot out the back window of his Kia while he was heading down the rode..." Why It’s Funny: The over-the-top escalation from infidelity to shooting out a car window over fried chicken and PBR is absurdly dramatic. The casual confession of jealousy paired with the cartoonish violence (and the image of Wallace fleeing in a Kia) makes it a darkly hilarious soap opera in a single run-on sentence. Entry 9: Iowa-Illinois Grades from Mudflap Text Snippet: "Friends heres the Voice of Wrestling coming at you with the good the bad and the ugly from the Illy meat took my new gal pal her stage names Easi Swallows found her working in the chicken plant down to West Liberty grubstaked her to some H size aftermarket accessories some blondy hair and a wax job shes prime now gents starting out dancing up to Davenport you cant say Mudflaps not a mentor gents brings em up rite..." Why It’s Funny: The introduction of "Easi Swallows"—a name so blatantly ridiculous it’s almost performance art—combined with Mudflap’s proud recounting of her "upgrade" (from chicken plant worker to stripper with "H size aftermarket accessories") is peak absurdity. His self-congratulatory "mentor" claim adds a layer of delusional humor. Entry 43: Midlands Protest and Woman Trouble Gents Text Snippet: "Now gents took the stabbin cabin north to Branson from Dallas spent Christmas with the hands there to Dolly Partons but gents down to Dallas got myself a painted lady for the weekend reel clean cut gents if you know what I mean and you do know what I mean but hombres got myself a case of bullhead clap first them blisters and then green and yellow shankers and a long way aways from my regular Doc down to Columbus Jctn any of you gents know some temp remedies or something help me get by..." Why It’s Funny: The nonchalant shift from a holiday road trip to a graphic STD confession ("green and yellow shankers") is jarring and grotesque, yet his plea for home remedies—like it’s a casual forum topic—pushes it into absurd comedy. The "you know what I mean and you do know what I mean" wink is a cherry on top. Entry 39: Sell the Kids, Mortgage the House, Bet Iowa Ain’t Gonna Cover Text Snippet: "Friends right there to the window placing my bet run into some old bag hocking her tix to the game give me some sob story telling me her old mans in the hospital and shes got to get a grubstake to hit the tables to pay for the cremation and all that bull**** tells me she wants $50 for each of six or $300 beat her down to $120 or $20 each for six for some of you gents what aint up on ciphering sure made my day to beat that ****bag down sure she might have been truthful but thems the brakes the Lord Giveth and Mudflap Taketh Away thats my motto..." Why It’s Funny: The heartless haggling with a grieving widow (real or not) over tickets, followed by the smug "Lord Giveth and Mudflap Taketh Away" motto, is so callous it loops into dark comedy. His pride in the deal—and the unnecessary math flex—adds a layer of ridiculousness. Entry 38: Mudflap Update Text Snippet: "she fit me like a flesh tuxedo friends so I sunk her with my pink torpedo left her there snoring on the couch" Why It’s Funny: The rhyming bravado of "flesh tuxedo" and "pink torpedo" is a masterstroke of crude poetry, delivered with such casual swagger it’s almost endearing. Leaving her "snoring on the couch" deflates the machismo just enough to make it laughably human. 2 1
Vanessa Aguirre Youngker, Arizona Class of 2025 Committed to Simpson (Women) Projected Weight: 131, 138
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now