A daydream for life’s nightmare.

This line is wrong in every way that matters:

"The left’s position is easy to understand – a socialist was removed from power, by their arch enemy Trump."

That isn't explanation. It's mere caricature.

It starts by pretending the left supported Maduro. Large parts of the left have explicitly condemned Maduro as authoritarian, corrupt, and catastrophic for Venezuela. Opposition to Trump's intervention was never about loyalty to Maduro. That's a strawman, and it exists for one reason only: to avoid engaging with the real objections.

Those objections were never "our guy lost". They were about US-led regime change, and the simple fact that the US has an appalling record when it comes to foreign interventions: Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya. You don't need to admire a dictator to oppose the method used to remove him. Conflating those two positions isn't a mistake. It's a dodge.

There's also a lazy bit of tribal shorthand doing work here. "Socialist" is treated as a team jersey rather than a contested label. Maduro isn't opposed because he's insufficiently socialist, nor defended because he's nominally one. Reducing a broad ideological spectrum to team colours might pass on talkback radio, but it isn't an argument.

And then there's the projection. Leyonhjelm accuses the left of tribal thinking while indulging in it himself. He assumes opposition to Trump must be driven by hostility to Trump, rather than by concerns over legality, precedent, civilian harm, executive overreach, or the routine, well-documented failure of foreign interventions.

Worst of all, the line undercuts his own libertarian case. If he actually wanted to persuade libertarians, he would grapple with the strongest counter-argument, not sidestep it:

Why should libertarians trust a powerful state to impose liberty abroad, given its incentives, its track record, and its insulation from the harm it causes? Instead, we get a cartoon left that can be dismissed with a sneer.

So no, the left's position isn't "easy to understand". It's just easy to misrepresent.

No need to read beyond that sentence. Save your time.

Yep.
This is up there with the biggest loads of garbage he's written.

A moral argument in support of liberal intervention...
But the argument in support of overcoming coercion - is one which employs coercion.
You quote JS Mill, but you've removed yourself from the entire harm factor.
Trump killed 100 people in that kidnapping on made up domestic charges.
You're essentially saying 'Its ok to do some harm if its for the greater good'.
The second you take that position, you've thrown the harm principle in the bin and now taken an 'end's justifies the means' mentality, and that's no different than the Bondi perpetrators.
You're attempting to justifying foreign interference, which destroys any concept of the people in question deciding anything for themselves, you're attempting to be kingmaker, at a lower cost to troop losses and destruction of the country than if you invaded.

I oppose sanctions and regime changes.
Sanctions are collective punishment against an entire nations citizenry, so they will blame and overthrow the government.
Regime changes are foreign interference, to benefit said foreign interests, nothing to do with whats best for the people.

And when you use sanctions and promote and encourage insurrection, you force the nations to become more repressive to prevent foreign attempts to destabilise them.

They willfully dump enough foreign currency to cause a selloff, profit on the short position rebuy the currency back at less cost, if the regime change is successful and they profit again when sanctions are lifted

Meanwhile you inflict untold misery on the foreign population, they're eating cats and dogs and the country is tearing itself apart, corruption increases with poverty and the West can buy off officials, and you already bought up things on the cheap during the sanctions in order tat they're well positioned with the lifting of sanctions.

You destroy a nation like cancer yourselves whilst proclaiming 'we're the good guys!', but it's not about helping the people there, if it was you wouldn't have inflicted such hardship upon them in the first place.

[Cont.]

Why don't you go kill your own pets for food David?
Kill it, butcher it then feed your wife and kids with it, and call it a good wholesome libertarian family meal, and then get back to me 'Mr. Harm principle'

Venezuela food shortages cause some to hunt dogs, cats, pigeons
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/18/venezuela-food-shortages-cause-some-hunt-dogs-cats-pigeons/84547888/

Google AI says you love cats David and have had several.
Tiffy, Ratty, Mia, Oliver (passed away now)

Go eat your own cats David.

You're full of it.

People who have more than a passing interest in overseas matters that have no bearing on Australia do not have much to think about.

There are all sorts of reasons for many to oppose the attempted overthrow of the Maduro/Chavez regime, among them being reflexive anti-Trump dogmas, enduring anti-US beliefs and, yes, unerring support by many socialists for a regime they think of as socialist.

Libertarianism has many flavours. The teachings of Mills is only one path that people who describe themselves as libertarian can follow. There are of course some libertarians who oppose national borders and others, more practically, who recognise that open borders are a path to the destruction of a freedom-loving state.

Libertarianism must always support democracy in other nations, this being the surest path to maintenance of freedom in their own country.

Removing Maduro wasn't about regime change. It was about restoring to power the rightfully, democratically elected government of Venezuela. A democratic government will naturally gravitate toward other democracies while the kleptocratic socialist regime in Caracas naturally gravitated to other authoritarian regimes in Peking and Moscow. That the people of Venezuela will, if all goes well, be given back their freedom and prosperity while at the same time removing a threat to the freedom of the US, is a win-win

mhaze,

You're doing the same thing Leyonhjelm did: asserting motives instead of addressing arguments.

Opposing Trump's Venezuela intervention doesn't require affection for Maduro, reflexive anti-Trump dogma, or anti-US sentiment. It requires nothing more exotic than scepticism toward foreign-imposed outcomes, especially given the historical record.

This sentence does a lot of work without justification:

//Libertarianism must always support democracy in other nations//

Libertarianism is about constraining coercive power. It does not follow that libertarians must endorse foreign states deciding which government is "rightful", or using economic and political coercion to enforce that judgement.

And this claim simply doesn't survive contact with reality:

//Removing Maduro wasn't about regime change.//

If a foreign power recognises an alternative leader, applies sanctions, encourages insurrectionary pressure, and removes the sitting government, that is regime change. Calling it "restoration" is branding, not analysis.

You also slide past the central libertarian problem: coercion used in the name of liberty doesn't stop being coercion. Harm doesn't vanish because the stated aim is democratic alignment or geopolitical convenience.

You may believe the outcome will be positive. Fine. But that's a consequentialist gamble, not a libertarian principle. And it deserves to be argued on those terms, not smuggled in under claims about democracy or "win-win" narratives.

The strongest objection hasn't been answered:

Why should libertarians trust powerful states to impose liberty abroad, given their incentives, their track record, and their insulation from the harm they cause?

Until that's addressed directly, waving away opposition as tribalism just avoids the hard question.

"Opposing Trump's Venezuela intervention doesn't require affection for Maduro,..."

Well lucky I didn't say it did, eh? There are all sorts of reasons which is why I wrote..."There are all sorts of reasons for many to oppose the attempted overthrow of the Maduro/Chavez regime,". Did you miss that or choose to ignore it? I simply listed those which are, in my view, the most common. You are free to have a different opinion but assuming that differing from your opinion is the same as being wrong is rather pompous.

"Libertarianism is about constraining coercive power.".
Libertarianism cannot exist outside democracy. Its a concept so obvious I don't know where to start to explain it to you. Therefore Libertarians would always favour democracy over authoritarianism.

"Calling it "restoration" is branding, not analysis."
Venezuela held elections. The party that won those elections and is therefore the legitimate government were overthrown by a combination of kleptocratic communists, the military and cadres of foreign powers. Restoring a legitimate government to power isn't regime change.

"Why should libertarians trust powerful states to impose liberty abroad"

Liberty can't be imposed. But the conditions that stop liberty from flourishing can be overthrown, as, hopefully, will happen in this case.

Are you in favour of ordinary Venezuelans having the right to elect the leaders they want or not? It's that simple.

You're again sliding between implication and denial, mhaze.

Yet you explicitly framed opposition in terms of "reflexive anti-Trump dogmas”, "anti-US beliefs” and "unerring support by many socialists”. If that wasn't meant to characterise most opposition, it's hard to see what purpose it served. Pointing that out isn't pompous; it's reading what you wrote.

On libertarianism and democracy: you're asserting, not arguing. Libertarianism doesn't collapse into democracy. Democracies can restrain power, but they can also legitimise coercion. That's precisely why libertarians have historically been wary of majoritarianism. Saying libertarianism "cannot exist outside democracy” is a claim, not a self-evident truth, and it doesn't justify foreign states deciding which elections count and which governments are "rightful”.

Which brings us to regime change.

If a foreign power recognises an alternative government, applies economic coercion, encourages destabilisation, and removes the sitting government, that is regime change. Calling it "restoration” presupposes the conclusion under dispute. Libertarians should be especially cautious about outsourcing legitimacy to external actors.

Saying "Liberty can't be imposed, but the conditions can be overthrown” doesn't resolve the problem. Overthrowing "conditions” still involves coercion, harm, and external agency. The issue isn't whether liberty is desirable; it's whether powerful states can reliably dismantle political conditions abroad without substituting their own interests. History suggests they can't.

And no, it isn't "that simple”.

I support Venezuelans electing their leaders. That does not entail endorsing foreign powers deciding when, how, and under what pressure that choice is allowed to occur, nor treating intervention as libertarian by default because it's framed as democratic.

You're asserting outcomes. I'm questioning mechanisms.

Until that distinction is addressed, the disagreement isn't about values. It's about whether coercion stops being coercion because we approve of the intended result.

"Well lucky I didn't say it did, eh?" - mhaze

"Democracies can restrain power, but they can also legitimise coercion."

That's beside the point. True, libertarianism doesn't necessarily exist under democracy, but it can't exist outside democracy. Aquatic life doesn't necessarily exist in a body of water, but it can't exist outside a body of water. Again, its so simple a concept, I don't know where to start to explain it to you.

You seem determined to ignore the fact that Venezuela held elections, badly run and far from free and fair, but elections nonetheless. And the party that won that election and were then denied power, is the party that is now slated to take recover power. Ignore it if that fact doesn't suit your narrative, but its still there.

"Yet you explicitly framed opposition in terms of "reflexive anti-Trump dogmas”, "anti-US beliefs” and "unerring support by many socialists”. If that wasn't meant to characterise most opposition,"

That's right, those are, in my view, the main reasons that people oppose the freeing of Venezuela. But there are other lesser or less prevalent reasons, despite what you say.

It is probably better to view the situation from AC's vassal state perspective. Arresting Maduro then becomes an action of changing the real powers in charge, in this instance Russia and China.

Given that Japan and Germany are examples of US vassal states (compare with Iran and Venezuela under Russia/China), I would guess that Venezuelan's now stand a higher chance of increased prosperity and greater personal freedoms.

Hi mhaze,

No election in Venezuela can be considered free and fair when the U.S. openly declares itself to be interfering, with candidates such as Juan Guido, especially when Donald Trump declares the oil already belonged to the United States and that Venezuela 'stole it', more or less declaring their involvement is a matter of national security in support of their own multi-nationals..

No country is obligated to hold an election when there is clearly foreign interference and candidates aligned with a foreign power.

The people aren't being given a chance to be lead by someone loyal to their own nation Candidate A and Candidate B, you're forcing an election where one candidate is under sanctions and the other is loyal to a foreign government and offering the removal of U.S sanctions, which means it's essentially rigged from the start no matter what the outcome is.

It's not an election about domestic policies though the candidate loyal to U.S. will claim the leader is a dictator, is corrupt and has economically mismanaged the country when clearly the problem is outside economic coercion and interference by sanctions.

Here's Marco Rubio explaining how because of nations trading in their own currencies, the U.S. won't be able to sanction them anymore.
(Hooray!)
If this does not demonstrate both economic coercion and foreign interference then I don't know what does.

Rubio on “Secondary Economy in the World”: “We Won’t Have the Ability to Sanction Them”
http://youtu.be/pxkSz-HR-FM

Do you support economic coercion and foreign interference in national democratic elections?
Yes or No

Hi John Daysh,
Your posts, - that's why I like your dedication to the truth.
They were some truly 5 star posts, good job.

Your water analogy doesn't rescue the claim, mhaze, it just restates it.

Democracy is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for libertarianism. Liberal constraints on power can exist without electoral democracy, and democracies routinely violate liberty through majoritarian coercion. Saying libertarianism "can't exist outside democracy" is an assertion you keep repeating, not an argument you've established.

Regarding Venezuela, you're still begging the question. You assert that a "rightful" government was denied power and that external actors are merely restoring legitimacy. That conclusion depends entirely on whose judgement of legitimacy you accept, and you're quietly outsourcing that judgement to foreign states and interests. Libertarians should be wary of that move, not casual about it.

If a foreign power decides which election counts, recognises an alternative government, applies coercive pressure, and engineers the removal of the sitting one, that is regime change by any meaningful definition. Relabelling it doesn't change the mechanics.

And thanks for clarifying your earlier point. You now explicitly confirm that you see "reflexive anti-Trump dogmas", "anti-US beliefs", and "unerring support by many socialists" as the main reasons for opposition. That was the caricature I objected to, and it remains one.

The disagreement here isn't about whether Venezuelans deserve liberty. It's about whether coercion exercised by powerful external states stops being coercion when it's wrapped in democratic language and produces an outcome you approve of.

That's the question you keep skating past.

"Saying libertarianism "can't exist outside democracy" is an assertion you keep repeating, not an argument you've established."

Give some examples where personal liberty exists outside democracy.

"If a foreign power decides which election counts,"

How many elections do you think there were?

"That was the caricature I objected to, and it remains one."

Yes I know. you want to think that those objecting to the overthrow of Maduro are pure of heart and don't like the opposite being pointed out.

"Are you in favour of ordinary Venezuelans having the right to elect the leaders they want or not?"

Why am I not surprised that you whistled past that?

"It's about whether coercion exercised by powerful external states stops being coercion when it's wrapped in democratic language and produces an outcome you approve of."

Oh its coercion, straight up. But using coercion to rid a people's of those oppressing them is always right, never wrong. The real question is whether the attempts to deliver liberty to the Venezuelan people will succeed. But the attempt is always worthy even if there are collateral benefits to the liberator.

You want examples, mhaze?

There's Hong Kong prior to 2020 - which had strong rule of law, free speech, property rights, and open markets without democratic government.

Singapore today protects property rights, personal safety, freedom of movement and economic liberty despite limited electoral competition.

Historically, liberal constitutional orders in Europe protected individual liberties long before mass democracy existed.

Conversely, democracies have repeatedly legitimised coercion. Jim Crow America, apartheid South Africa, and modern democracies using emergency powers and mass surveillance show that elections are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for liberty.

My last point there matters because you've now made your position explicit:

//using coercion to rid a people of those oppressing them is always right, never wrong//

At that point, we're no longer discussing libertarianism. The harm principle has been abandoned in favour of an ends-justify-the-means ethic, with legitimacy determined by whoever claims to be "delivering liberty".

You're entitled to that view, of course, but it isn't libertarian. And it doesn't become less coercive because it's wrapped in democratic language or produces an outcome you approve of.

That's the disagreement. Everything else is secondary.

Hi mhaze,
"Oh its coercion, straight up. But using coercion to rid a people's of those oppressing them is always right, never wrong. The real question is whether the attempts to deliver liberty to the Venezuelan people will succeed. But the attempt is always worthy even if there are collateral benefits to the liberator."

That's good, we're getting somewhere.

So coercion is bad, or coercion is good, which is it?
If it 'depends on the circumstance' then coercion itself cannot be a cause for intervention, can it?

Unless one believes democracy is a good outcome no matter the cost.
(personally, I think democracy has been hijacked and all democratic roads lead to Greater Israel at this point, democracy needs a makeover otherwise it's reached it best before date)

So if Hamas was democratically elected and the Palestinians are trying to rid themselves of those oppressing them then their fight against Israel is legitimate in your eyes? No?

(It already is under international law)

Maybe you support the 'God gave it to us' line, fanatical Israeli settlers and support religion extremist beliefs over democracy.
Do you support religious extremism?
What happens when a nation all democratically support ethnic cleansing?

Lets switch to Iran.
You acknowledge foreign interference both political and economic, and seem to support it.
It's 'never wrong' you said.

What happens when the plan fails?
If you support this ideology then you must also acknowledge and take responsibility for when it goes wrong and the regime change fails.

[Cont.]

The Shah called for the Iranians to rise up and Trump said he would help them.

Iranian Crown Prince’s Visit to Israel: A Healing Process for many Iranian Jews
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/iranian-crown-princes-visit-to-israel-a-healing-process-for-many-iranian-jews/
(The first thing he did was meet with Israel head of intelligence)

Who then takes responsibly for the dead?
The foreign nations who engineered the FAILED regime change?
or;
The 'regime itself', for daring to not submit to a foreign power that has already tried to assassinate them?

And if you acknowledge 'coercion' then you must also acknowledge that foreign interference forces the said 'regime' to become more repressive, right?

- Because they need to defend against democratic 5th columns and NGO's looking to ferment dissent and engineer civil unrest under the guise of 'humanitarianism' and 'protecting human rights', as well as coordinated covert actions by foreign intelligence agencies, on top of economic sanctions and political interference.

How the hell do you even claim 'protecting human rights' when you force people to eat cats and dogs and trick them into rising up and getting themselves killed to support a foreign nations interests?

"You want examples, mhaze?"

Yep and I'm still waiting....seriously your examples are HK under the thumb of the most powerful authoritarian regime in history, Singapore which has "limited electoral competition" ie a democracy and some handwaving about all the civil liberties in Medieval Europe. If that's the best Grok could find for you then it rather makes my point.

If Venezuelans are to have liberty they have to first have democracy, despite all the hand-waving. If the US helps deliver democracy then they'll have helped deliver liberty. Libertarians will cheer that. Those who value anti-US attitudes over the welfare of people will have a differing view.

This is now just goalpost-shifting, mhaze.

You asked for examples of personal liberty outside democracy. You didn't ask for libertarian utopias, perfect freedom, or regimes you personally approve of. You asked whether liberty can exist outside democracy. The answer is plainly yes, and the examples demonstrate that.

Hong Kong pre-2020 had extensive personal, economic and civil liberties without democracy. Its loss of liberty came from authoritarian intervention, not from lack of elections. Dismissing that because China eventually crushed it proves the opposite of your point.

Singapore is not a liberal democracy in the sense you're using the term. It has elections, but limited political competition, restricted speech, and dominant-party rule. Yet it still sustains significant personal and economic liberties. That directly falsifies your claim that liberty "can't exist" outside democracy.

And no, pointing out that liberal civil liberties historically preceded mass democracy isn't "hand-waving". It's a basic fact of political history. Democracy emerged from liberty, not the other way around.

What you're now arguing is something much simpler and much less libertarian:

If democracy doesn't exist, coercion by a powerful external state is justified to create it, and that coercion is "always right".

That's not libertarianism. It's moral consequentialism with a geopolitical preference. Calling it "helping deliver liberty" doesn't change that.

Again, you're free to hold that view. Just stop pretending it rests on libertarian principle rather than on approval of the outcome and the actor delivering it.

By the way, Grok is right-leaning, so I only use him as an arbitern when my opponent is also right-leaning. I've explained this before. But thanks for the insult-by-proxy.

Shall I call on our little friend again?

HK. What freedom it had was due to its flawed democracy. Once that went, so did its freedoms.

Singapore is a democracy. Not as democratic as most western nations but democratic nonetheless. Your squibbing like "limited electoral competition" shows you know this also.

Your claims about Medieval Europe are laughable and show someone desperately clutch for straws that aren't there.

"Just stop pretending it rests on libertarian principle"

I never said that. But overthrowing an illegitimate authoritarian regime to try to restore democracy isn't antithetical to libertarianism. I doubt you understand the difference.

If you saw Rubio's recent stint in Congress you'll see multiple reasons for the action, one of which was restoring democracy.

"Grok is right-leaning,"
On some matters. Not others.

"Shall I call on our little friend again? "

Go ahead if it sooths your wounded pride. But every time you do just shows how you don't understand how these AI bots work.

We're now just going in circles, mhaze.

You keep redefining "democracy" until any case of liberty outside your preferred model is ruled out by definition. That's not argument, it's tautology. If "liberty outside democracy doesn't count because it must secretly be democracy", then your claim is unfalsifiable.

Hong Kong's freedoms did not derive from democratic rule. They derived from rule of law, constrained executive power, and institutional limits on coercion. Those can exist without democracy, and history shows they often preceded it. Saying "once democracy went, freedom went" simply assumes what you're trying to prove.

Singapore calling itself a democracy doesn't help you either. The point was never whether elections exist, but whether liberty is reducible to electoral mechanics. It isn't. Democracies routinely violate liberty, non-democratic systems have sometimes protected it.

And you are now retreating from your own earlier claim. You explicitly said coercion to rid people of oppressors is "always right". That is not libertarian reasoning. It's outcome-driven moralism. Calling it "not antithetical to libertarianism" doesn't make it so.

At this point the disagreement is clear: You treat democracy as a moral solvent that cleanses coercion. I don't.

//On some matters. Not others.//

You're making that up, which is why you won't specify when it is right-leaning and when it is not. Nor will you explain how.

You're the one who redefined Singapore's democracy as "limited electoral competition" and now you accuse me of doing what you routinely do. Projection lives.

"And you are now retreating from your own earlier claim. You explicitly said coercion to rid people of oppressors is "always right".

Yes its always right. That doesn't mean its the sole or main reason for doing it. But doing it is compatible with libertarianism. I predicted you wouldn't understand it... you're becoming predictable.

"you won't specify when it is right-leaning and when it is not"

If I'm asked to do so on a particular issue, happy to do it.

BTW, out of interest I asked Grok to find Medieval European societies where libertarian-like systems existed outside democracy. It came back with "Icelandic Commonwealth, ~930–1262 CE". Pretty funny. You base your claims on that? Mere hand-waving doesn't come close to describing it.

This is now very simple, mhaze.

You say coercion to rid people of oppressors is "always right", and that this is compatible with libertarianism. That is the entire disagreement.

Libertarianism is defined by limits on coercion. Once coercion is declared "always right" whenever the goal is approved, there is no limiting principle left. The harm principle is gone. Non-aggression is gone. What remains is outcome-based moral licensing.

Calling that "compatible with libertarianism" doesn't make it so. It just empties the term of meaning.

At that point, debating Singapore, Hong Kong, or medieval Iceland is beside the point. You are defending consequentialism. I am defending constraints on power.

We're not misunderstanding each other. We're disagreeing at the level of first principles.

//BTW, out of interest I asked Grok to find Medieval European societies where libertarian-like systems existed outside democracy. It came back with "Icelandic Commonwealth, ~930–1262 CE". Pretty funny.//

I never claimed medieval Europe was libertarian, or even libertarian-like. I claimed that liberty is not logically dependent on democracy, and history shows liberties often pre-dated democratic institutions. Mocking Iceland doesn't touch that argument.

//You base your claims on that?//

Clearly not. But you've gone and used it as a red herring anyway.

I asked for an example of societies protecting liberties existing outside democracy. You responded with three poor examples extracted from Grok one of which was so poor you tried to hide it by breezily referring to Europe when it was really about archaic Iceland. And then when outed tried to deny everything.

Its like trying to hold rancid custard in your fingers. It has no substance and keeps leaking through and isn't worth the effort anyway.

And you got them, mhaze.

//I asked for an example of societies protecting liberties existing outside democracy.//

None of which were from Grok, either. (I've made my feelings about Grok in the past clear, so you're wasting your time mentioning it.)

Again, I never claimed medieval Europe was libertarian, only that liberty is not logically dependent on democracy.

You’re arguing a claim I didn’t make.

Here's something that HAS come from Grok, though. Enjoy:

Question:
Out of mhaze and John Daysh, who in the attached debate is more intellectually honest?

Grok:
John Daysh is more intellectually honest in this debate.

Here are the key indicators from the exchange that lead to that assessment:

• Engagement with the strongest version of the opponent's argument
...

• Avoidance of motive caricature (mostly)
...

• Consistency on first principles
...

By contrast, mhaze shows several patterns that reduce intellectual honesty:

• Repeated motive attribution as primary explanation
...

• Ends-justify-means framing presented as libertarian
...

• Tautological redefinition and goalpost movement
...

• Dismissal rather than engagement on key examples
...

Neither participant is perfect—both occasionally score minor rhetorical points—but Daysh is far more consistent about staying on the principled merits of the libertarian case against intervention, quoting opponents accurately, and forcing the debate back to the hardest question for the pro-intervention side. mhaze relies more heavily on asserting democracy as an axiomatic prerequisite for liberty, approvingly licensing coercion when the target is disliked, and explaining disagreement via opponents' supposed tribal defects.

Therefore, on intellectual honesty—defined as faithfully representing the opposing view, maintaining internal consistency, and directly confronting rather than evading the strongest counter-arguments—John Daysh is clearly ahead in this thread.

http://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5LWNvcHk_6071708d-93f2-4fc3-94de-105fb21ef9bf
http://drive.google.com/file/d/1gpWcIJ2cCthOd17FnGid7aO2V4Yii-eX

"Shall I call on our little friend again? "

Go ahead if it sooths your wounded pride. But every time you do just shows how you don't understand how these AI bots work.

I just did, mhaze.

//Go ahead [and call on our little friend again] if it sooths your wounded pride.//

And it doesn't appear that I'm the one whose pride should be wounded. Nor does it appear, from your latest reply, that I'm the one with the wounded pride.

//...every time you do just shows how you don't understand how these AI bots work.//

Feel free to elaborate. Why, you could use Grok's last analysis above as a prime example!

Fat chance, eh?