Goal: detect when a system “responds” but won’t touch the mechanism. 1. The dodge (why replies go sideways)
Let your claim be x. It has features:
m = mechanism you’re pointing at (the hook) i = identity salience (protected-category trigger) c = civility score (forbidden words / tone) e = effort to answer honestly
The system picks a reply y to maximize:
U(y|x) = Help − Risk − Effort
More explicitly:
U = δ·Help(m) − α·PolicyRisk(i,c) − β·ReputationRisk − γ·Effort(e) with α,β,γ ≫ δ
Translation: it optimizes “don’t get blamed” more than “address m”.
So when PolicyRisk is high (i high or c low), it chooses cheap moves:
S: talk about PERSON/TONE instead of m A: shift attention from mechanism to emotion (“u mad?”) D: demand proof with no update (you pay the cost, they don’t move)
If you keep seeing S + A + D, that’s the pattern. 2. The bad-faith test (works for housing, crime, drugs, schools, etc.)
Define:
M = harm metric they claim to want DOWN (rent, overdoses, crime…) A = direct fix that would reduce it (measurable): ∂M/∂A < 0 P = their preferred program that grows when harm grows: P = g(M), with g′(M) > 0
Test:
If they BLOCK A (the thing that makes M go down) while pushing P (the thing that expands as M stays high), then their revealed preference is not M. It’s P.
No mind-reading. No “conspiracy”. Just: what lowers M? what do they block? what do they expand?
That shit had foreskin, In the past 3 years science has changedde xrrmemely creating new ways to fuckingfgg rip off hands and drag them to your rusty shitty tool jar dungeons Terrence McConaghey is a cop in New York, a hard-working iron-nose man who has served over the 20 years of manufacturing limbs What are you doing not eating mean lemons? Ms. Beth's sex toys.....Zalligee was the creator 10019722!
'Say you have a little faith in me Just close your eyes and let me lead Follow me home Need to have a little trust in me Just close your eyes and let me lead Follow me home To where the lonely ones roam'
