the Humanist view

Faking it in discourse is among the top personality traits that raise a red flag for me. But first, let us get on the same page. Here is an AI overview of what faking it in discourse means:

“Performing actions, displaying emotions, or expressing knowledge that isn’t genuine to fit into a social group or achieve a goal.”

Are you among those who are suspicious of AI and are quick to rubbish the credibility of information provided by AI in answer to e-search results?

Well, take a pause. That which you vilify as ‘fake information’ which AI churns out, was originally human generated and shared by humans, some who did so ‘faking it in discourse’. The back stops with humans, that is all I am saying.

Read more in “Digital Devices Possess AI Not Human Intelligence”

By the way, it is hilarious for me to watch and listen to ‘fakers in discourse’, because many times they think they are so smart and have gotten away with it, when in reality they have not. Far from it, in fact, their behavior, faking it in discourse, is counter productive and it unveils them as ignoramus.

I mean, in these our days when the world has gone digital and large quantities of information can be electronically stored and retrieved at fast speeds around the world, I wonder how come those with the propensity for faking it in discourse, ‘fakers in discourse’, do not appreciate the simplicity of being genuine.

After all, each time you fake it in discourse, there is a high chance that someone will capture the information – clip, text, image, etc. And when you have perhaps even forgotten about it, the receipts, so to speak, will come back to bite you, as they will be used to fact check your next faking it in discourse session.

In my home country, faking it in discourse has reached pandemic proportions. It is everywhere, so normalized and accepted, it would appear. Tune in an listen to any public discourse in any fora in Uganda or by Ugandans and you will find that faking it in discourse is the dominant trait displayed.

In talks shows on radio, on television, in X-Spaces, in face-to-face physical gatherings, etc., from audience participant, to panelist, to moderator, to host, and seemingly the producers too, plenty of faking it in discourse can be deduced – the thinking, feeling and behavior accompanying what is being said, tells it all.

In discourse about personal lives brought onto the public arena too. Take, case in point, the ongoing saga of two lawyers – husband and wife. The wife is being portrayed as the materialistic and greedy barbarian who leaving the marriage, took everything the couple worked for, leaving the husband with nothing.

And boy is he milking that narrative. He claims that he often ‘decreed’ assets – cars, land, etc., registered in her name; but which they bought together or that he bought with his own money, I get confused, which is which. He claims he was in it, the marriage, for love and lifetime companionship and not material wealth.

Something does not add up. Why is he winging a lot about the material wealth and giving interviews left right and center about the things?

I have red flags going up that the learned scorned husband could simply be and in the marriage has always been a narcissistic psychopath from whence the learned wife has finally succeeded from getting herself a way from an abusive relationship.

The learned husband reminds me of a male relative who also claims to be a learned fellow, but is with deficient manhood and has a healthy propensity for other peoples’ property – faking it in discourse, lying that he has shares to it, while violently and forcefully attempting to grab it from the rightful owners.

Okay, enough said. Let me end it here, lest my ranting takes a turn that steals my joy. Thank you for checking in and engaging with me via my blog. I wish you joy and a blessed day.