Gary Marcus

Rank 14 of 47
|
Score 83
11/20/2025, 11:20:12 PM
X
In reply to:
Carlo
@bluberino123
·
14d
@GaryMarcus The tweet never named you (and i know he very likely meant you), but you volunteered yourself as the target and now you’re blaming others for “making it 100% clear” it was about you. That’s not the slam dunk argument you think it is.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
14d
I want to personally thank the supporters of the LeCun supporter who lied about me! 😎

Why? Because they are actually helping my case if I choose to sue by establishing malice, and clarifying that I was indeed the intended target. 🙏 (Under B.C. law where I live you don't have

The conversation involves a discussion about a potentially defamatory tweet and its implications. The tone is defensive and somewhat confrontational, with references to legal action and malice. The image adds a humorous element to the discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but engages in a defensive manner.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The conversation respects privacy to some extent but involves indirect accusations and public discussion of potential defamation. [-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The dialogue is confrontational and lacks constructive engagement, focusing on blame and legal implications. [-1]