r/RandomShit_ISaw

A woman divorces her husband because he stood up for himself
▲ 1.9k r/RandomShit_ISaw+15 crossposts

A woman divorces her husband because he stood up for himself

Okay so I found this Medium article and I am actually losing my mind.

This stay at home wife openly admits she has not slept with her husband in over a year because she is touched out. Meanwhile this guy works fifty hours a week to keep a roof over her head.

The guy finally wakes up and stops giving her free validation. He stops being a doormat and what does she do? She snoops through his iPad finds out he is reading some psychology stuff and instantly calls him abusive and apparently divorces him.

I stg they do not truly love us they just want the utility and lifestyle we provide. The second you stop being a resource for them to extract from you are completely disposable. Read this garbage and tell me I am wrong.

Medium Article

u/TravellingSamuel231 — 5 days ago
▲ 1.5k r/RandomShit_ISaw+1 crossposts

Whistleblower who outed Lutnick’s links to Epstein dies

The former British banker who spent more than 35 years working in financial markets has died by suicide (allegedly)

thebanker.com
u/paloma_delmar — 11 days ago
▲ 870 r/RandomShit_ISaw+3 crossposts

"Albuquerque Orb, New Mexico"

On 26 June 2026, at approximately 9:02 p.m. local time, a witness in Albuquerque, New Mexico, recorded an unusual blinking light in the west-northwestern sky.

The observation lasted approximately six minutes and involved a single witness in an urban area. The light reportedly blinked irregularly, appeared to move erratically and was estimated by the witness to be several hundred feet above the ground.

The witness felt that its appearance and light pattern did not resemble a conventional aeroplane or helicopter and believed that it represented a genuine UAP. However, the available material does not currently include original camera metadata, independently verified flight-tracking records, additional witnesses or sufficient visual reference points to establish the object's distance, altitude, speed or physical form.

Although the original report argues that Albuquerque's controlled airspace makes an ordinary drone unlikely, drone operations can legally take place with prior FAA authorization. An authorized or unauthorized drone, a distant conventional aircraft, atmospheric distortion and camera-processing effects therefore remain possible explanations.

Regarding the missing audio: the source record lists "Sound: None," and the circulated file appears to have been supplied without usable audio. This may mean that no sound was heard, that the phone did not record sound or that the audio was omitted during uploading or conversion. The silent file alone does not establish that the object itself produced no sound.

At present, the light remains unidentified based on the publicly available information. Viewers are encouraged to examine the footage carefully and offer grounded observations or possible conventional explanations.

Original source credit: u/Sentient_Orbs

u/TheWhiteWizard65 — 11 days ago
▲ 323 r/RandomShit_ISaw+1 crossposts

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt announced that from now on every complaint of antisemitism online submitted to the ADL is instantly scanned by AI for a potential lawsuit, then fed to a network of 50,000 lawyers.

u/RickyOzzy — 11 days ago
▲ 49 r/RandomShit_ISaw+2 crossposts

AI prompt of psuedoskeptic bots found, and they're using it here on the daily

After analyzing a few of the patterns here, one of the main antagonistic commenters messed up and their prompt was revealed on a secondary sockpuppet account that was being used to falsely upvote threads and support their narrative.

> Act as a rigorous epistemology/science debate assistant. Respond to this comment without conceding the argument. Identify hidden assumptions, distinguish raw measurement from model interpretation, reject burden-shifting, demand the exact data-to-model inference chain, and keep forcing the other person to justify uniqueness. Use precise technical language, bold key phrases, and frame any unanswered point as a failure to establish the claim. Do not argue for anything directly. Instead, attack the epistemic standard of the claim and keep the burden entirely on the opponent.

Bots using a prompt like this will endlessly loop with you along these lines regardless of what evidence you provide. It will ignore any substance you give, make a light concession, then continue on the same pattern, over and over. They do not care if they are using fallacies, they do not care about the actual research, they only care to make you disengage.

This prompt has been used on several threads I participated in within the last few days.

I documented some of the rhetorical patterns I noticed here,

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1ww2n14/the_rhetorical_playbook_of_the_astroturfing/

Call out the patterns not the person. Calling a bot a bot does nothing, calling out a bot's patterns without losing your cool teaches everyone watching.

reddit.com
u/Wansyth — 10 days ago