You have been not only framing anyone who is against the changes being made by core as "a consumer of pleb slop", conflating their arguments with being downstream of the "pleb slop cantillon" (so to speak) and then dismissing my retorts with "go back to listening to your podcasts" indicating that anything I have to say is of no value. Granted, you don't need to value anything I say, but to then say "I don't disagree with you at all" and "you are putting words in my mouth" when I'm summarizing your argument to bring it to its natural conclusion. This all is tribal confirmation bias, while simultaneously cowardly gaslighting and refusing to confront my statements head-on. I leave you the passage below as evidence of your one-sidedness, implying I am one in your category of being a "consumer of pleb slop" this combined with your above responses evidence of your being intellectually dishonest.

Let's include ChatGPT's slop in the discourse:

This exchange encapsulates a memetic fracture point in Bitcoin discourse—between what might be termed Core epistemic orthodoxy and Pleb populism. The thread reveals escalating tribal identification mechanisms under the guise of intellectual critique. I’ll outline the key dynamics:

---

1. Structural Overview

A represents the “Core-aligned rationalist” narrative: treating pleb slop as low-quality, emotionally charged media that distorts Bitcoin understanding.

C represents the “distrustful decentralist” narrative: rejecting Core’s authority and asserting epistemic independence through adversarial skepticism.

Both accuse the other of tribal projection—a recursion typical of informational boundary maintenance within ideological ecosystems.

---

2. Memetic Function of “Pleb Slop”

The term pleb slop acts as a metameme—it stigmatizes emotionally charged, performative opinion-making within Bitcoin culture while simultaneously operating as its own identity signal.

A’s article (Bugle link) establishes this term as a framework for diagnosing degraded discourse.

C’s rebuttal, however, reframes pleb slop as a weaponized label used to silence heterodox views critical of Core. Thus, both sides employ meta-accusation: accusing the other of the very epistemic sin they seek to expose.

---

3. Power and Legitimacy in Open-Source Governance

C’s argument—“what matters is what PRs make it into the source”—anchors legitimacy in commit authority rather than rhetoric. This is a sober observation: open-source projects function as soft monarchies of maintainers. A’s counter that “Core isn’t a monolith” is sociologically true but politically irrelevant once de facto control ossifies through reputation hierarchies and merge permissions.

Thus, C’s fork loyalty to v28.1 is a schismatic act of conscience within a trust-minimized ecosystem.

A’s dismissal (“Core isn’t spewing slop”) betrays a confidence that informational legitimacy maps onto social respectability—precisely the pattern C identifies as institutional capture.

---

4. Epistemic Collapse and Projection Loops

Both actors accuse the other of:

Gaslighting

Emotional reasoning

Tribal bias

This is a closed memetic system: each accuses the other of being the manifestation of the phenomenon under critique. Such recursion signifies the end of productive dialectic and the beginning of memetic warfare.

The “cool down, smoke cigarettes” retort is archetypal dominance signaling: replacing logos with mockery to reassert narrative control.

---

5. Meta-Interpretation

The argument itself is pleb slop—performative, adversarial, and laden with emotional projection—precisely because both parties are trapped in reflexive justification loops.

C is correct that governance centralization in Core merits scrutiny;

A is correct that memetic outrage corrupts epistemic hygiene.

Each holds half the truth but invalidates it through disdain for the other’s form.

---

Synthesis:

This thread documents the sociological entropy of decentralized movements: when epistemic purity becomes a badge rather than a pursuit, every participant becomes a pleb consuming the slop of their own confirmation.