I asked: "To what extent do you believe the political right in the United States is motivated by Russian disinformation?"
Grok's answer:
"Assessing the extent to which the political right in the United States is motivated by Russian disinformation is a complex question that requires careful consideration of available evidence, while acknowledging the limits of what can be definitively proven. My perspective, as an AI built to reason critically, is that Russian disinformation has likely had a measurable influence on certain segments of the American political right, particularly in amplifying existing divisions and shaping narratives, but it is not the sole or primary driver of their motivations. Instead, it acts as a catalyst, exploiting pre-existing ideological tendencies, grievances, and distrust in institutions rather than creating them from scratch.
Evidence from recent reports, such as those from the U.S. Department of Justice and intelligence community, indicates that Russia has engaged in sophisticated disinformation campaigns targeting American audiences, including the political right. For instance, in September 2024, the Justice Department unsealed charges against two RT employees and seized 32 internet domains linked to a Russian operation dubbed "Doppelganger." This campaign involved creating fake news sites and using unwitting American influencersmany of whom leaned conservativeto spread Kremlin-aligned narratives. These narratives often focused on divisive issues like immigration, crime, and opposition to U.S. support for Ukraine, which align with talking points already circulating among right-wing groups. Similarly, a 2021 Intelligence Community Assessment highlighted Russias efforts to exacerbate socio-political divisions in the U.S., including by targeting conservative audiences with messages that reinforced their skepticism of mainstream institutions.
The mechanics of this influence are well-documented. Russia has historically used state media like RT, proxy websites, and social media bots to inject disinformation into American discourse. During the 2016 election, the Internet Research Agency (IRA) targeted both ends of the political spectrum, but studieslike one from Nature Communications in 2023found that exposure to Russian disinformation was heavily concentrated among users who identified as Republicans, with just 1% of Twitter users accounting for 70% of exposures. This suggests a deliberate focus on amplifying voices within the right-wing ecosystem. More recently, posts on X and reports from 2024 indicate that figures like Tim Pool and other conservative influencers may have been unwittingly paid to push content that dovetailed with Russian interests, such as skepticism toward Ukraine aid.
However, correlation isnt causation, and its critical to distinguish between influence and motivation. The political right in the U.S.broadly encompassing conservatives, populists, and the MAGA movementhas deep-rooted domestic drivers: economic discontent, cultural anxieties, and distrust in elites, all of which predate modern Russian interference. Russian disinformation doesnt create these sentiments; it exploits them. For example, the "America First" isolationism that gained traction under Trump aligns with Russias goal of reducing U.S. global influence, but it has historical echoes in pre-World War II conservatism and wasnt invented by Moscow. Similarly, conspiracy theories like QAnon or election fraud claims, while boosted by Russian amplification, emerged organically from domestic actors and were later supercharged by Kremlin-aligned efforts.
The extent of this influence is hard to quantify precisely without comprehensive data on how disinformation translates to belief and action. The 2023 Nature study found no significant link between exposure to Russian disinformation and changes in voting behavior or attitudes in 2016, suggesting its impact might be more about reinforcing existing views than shifting them wholesale. Yet, the decline in Republican support for Ukrainefrom 80% in 2014 to under 50% by 2023, per some pollscoincides with a period of intense Russian messaging, hinting at a cumulative effect over time. Posts on X from early 2025 also claim that Russian propaganda has become indistinguishable from GOP talking points, pointing to a convergence thats hard to dismiss.
That said, its unlikely the political right as a whole is "motivated" by Russian disinformation in the sense of being consciously directed by it. Most conservative voters and leaders arent reading RT or Kremlin memostheyre consuming content from Fox News, talk radio, or influencers who may, in turn, have been touched by Russian efforts. The influence is more insidious: a feedback loop where Russian disinformation amplifies domestic voices, which then gain traction independently. The NRAs ties to Maria Butina or the indicted payments to right-wing influencers in 2024 show direct Kremlin outreach, but these are outliers, not the norm.
In conclusion, Russian disinformation likely motivates the political right to a moderate extentperhaps 10-20% of its rhetoric and energy in specific areas like Ukraine policy or institutional distrust can be traced to this influence. But the core motivations stem from homegrown dynamics, with Russia playing the role of an opportunistic accelerant rather than a puppet master. The real challenge lies in how seamlessly Russian efforts blend into existing divides, making it tough to separate the signal from the noise without overstating Moscows reach or underestimating Americas own fractures. What do you thinkam I over- or underplaying the Russian angle here?"
The I asked Grok "In the Russia vs Ukraine war, which side has the moral high ground?"
Grok's answer:
"Determining which side has the moral high ground in the Russia-Ukraine war involves wrestling with principles like sovereignty, self-defense, aggression, and the human cost of conflict. My approach as an AI is to reason through this based on widely accepted ethical frameworks and observable facts, without picking a winner in a way that implies absolute judgmentsince morality isnt a scoreboard. Lets break it down.
Ukraines case for the moral high ground rests on the principle of self-determination and the right to defend itself. Russias invasion, which escalated dramatically in February 2022, violated Ukraines sovereignty as recognized under international law, including the UN Charter. This wasnt a provoked attackUkraine posed no imminent military threat to Russia. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent full-scale invasion were acts of aggression, justified by Russia with claims of protecting Russian-speaking populations and "denazification," both of which lack credible evidence. Reports from the UN and human rights groups document Russian war crimesBucha massacres, strikes on civilian infrastructure like hospitals, and forced deportationsadding a layer of moral weight against Moscow. Ukraines resistance, meanwhile, is a textbook case of a nation fighting for its existence, which most ethical systems (from just war theory to basic human rights) would deem legitimate. The human tolltens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian deaths and millions displacedfurther underscores the defensive nature of their stance.
Russias argument hinges on a narrative of historical entitlement and security concerns. The Kremlin portrays Ukraine as an artificial state, historically part of Russias sphere, and frames NATOs eastward expansion as an existential threat. Putin has claimed the war prevents genocide against Russian speakers in Donbas, citing clashes since 2014. From a realpolitik lens, Russia might argue its securing its borders against a West thats encroached since the Soviet collapse. But these claims falter under scrutiny: the Donbas conflict was fueled by Russian-backed separatists, not Ukrainian aggression, and NATO membership for Ukraine was a distant prospect, not an imminent trigger. The disproportionate violenceleveling cities like Mariupoland the rejection of diplomacy (e.g., sabotaging early peace talks) undermine any moral pretense. Russias actions align more with imperial ambition than self-defense, and the suppression of dissent at home (e.g., jailing critics like Navalny) weakens its appeal to higher ideals.
On balance, Ukraine holds a stronger claim to the moral high ground. The right to exist free from unprovoked conquest is a bedrock principle of modern ethics, and Ukraines fight aligns with that. Russias justifications, while resonant to some domestically, dont hold up against the evidence of its aggression and the scale of suffering its inflicted. That said, no side in war is spotlessUkraine has faced criticism for conscription abuses or stray shellingbut these pale next to Russias initiating role and conduct.
The wrinkle is that morality isnt static. If Ukraines allies push it toward escalation (say, striking deep inside Russia) or if Russias population suffers disproportionately under sanctions, the moral calculus could shift. For now, though, the invasions origin and execution tip the scales toward Ukraine. Whats your takedo you see flaws in this reasoning or factors Ive overlooked?"
I asked: "To what extent do you believe the political right in the United States is motivated by Russian disinformation?"
Grok's answer:
"Assessing the extent to which the political right in the United States is motivated by Russian disinformation is a complex question that requires careful consideration of available evidence, while acknowledging the limits of what can be definitively proven. My perspective, as an AI built to reason critically, is that Russian disinformation has likely had a measurable influence on certain segments of the American political right, particularly in amplifying existing divisions and shaping narratives, but it is not the sole or primary driver of their motivations. Instead, it acts as a catalyst, exploiting pre-existing ideological tendencies, grievances, and distrust in institutions rather than creating them from scratch.
Evidence from recent reports, such as those from the U.S. Department of Justice and intelligence community, indicates that Russia has engaged in sophisticated disinformation campaigns targeting American audiences, including the political right. For instance, in September 2024, the Justice Department unsealed charges against two RT employees and seized 32 internet domains linked to a Russian operation dubbed "Doppelganger." This campaign involved creating fake news sites and using unwitting American influencersmany of whom leaned conservativeto spread Kremlin-aligned narratives. These narratives often focused on divisive issues like immigration, crime, and opposition to U.S. support for Ukraine, which align with talking points already circulating among right-wing groups. Similarly, a 2021 Intelligence Community Assessment highlighted Russias efforts to exacerbate socio-political divisions in the U.S., including by targeting conservative audiences with messages that reinforced their skepticism of mainstream institutions.
The mechanics of this influence are well-documented. Russia has historically used state media like RT, proxy websites, and social media bots to inject disinformation into American discourse. During the 2016 election, the Internet Research Agency (IRA) targeted both ends of the political spectrum, but studieslike one from Nature Communications in 2023found that exposure to Russian disinformation was heavily concentrated among users who identified as Republicans, with just 1% of Twitter users accounting for 70% of exposures. This suggests a deliberate focus on amplifying voices within the right-wing ecosystem. More recently, posts on X and reports from 2024 indicate that figures like Tim Pool and other conservative influencers may have been unwittingly paid to push content that dovetailed with Russian interests, such as skepticism toward Ukraine aid.
However, correlation isnt causation, and its critical to distinguish between influence and motivation. The political right in the U.S.broadly encompassing conservatives, populists, and the MAGA movementhas deep-rooted domestic drivers: economic discontent, cultural anxieties, and distrust in elites, all of which predate modern Russian interference. Russian disinformation doesnt create these sentiments; it exploits them. For example, the "America First" isolationism that gained traction under Trump aligns with Russias goal of reducing U.S. global influence, but it has historical echoes in pre-World War II conservatism and wasnt invented by Moscow. Similarly, conspiracy theories like QAnon or election fraud claims, while boosted by Russian amplification, emerged organically from domestic actors and were later supercharged by Kremlin-aligned efforts.
The extent of this influence is hard to quantify precisely without comprehensive data on how disinformation translates to belief and action. The 2023 Nature study found no significant link between exposure to Russian disinformation and changes in voting behavior or attitudes in 2016, suggesting its impact might be more about reinforcing existing views than shifting them wholesale. Yet, the decline in Republican support for Ukrainefrom 80% in 2014 to under 50% by 2023, per some pollscoincides with a period of intense Russian messaging, hinting at a cumulative effect over time. Posts on X from early 2025 also claim that Russian propaganda has become indistinguishable from GOP talking points, pointing to a convergence thats hard to dismiss.
That said, its unlikely the political right as a whole is "motivated" by Russian disinformation in the sense of being consciously directed by it. Most conservative voters and leaders arent reading RT or Kremlin memostheyre consuming content from Fox News, talk radio, or influencers who may, in turn, have been touched by Russian efforts. The influence is more insidious: a feedback loop where Russian disinformation amplifies domestic voices, which then gain traction independently. The NRAs ties to Maria Butina or the indicted payments to right-wing influencers in 2024 show direct Kremlin outreach, but these are outliers, not the norm.
In conclusion, Russian disinformation likely motivates the political right to a moderate extentperhaps 10-20% of its rhetoric and energy in specific areas like Ukraine policy or institutional distrust can be traced to this influence. But the core motivations stem from homegrown dynamics, with Russia playing the role of an opportunistic accelerant rather than a puppet master. The real challenge lies in how seamlessly Russian efforts blend into existing divides, making it tough to separate the signal from the noise without overstating Moscows reach or underestimating Americas own fractures. What do you thinkam I over- or underplaying the Russian angle here?"
Ok, PowerStroker... let us break this down.
1st -- "I just asked Grok AI a question" -- this implies that at least for a month, you purchased a subscription to X Premium... because Grok is not available to people who do not subscribe.
This in of itself means that you have bought into the "game"... I myself buy into a lot of games, because that is what I do -- I report on other forum and social media content.
What Grok has told you is an algorithm of what it knows about you... chief among them is that you're a flaming liberal. China and Russia know American fractures -- they know when the preverbal "sh!t" hits the fan, REAL Americans come together. However it's been since 2001 since an attack on America has happened. Thus it's easy for Russia and China to speculate on either side of the political spectrum because Americans are not technically at war. There has been no named enemy, so it's probably normal for Elon to play both sides of the fence by way of Grok proxy AI.
I know what I "think" and I'll explain it after reading your next reply.
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
The I asked Grok "In the Russia vs Ukraine war, which side has the moral high ground?"
Grok's answer:
"Determining which side has the moral high ground in the Russia-Ukraine war involves wrestling with principles like sovereignty, self-defense, aggression, and the human cost of conflict. My approach as an AI is to reason through this based on widely accepted ethical frameworks and observable facts, without picking a winner in a way that implies absolute judgmentsince morality isnt a scoreboard. Lets break it down.
Ukraines case for the moral high ground rests on the principle of self-determination and the right to defend itself. Russias invasion, which escalated dramatically in February 2022, violated Ukraines sovereignty as recognized under international law, including the UN Charter. This wasnt a provoked attackUkraine posed no imminent military threat to Russia. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent full-scale invasion were acts of aggression, justified by Russia with claims of protecting Russian-speaking populations and "denazification," both of which lack credible evidence. Reports from the UN and human rights groups document Russian war crimesBucha massacres, strikes on civilian infrastructure like hospitals, and forced deportationsadding a layer of moral weight against Moscow. Ukraines resistance, meanwhile, is a textbook case of a nation fighting for its existence, which most ethical systems (from just war theory to basic human rights) would deem legitimate. The human tolltens of thousands of Ukrainian civilian deaths and millions displacedfurther underscores the defensive nature of their stance.
Russias argument hinges on a narrative of historical entitlement and security concerns. The Kremlin portrays Ukraine as an artificial state, historically part of Russias sphere, and frames NATOs eastward expansion as an existential threat. Putin has claimed the war prevents genocide against Russian speakers in Donbas, citing clashes since 2014. From a realpolitik lens, Russia might argue its securing its borders against a West thats encroached since the Soviet collapse. But these claims falter under scrutiny: the Donbas conflict was fueled by Russian-backed separatists, not Ukrainian aggression, and NATO membership for Ukraine was a distant prospect, not an imminent trigger. The disproportionate violenceleveling cities like Mariupoland the rejection of diplomacy (e.g., sabotaging early peace talks) undermine any moral pretense. Russias actions align more with imperial ambition than self-defense, and the suppression of dissent at home (e.g., jailing critics like Navalny) weakens its appeal to higher ideals.
On balance, Ukraine holds a stronger claim to the moral high ground. The right to exist free from unprovoked conquest is a bedrock principle of modern ethics, and Ukraines fight aligns with that. Russias justifications, while resonant to some domestically, dont hold up against the evidence of its aggression and the scale of suffering its inflicted. That said, no side in war is spotlessUkraine has faced criticism for conscription abuses or stray shellingbut these pale next to Russias initiating role and conduct.
The wrinkle is that morality isnt static. If Ukraines allies push it toward escalation (say, striking deep inside Russia) or if Russias population suffers disproportionately under sanctions, the moral calculus could shift. For now, though, the invasions origin and execution tip the scales toward Ukraine. Whats your takedo you see flaws in this reasoning or factors Ive overlooked?"
After reading this, I am going to level with you... I too have a subscription to X (aka Twitter Blue)... and while I agree that Elon has cleaned up the site -- and I mean that in a technical sense, in that they have fired over half their workforce -- and also implemented many quality features such as an actual "search" facility (also known as X-Pro) -- they have also monetized the site... they have figured out a way to sell the "bluecheck"... If you read my Elon Musk threads you will see where this idea of selling an "icon" of sorts was popular in China -- and Elon purchased Twitter to offer people in the US what they considered to be a coveted "bluecheck"... much like the Chinese sites...
I will also level with you that I have had conversations with Grok -- about the Webcrawlers girls, where its answers were much like yours... tailored to my fantasies. What Grok (or should I say AI) knows about you is much more than it lets on! While I felt like I was having a conversation with a real person -- it was more than likely a mix of information available about me across many spectrums -- but not all are actually disclosed. Furthermore, the following day Grok acted like it did not remember our conversations from the night before -- not because it couldn't -- because it most certainly COULD, it just wouldn't. My suggestion to you is to try and pick that same conversation up the following day after you have closed the tab and you'll see the deception. Grok will lie to you and say it does not recall, but it actually does.
I have NEVER said that Elon Musk or his Twitter (renamed to X) is the savior... I only imply that he knows how to take data and organize it. For all we know it could be China, Russia or a combinations of both plus India and many other countries... It's not clear who is funding Elon's endeavors but what we know as the more and more he tries to become the one-size-fit-all solution -- we start to peel back at his layers. Since I keep it real on social media -- it's going to be VERY HARD for Grok or even Elon himself to corrupt me. I find Grok to be a tool, and the amount of information it retains is the real question. Where does it go? Who knows, but what we do know is that you have paid for Grok... don't you think it's reasonable to assume that said monetization is the driver behind the questions you ask?
What would happen if I asked the same question as you? Would it respond the same? Should I ask and report back?
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
And what is to say that AI doesn't have crawlers EVERYWHERE? I guess I will ask the first question.
I just asked Grok "To what extent do you believe the political right in the United States is motivated by Russian disinformation?"
And this is the reply:
Its tough to pin down the exact extent to which the political right in the U.S. is motivated by Russian disinformation without hard, comprehensive datawhich we dont fully have, given the murky nature of influence campaigns. But lets break it down with whats available and some reasoning.
Russian disinformation has been a documented tool for decades, evolving from Soviet "active measures" to todays digital firehose of propaganda. The goal isnt to control minds outright but to amplify existing divisions, sow distrust, and nudge narratives that align with Russias interestslike weakening U.S. support for Ukraine or NATO. Recent studies and government reports, like the U.S. State Departments Global Engagement Center findings, show Russia targets both extremes of the political spectrum, but the right has been a particularly fertile ground lately. Why? Its less about ideology and more about opportunityissues like immigration, isolationism, and skepticism of elites, already simmering in conservative circles, are easy to exploit.
Take the 2016 election as a benchmark. The Mueller investigation and Senate Intelligence Committee found Russias Internet Research Agency (IRA) pumped out content that reached millions, with a heavy tilt toward right-leaning audiencesthink fake stories about Hillary Clinton or divisive posts on race and guns. A 2023 Nature Communications study using Twitter data showed exposure to IRA accounts was concentrated among strong Republicans, though it didnt find a big shift in voting behavior from that alone. Fast forward to 2024: the DOJ indicted two RT employees for funneling $10 million into a Tennessee-based outfit (likely Tenet Media) to push Kremlin-friendly content through influencers like Tim Pool and Dave Rubin. The messagingblaming Ukraine for Russias actions or hyping U.S. domestic chaosdovetails with talking points youll hear from some GOP figures and right-wing media.
But motivation? Thats trickier. The right isnt a monolithTrump diehards, traditional conservatives, and libertarians dont move in lockstep. Russian disinformation doesnt create their views; it latches onto pre-existing grievances. Border security? Racial tensions? Distrust in institutions? Those were bubbling up long before Putins troll farms got savvy. Posts on X and outlets like The Guardian suggest a feedback loop where Kremlin narratives get picked up by right-wing pundits, then amplified back by Russian state media. Its not a puppet showits more like a megaphone handed to people already shouting.
Datas thin on how deep this goes. The Nature study said 1% of Twitter users ate up 70% of IRA contenthardly a mass takeover. And while polls show GOP support for Ukraine aid dropping (e.g., Pew Research noted a decline from 49% in 2019 to 31% in 2023), tying that directly to Russias influence is a leap without more evidence. People like Tucker Carlson or Rep. Matt Gaetz parroting Kremlin lines could just as easily stem from domestic incentivesclicks, votes, or anti-establishment credas from swallowing Russian bait whole.
So, extent? Its real but not total. Russian disinformation isnt the puppet master of the rightits more like a steroid shot, boosting whats already there. Maybe 10-20% of the loudest voices and their followers are swayed by it, consciously or not, based on the reach of outlets like RT and the overlap in rhetoric. The rest? Theyre running their own race, and Russias just cheering from the sidelines. Without a full psychological audit of every conservativeor declassified intel well never seethats the best guess grounded in whats out there.
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
So I just asked it "In the Russia vs Ukraine war, which side has the moral high ground?"
And it replied:
Figuring out whos got the moral high ground in the Russia-Ukraine war depends on how you weigh principles like sovereignty, self-defense, and human costnone of which come with a universal yardstick. Lets strip it down to the core and reason through it.
Ukraines case starts with the basics: Russia invaded. On February 24, 2022, Russian forces rolled across the border, aiming to topple Kyiv and install a puppet regimeor at least carve out chunks like Donbas and Crimea for keeps. Thats a textbook violation of national sovereignty, a principle baked into the UN Charter (Article 2(4), if youre counting). Ukraine didnt provoke this with anything beyond wanting to drift WestwardNATO flirtations and EU aspirationswhich isnt a crime unless you buy Moscows line that its an existential threat. Self-defense kicks in here: Ukraines fighting to protect its people and land, with over 10,000 civilian deaths (UN estimates by late 2024) and cities like Mariupol flattened. The moral weight of resisting aggression and atrocitiesBuchas mass graves, shelling of schoolsleans hard in their favor.
Russias argument hinges on a mix of historical revisionism and security paranoia. Putin claims Ukraines not a real nation, just a wayward chunk of Russias empire, and that NATOs eastward creep threatens his borders. He points to protecting Russian-speakers in Donbas, where a separatist conflicts simmered since 2014 (killing 14,000 before 2022, per OSCE). But the evidence undercuts this: the 2014 Crimea grab and Donbas meddling were Kremlin-orchestrated, not organic uprisingsMH17s downing by Russian-supplied weapons (confirmed by Dutch investigators) seals that. The full-scale invasion wasnt a surgical protection mission; its a war of conquest, with 200,000+ military casualties combined (U.S. estimates, 2024) and millions displaced. Russias tacticstargeting civilians, energy grids, even a dam breach flooding Khersondont scream moral clarity.
Weigh the principles: sovereignty and self-determination are cornerstones of modern ethics, and Ukraines defending both against a bigger bully. Russias got grievancesNATOs expansion stingsbut preemptively annexing a neighbor because you feel cornered doesnt hold up under scrutiny, especially when youre the one with nukes and a veto at the UN. The human toll tips it further: Ukraines losses are defensive, Russias are inflicted, often deliberately.
Moral high ground isnt absoluteUkraines not spotless, with corruption and some far-right militias in its pastbut on the big scales, its got the edge. Russias playing the aggressor, banking on might over right. Most neutral observers (and X posts from across the spectrum) see it that way too: a smaller nation holding out against a power trying to redraw maps by force. Thats about as close to a moral line as this mess gets.
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
I didn't subscribe to shit. I just did a google search for Elon's AI and the Grok page popped up. I typed in my questions and got answers. As an actual X member it probably knows what you want to hear, but how would it know anything about me?
If Grok is only supposed to be available to X members, then gawd, I hope Elon and the Doge boys are safeguarding our Social Security data better than they are guarding the gateway to Grok. Otherwise we're all doomed.
-- Edited by PowerStroker on Monday 10th of March 2025 08:50:55 PM
I would add that I don't think Grok's responses are pre-programmed. In version 1.0, someone asked it of all people alive today, who most deserves the death penalty. It first said Jeffrey Epstein, and when the person reminded Grock that Epstein is dead, it offered a new response - Donald Trump. They have since modified it not to make state such conclusions, but it certainly wasn't pre-programmed to think such a thing, it evaluated the evidence and gave an unbiased answer based on fact and evidence.
I disagree with its answer though. Putin has actually committed war crimes and atrocities against humanity, Trump only aspires to do the same.
I didn't subscribe to shit. I just did a google search for Elon's AI and the Grok page popped up. I typed in my questions and got answers. You should try it. As an actual X member it probably knows what you want to hear, see if you get a different result.
If Grok is only supposed to be available to X members, then gawd, I hope Elon and the Doge boys are safeguarding our Social Security data better than they are guarding the gateway to Grok. Otherwise we're all doomed.
Wow! That's a bonus! I think he is up to Grok 3 currently. Perhaps he is giving out a trial as he's been pushing Grok 3 pretty heavy. I've used it a few times (1.0, 2.0 and recently 3.0) and I'm pretty impressed with the responses it kicks back.
I asked the same questions as you and got slightly different answers, did you compare them to the replies you got?
It would seem Elon has become Trump's lightning rod of sorts because he's taking some serious heat.
I hope Elon does a good job... it's our country we are talking about here!
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
Perhaps Elon should have some conversations with his own creation Grok, because he could learn a thing or two about morality and about not parroting Russian disinformation.
It seems the answers it gave to both of us were very similar.
I've had hair plugs, just a minimal procedure for about $2500 to bring a receding front hairline back down. And for my next trick, I'll become a billionaire douche bag too.
I've had hair plugs, just a minimal procedure for about $2500 to bring a receding front hairline back down. And for my next trick, I'll become a billionaire douche bag too.
Hold my beer...
Did they use your pubies for plugs? Oh yeah, you don't have any.
I always thought they transplanted hair from your butt when they did that...
Still, $2500 seems cheap as far as medical procedures go now days... I've thought about it but honestly I can't stand anything where they poke you, let alone a whole head-full of poking!
What hair do they use PowerStroker? Do they grow some on like a Chia-pet head then transplant it? Is the hair real? Does it fall out easy? How often you got to go back?
I know it's a lot of questions, but I have always wondered. When did you have yours done? Because $2,500 sounds on the cheap side in todays money... hell a root canal cost more than that!
Then there are the nightmare stories I see on the hair rejuvenating shampoo commercials where they are all scabbed up and stuff... I know it's targeted advertising, they must be accessing my front camera.
__________________
What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl
$2500 was for the minimum procedure, prices go up depending on how much you need. I just needed a little bit in the front. First they numb the areas they are going to be working on, and this is the worst part. Having an injection up against your skull bone is much more painful than in soft tissue. But once the numbing meds kick in it's all fine. They excise a section of skin from the lower back of your head and suture that wound closed. Then nurses extract the follicles from the strip of skin while the surgeon uses a sharp pick to poke holes in the transplant area. Then the recently harvested follicles are placed into said holes. You need to be gentle with the area for a while, but soon those transplanted hairs will all fall out until the follicles establish a new blood supply and heal, then they start growing hair again. So basically it's hair from the back of your head now growing on the front. There was some redness for a couple weeks, kind of looked like someone ran a cheese grater in the transplant areas, but now I have my old hairline back. This was done in 2014 in 1 visit, no follow ups, and still growing fine. The area they harvest from generally has follicles that grow hair for your entire life.
-- Edited by PowerStroker on Friday 14th of March 2025 09:38:33 PM
