My Response To The Left… By Nick Freitas
But we aren't one people, are we? The truth is, we haven't been for some time now. And there is really no point in pretending anymore if there ever was. We are two very different peoples. We may occupy the same piece of geography, but that is where the similarities seem to abruptly end.
I think what Nick says here is most likely true. I don't want it to be, but participating in discussions in this place only gives evidence that he is right. Nothing of use gets done in this place. No real discussions. It's just one side attacking the other. Maybe because we've simply come to live on different planets, even though it appears to be the same real estate. Question is, what is to be done about it?
Red Box Rules
The topic is what is said in the video. Any comments that simply rant about a particular individual without an obvious connection to the topic will be deleted.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [Split Personality]
Personally, I'd like this man to run for president. I would like not to agree with what he has said here but I can't think of a way to do so without denying the truth of what he says. I hate that it has come to this, so, someone talk me out of this if you think you can.
I am watching the video. Its more than a little disconcerting that you think this guy should be president.
Which pretty much proves his point.
Don't you agree that he makes many valid points, and that there are two sides to every story,
We know who is responsible for this violence and intolerance, And it's not the right wingers or Trump
He has a sticker on his laptop that reads "Tread Around And Find Out" . Sounds like a threat of potential violence, no ?
No. Because I've been following this guy for a while now. He is the only politician I know who I have complete confidence in his integrity. If you listened to the things he says, you would not say it was a threat of potential violence, unless we're talking about violence visited upon him first. Maybe you should do some research on the guy before making inane comments based on a sticker.
By the way, you can get "Tread Around And Find Out" in a tee shirt if you're interested.
What???? Research???? Think for ones self???
Shirley you jest!!!!
OMG!
If its not them-- then who could it possibly be?
('Tis a mystery!)
OMG-- if that is the case, you are wise beyond your years!
(We must now all bow in reverance!!!)
But while thwere are (at least) two sides to every story-- only one side could always be right!
(One side is the "spawn of de Debil-- the other side represents a total purity of intent-- the likes of which is seldom seen in online discussion forums!
Start the video at 8:30 and watch it for the next minute, and then try and tell me with a straight face that he is not describing Donald Trump, even though he thinks he is describing his opponents.
"If you are actually willing to engage in a political philosophy which says, "I will live and let live." But you're not. Every time. Every time you get power, you wield it. You wield it against the people that you see as your political enemies. And you tell all your constituents that we are evil, that we are fascists, that we are threats to their very civilization and existence."
He is describing Donald Trump perfectly, and doesnt have the slightest comprehension he is doing so.
No, he's describing what the left has been doing and who started all of this. They chose to attack the right not through reasoned arguments but through labels. Fascists, misogynists, racists, homophobes and everything else they can attach "phobe" to and every other name. That white people, especially straight Christian white males are to blame for everything ever. The left has been doing its best to replicate Mao's cultural revolution to the extent possible.
They did so because they have no real argument for their policies, so they had to resort to a policy of shaming their enemies, based on neo-Marxist bullshit.
Trump is just a mirror of what the left started. He is a reaction brought about by the left. He is the inevitable reaction to the action from the left. It's that simple.
Nope, he is clearly describing the radical left progressives, several of whom here appear to be members in good standing/
The mindless deflects to Trump don't make sense and don't work. Trump's approval ratings have been as high as 55%, and there is no reason they'll go down. The inconvenient truth for the Dems is the very real likelihood that they will lose seats in both the House and Senate. Their hate and intolerance are what got Charlie Kirk killed.
Oh I know what he thinks he's describing. But his description fits Trump perfectly.
This excuse that Trump is only a mirror is way past old.
Civil rights laws do not oppress Republicans , or white people.
Gay marriage (or other LBGTQ "rights") does not oppress straight people.
Calls for economic justice do not oppress the middle class.
"Woke" is not a category of oppression.
The funniest part was when he derided the left for acting like victims. That is the core attitude of the right today - that they are the real victims.
Yeah. I think everything you're saying is pretty much confirming what Nick said.
You seem to do that a lot and be wrong a lot.
Could that be why Democrats fought against them?
Then maybe they should stop acting like victims.
Neo-Marxist?
Whats the matter with them-- wasn't the Old Marxist bullshit good enuf for 'em?
I don't think I can.
Is the extremism in political speech being driven by competition for money? Politicians are competing for donors. The press competes for eyeballs for advertising revenue. Even activists are competing for support, donations, and political payback.
Money corrupts absolutely, it is said. And we've certainly allowed money to enable and consolidate power over all aspects of society. Money has even become political speech that drowns out the voices of the electorate.
If it was "said"-- doesn that necessarily mean that it was true!!
There are some people who actually believe that if something was said on The Internet-- it must be true!
Which is total nonsense-- but there are actually some people who, IMO, who are quite gullible, and who actuallly spend to much time online.
WTF is the matter with them???
Drakk, do you not see in his post that he is engaging in the very practice that divides us: stereotyping with exaggeration?
'The Left' did not murder Charlie Kirk any more than 'the Right' murdered JFK. In both cases the assassination was by individuals who were not representing the views or wishes of those who one might consider part of an amorphous ideological group (e.g. 'the Left' or 'the Right').
Attributing the acts of a tiny minority or an individual to an entire segment of our society is a perfect example of divisive rhetoric. And it is such rhetoric that fuels the ever growing divisions in our nation.
You're welcome to you opinion TiG. I know I recently took some to task for always using hyperbole to sell their narrative, but I've come to realize I was wrong. These people do not see themselves as using hyperbole. They actually believe what they are saying reflects reality. I've watched so many vids of progressives making X vids that celebrate Kirk's death it's beyond belief. MSNBC's Matthew Doud, on live TV, said Kirk essentially got what he asked for, a statement so vile that even MSNBC had to fire him and present an apology.
These are people on the left, TiG. The base of the Democratic party. That Dems are falling all over themselves trying to distance themselves from the shooting doesn't take away the support Dems give people on the left who are like this.
As Freitas said, we are already divided. It wasn't the right who did it. 1.2.2 They decided that the right is evil long before the right started following suit. And you know what? The left really does think the right is either evil or very wrong, or they wouldn't be on the left. Well, I think a hell of a lot of what the left is trying to do is pure evil. I've tried to have meaningful conversations with people on the left but it is futile.
We're divided because there's almost nothing to unite on.
Is it your belief that the average individual who you might consider to be part of 'the Left' applauds the murder of Kirk?
Democrat messaging the 48 hours:
Republicans rhetoric is out of control and caused the shooting and here's a lie we told about the beliefs of a man who was assassinated.
You can console yourself with the fantasy that people are lying about Charlie Kirk until hell freezes over.
There are hundreds of hours of video of him.
Sean, was Charlie Kirk "far right" ?
Well, what do you think about the same question? Why not look right here for the answer? Check out. Read the article, consider it's tone and then check out all the comments and get back to me.
Which is what Nick Freitas was talking about. Dems think the Republican system is what produced the shooter and by all the comments online, the X vids, many of the talking heads, they really believe that crap.
While those of us on the right know the Dems and what they stand for, the actions they take against their enemies, the labeling of anyone who opposes them are what causes this sort of thing.
We're never going to unite on anything, except if it is externally forced (like Russia attacking NATO) because we are fundamentally different, not fundamentally the same.
No, he wasn't.
I think people may be getting tired of AI, but there are times it is a labor saver
co-pilot
Charlie Kirk told Taylor Swift to submit to her husband. Sounds pretty far right to me.
AI is only as good as how it has been built and trained. It's still just a machine. I believe it's still a ways away from being infallible.
This reminds me of my daughters in 7th grade where they demanded calculators because their teacher would allow them during tests. I refused because they had a habit of just hitting numbers and accepting the results as accurate without knowing any of the general guidelines of the math problems they were working on and if the answer was even in the ballpark. If they hit the wrong number, they wouldn't know if the answer was wildly inaccurate because they had not yet grown to where they could look at a math question and have a ballpark idea of the answer. And before anybody bitches about this example, let's remember we're talking about 7th grade math and not calculus.
Blindly accepting the output from AI is the same at this point in time. It may get there but it's not there yet. Anyone using AI needs to understand the limitations inherent in AI as well as already having a good idea of the accuracy of the statements given by AI.
A simple question and you evade it.
No I do not believe that the average individual who might fall into the category of 'the Left' applauds the murder of Kirk. I believe most human beings are against murdering others.
I only use AI if it has supporting links, which they generally do.
Human beings are only as good as their biology and training. They are still a ways away from being infallible.
AI is a source. And like any other source, if you think it has provided false information, then cross-check it. Dismissing information you do not like because the source is AI is profoundly faulty logic.
To wit, it is never good to blindly accept anything from any source. But is it also faulty to categorically dismiss a source unless that source is known to be routinely wrong. AI sources are correct far more often than they are wrong.
The NYT had to an issue a retraction over a lie in his obituary, there's been at least two lies from left wing sources that you've posted.
For example, I just asked ChatGPT a question about the assassination of Charlie Kirk a few minutes ago and it returned that Kirk had not been assassinated and was still alive. I asked if it had access to current information and it said it did.
ChatGPT:
Prompt: "Was Charlie Kirk assassinated?"
Response:
Nice. Glad it worked for you. Doesn't change the response it gave me, though.
It shows that ChatGPT does have access to current information.
Here are the technical specifics:
ChatGPT undergoes a formal training process every couple years or so. This is an enormously expensive endeavor, but it brings ChatGPT up-to-date in its (for lack of a better word) long-term memory. The last formal training was done in the middle of 2024.
In the meantime, ChatGPT dynamically accesses information to address prompts that tap into events after its training cutoff.
If your prompt causes it to conclude that you are asking about facts it would have in long-term memory then you will get that result without any web searching. (Note: it does not actually store facts in a manner that matches our intuition so I am grossly oversimplifying.)
ChatGPT is, of course, imperfect. But my point is that it does indeed have the ability to access current information.
And then there's this (which some people might not know):
There are people on The Right who really think the left is evil or wrong, or they wouldn't be on the right!
Excusing the same behavior in oneself or one's allies that one criticizes in one's opponents is hypocrisy.
I believe Jesus had quite a bit to say about hypocrisy.
Its amazing how many self-proclaimed Christians don't follow the teachings of Jesus.
(Perhaps many of these people are spending too much time on The Internet?
)