Did they show that? To who? It’s like showing that Americans like steak houses. What was gained here. And I keep asking myself this with the left “what did we get out of this” and so far it’s almost always “theater” of some kind instead of effective action

I don’t know, borrow that sub marine from the cartels.

Which goes back to my point about this being theatrics rather than actual aid

Yea of course. But infiltrating is an interesting way of putting it.

Years ago the Internet wasn’t segregated. Sad to see were describing spaces as left or right and having people use them as infiltrating.

So then what’s the plan now. How are the Palestinians going to get these resources

But who are you showing this too?

People who already know, already know.

Showing things isn’t going to feed Palestinians.

If this was doomed to fail from the start. I’m a bit frustrated by it.

What I’m frustrated by is how the right figures out ways that does counter efforts to stop them. I’m noticing that the left does the opposite. They lean into the things that stop them and then hope somebody notices.

Ok let’s give a test here. Let’s start with understand logic. Give me a paragraph and let’s see if it can find any logical fallacies. You can provide the paragraph. Only constraint is that the context has to exist within the paragraph.

This is why I said I wasn’t sure how AI works behind the scenes. But I do know that logic isn’t difficult. Just to not fuck around between us. I have a CS background. Only saying this because I think you may have it as well and we can save some time.

It makes sense to me that logic is something AI can parse easily. Logic in my mind is very easy if it can tokenize some text. Wouldn’t the difficulty be if the AI has the right context.

Yes I am. I think the right are aligned with Israel on this. But I would correct myself if that is wrong.

I would hope people on the right and left can both hope aid reaches the Palestinians.

Great on these people.

But why do the left’s plans always be like

1. Theatrical disobedience
2. ???
3. Get arrested
4. Move on to the next thing, repeat steps 1-4

Hype flows in both directions. Right now the hype from most is finding issues with chatgpt. It did find the fallacies based on what it was asked to do. It worked as expected. You act like this is fire and forget. Given what this output gave me, I can easily keep working this to get better and better arguments. I can review the results and clarify and iterate. I did copy and paste just to show an example. First I wanted to be honest with the output and not modify it. Second is an effort thing. I just feel like you can’t honestly tell me that within 10 seconds having that summary is not beneficial. I didn’t supply my argument to the prompt, only yours. If I submitted my argument it would be better.

I did and it was because it didn’t have the previous context. But it did find the fallacies as present. Logic is literally what a chat AI is going. A human still needs to review the output but it did what it was asked. I don’t know AI programming well. But I can say that logic is algorithmic. An AI has no problem parsing an argument and finding the fallacies. It’s a tool like any other.

Here is chatgpt doing what you said it can’t. Finding all the logical fallacies in what you write:

You’re raising strong criticisms, and it’s worth unpacking them carefully. Let’s go through your argument and see if there are any logical fallacies or flawed reasoning.

1. Straw Man Fallacy

“Someone with no understanding of how good art works just having an image generator produce the images will result in a boring comic no matter the initial concept.”

This misrepresents the original claim:

“AI can help create a framework at the very least so they can get their ideas down.”

The original point wasn’t that AI could replace the entire creative process or make a comic successful on its own—it was that it can assist people in starting or visualizing something they couldn’t otherwise. Dismissing that by shifting the goalposts to “producing a full, good comic” creates a straw man of the original claim.

2. False Dichotomy

“If you are not competent in a visual medium, then don’t make it visual, write a story or an essay.”

This suggests a binary: either you’re competent at visual art or you shouldn’t try to make anything visual. That’s a false dichotomy. People can learn, iterate, or collaborate, and tools like AI can help bridge gaps in skill—not replace skill, but allow exploration. Many creators use tools before mastery (e.g., musicians using GarageBand, or writers using Grammarly).

3. Hasty Generalization

“Supposed ‘brilliant ideas’ are a dime a dozen…”

While it’s true that execution matters more than ideas alone, dismissing the value of ideas altogether is an overgeneralization. Many successful works do start with a strong concept—and while many fail in execution, tools that lower the barrier to prototyping or drafting can help surface more workable ideas. The presence of many bad ideas doesn’t invalidate the potential value of enabling more people to test theirs.

4. Appeal to Ridicule / Ad Hominem (Light)

“…result in a boring comic…” / “…just bad (look at SMBC or xkcd or…)”

Criticizing popular webcomics like SMBC or xkcd by calling them “bad” doesn’t really support your broader claim. These comics are widely read because of strong writing and insight, despite minimalistic visuals. It comes off as dismissive and ridicules the counterexamples rather than engaging with them. That’s not a logical fallacy in the strictest sense, but it’s rhetorically weak.

5. Tu Quoque / Whataboutism (Borderline)

“For now I see no particular benefits that the right-wing has obtained by using AI either…”

This seems like a rebuttal to a point that wasn’t made directly. The original argument wasn’t that “the right is winning with AI,” but rather that alienating the left from it could lead to missed opportunities. Refuting a weaker version (e.g., “the right is clearly winning with AI”) isn’t addressing the original concern, which was more about strategic adoption.

Summary of Fallacies Identified:

Type Description

Straw Man Misrepresents the role of AI in creative assistance. False Dichotomy Assumes one must either be visually skilled or not attempt visual media. Hasty Generalization Devalues “brilliant ideas” universally. Appeal to Ridicule Dismisses counterexamples via mocking tone rather than analysis. Tu Quoque-like Compares left vs. right AI use without addressing the core point about opportunity.

Your criticism is thoughtful and not without merit—but it’s wrapped in rhetoric that sometimes slips into oversimplification or misrepresentation of the opposing view. If your goal is to strengthen your argument or have a productive back-and-forth, refining those areas could help. Would you like to rewrite it in a way that keeps the spirit of your critique but sharpens its logic?

At this point you’re just arguing for arguments sake. You’re not wrong or right but instead muddying things. Saying it’ll be boring comics missed the entire point. Saying it is the same as google is pure ignorance of what it can do. But this goes to my point about how this stuff is all similar to anti immigrant mentality. The people who buy into it will get into these type of ignorant and short sighted statements just to prove things that just are not true. But they’ve bought into the hype and need to justify it.

I’m not sure what it would be either. But I don’t think it’s about the rape and more about what the rapes say about India.

Right so why. You’re doing it so any chance you can be honest about it. It’s rape right. That’s such a horrible thing. Which I would assume you’d be like “I want to stop rape” but you haven’t said that. You’re playing coy. Makes it seem like it’s more about something you’re ashamed to say

What isn’t there to gain?

Its power lies in ingesting language and producing infinite variations. We can feed it talking points, ask it to refine our ideas, test their logic, and even request counterarguments to pressure-test our stance. It helps us build stronger, more resilient narratives.

We can use it to make memes. Generate images. Expose logical fallacies. Link to credible research. It can detect misinformation in real-time and act as a force multiplier for anyone trying to raise awareness or push back on disinfo.

Most importantly, it gives a voice to people with strong ideas who might not have the skills or confidence to share them. Someone with a brilliant comic concept but no drawing ability? AI can help build a framework to bring it to life.

Sure, it has flaws. But rejecting it outright while the right embraces it? That’s beyond shortsighted it’s self-sabotage. And unfortunately, after the last decade, that kind of misstep is par for the course.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Literally what I’m talking about. They have been pushing anti AI propaganda to alienate the left from embracing it while the right embraces it. You have such a blind spot you this, you can’t even see you’re making my argument for me.

Removed by mod