How Major Corporations Funded SPLC’s Astroturf Hate Campaign

T. A. Gardner said:
Here's an example of Google AI's literalism. It accepts what is 100% accurate.


The SPLC clearly funded radical Rightwing hate groups. That is proven in the publicly available documents criminally indicting them.

Using "astroturf hate campaign" is hyperbole. Yes, it is opinion. But it is also accurate. The SPLC was funding radical Rightwing groups to foment hatred that they could then use with their Hate Map and listings to argue for more donations.

Corporations, if they gave the SPLC donations, particularly fairly regularly and in substantial amounts would have been indirectly "funding it."

So, while it is editorial framing in the choice of words, it is also accurate, something Google AI overlooks, likely because of its inherent, programmed in, political bias.


And, those donations were a substantial part of how the SPLC is funded. That was omitted here.


As opposed to Google AI's ideological framing. The hyperbole used is accurate, if not word for word factual. Again, Google AI doesn't understand hyperbole and other rhetorical speech. It only accepts literalism.

This is followed by an irrelevant logical fallacy, Appeal to authority. That nothing in the MSM exists using the same language or same wording is irrelevant. This is an attempt by Google AI to downplay what Breitbart said.


Right back at Google AI


Right back at Google AI


This is essentially a form of ad hominem where Google AI is dismissing the argument on the grounds of who made it.


The criminal indictments slapped by the DOJ on the SPLC prove the SPLC runs what, using exaggerated language and hyperbole, is essentially an "astroturf hate campaign."

Google AI is neutral. False. Has a strong editorial bias and selective content.
Click to expand...
You’re presenting your interpretation as if it were established fact.

The indictment documents don’t say what you’re claiming they say you’re layering your own conclusions, then calling that proven. That’s not how evidence works.

You’re also treating hyperbole as accurate simply because it fits your narrative, while accusing others of bias for sticking to literal claims. That’s a double standard.

And calling any correction ideological framing doesn’t address the substance. It just insulates your argument from scrutiny.

If you want to make a factual case, cite the specific language in the indictment instead of asserting what you think it implies.
 
and how does a long history of donations mean they're not funding hate groups?

that just means they've been funding hate groups longer.

the ai is just retarded and irrelevant.
 
Grim Reaper said:
You’re presenting your interpretation as if it were established fact.

The indictment documents don’t say what you’re claiming they say you’re layering your own conclusions, then calling that proven. That’s not how evidence works.

You’re also treating hyperbole as accurate simply because it fits your narrative, while accusing others of bias for sticking to literal claims. That’s a double standard.

And calling any correction ideological framing doesn’t address the substance. It just insulates your argument from scrutiny.

If you want to make a factual case, cite the specific language in the indictment instead of asserting what you think it implies.
Click to expand...
that's what AI does.

and its just irrelevant shit about tone and weasel words.
 
Ichabod Stain said:
and how does a long history of donations mean they're not funding hate groups?

that just means they've been funding hate groups longer.

the ai is just retarded and irrelevant.
Click to expand...
You’re skipping the part where you have to show that the indictment actually says what you claim.

They donated is not the same as they funded hate groups. That’s your inference, not a stated fact. If the documents support your claim, quote the exact wording.
 
Ichabod Stain said:
that's what AI does.

and its just irrelevant shit about tone and weasel words.
Click to expand...
You’re avoiding the substance.

The issue isn’t tone or weasel words. It’s that you’re treating your interpretation as fact without pointing to any actual text in the indictment. If the document supports you, show the wording.
 
Grim Reaper said:
You’re presenting your interpretation as if it were established fact.
Click to expand...

You are presenting Google AI's interpretation as if it were established fact.
Grim Reaper said:
The indictment documents don’t say what you’re claiming they say you’re layering your own conclusions, then calling that proven. That’s not how evidence works.
Click to expand...


Read it for yourself. They do say what I'm claiming.
Grim Reaper said:
You’re also treating hyperbole as accurate simply because it fits your narrative, while accusing others of bias for sticking to literal claims. That’s a double standard.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying hyperbole is hyperbole and should be interpreted in normal usage in conversation and debate. Google AI does literalism and cannot grasp things like hyperbole.
Grim Reaper said:
And calling any correction ideological framing doesn’t address the substance. It just insulates your argument from scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Then why does Google AI do that regularly?
Grim Reaper said:
If you want to make a factual case, cite the specific language in the indictment instead of asserting what you think it implies.
Click to expand...

Now you are presenting trivial objections.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You are presenting Google AI's interpretation as if it were established fact.



Read it for yourself. They do say what I'm claiming.


No, I'm saying hyperbole is hyperbole and should be interpreted in normal usage in conversation and debate. Google AI does literalism and cannot grasp things like hyperbole.


Then why does Google AI do that regularly?


Now you are presenting trivial objections.
Click to expand...
You’re avoiding the substance.

Hyperbole doesn’t replace evidence, and Google AI isn’t the issue here. The issue is that you haven’t cited the wording you say exists.

If the indictment states what you’re claiming, quote it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I have demolished all of those arguments. Here's the indictment, again for a fourth or fifth time:

Click to expand...
You are

  1. Avoiding my request for a quote by reposting a link instead of citing text.
  2. Claiming victory (“I have demolished all of those arguments”) without addressing any argument.
  3. Using repetition of the PDF link

You’re still avoiding the basic point, you haven’t quoted the language you say is there.

Linking the PDF again doesn’t change that.
 
Grim Reaper said:
You are

  1. Avoiding my request for a quote by reposting a link instead of citing text.
  2. Claiming victory (“I have demolished all of those arguments”) without addressing any argument.
  3. Using repetition of the PDF link

You’re still avoiding the basic point, you haven’t quoted the language you say is there.

Linking the PDF again doesn’t change that.
Click to expand...
Read the goddamned indictment like I did! It's a PDF file! What, you can't get Google AI to do your homework this time? That's your problem.
 
archives said:
Appears they view the SPLC as less of a threat than the KKK, white nationalist groups, and right wing militias and hate groups
Click to expand...
that don't exist to any great extent in this country as evidence by all of the staged "hate" crimes the past few years

To be fair people funding SPLC probably didn't know that they using the money to pay the so called groups they were denouncing.

I still think it is hilarious that the left clings to the "they were paying informants" schtick. You guys are funny
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The criminal indictments slapped by the DOJ on the SPLC prove the SPLC runs what, using exaggerated language and hyperbole, is essentially an "astroturf hate campaign."

Google AI is neutral. False. Has a strong editorial bias and selective conten
Click to expand...

Both are true. SPLC makes many millions off of fear mongering, as does BLM, Democratic Party race hustlers, and of course lawyer companies run by people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the ACLU, the latter which is staffed by 'volunteers' from corporate law firms who 'specialize' in suing the govt. and others with deep pockets for 'civil rights violations' and the like. They more resemble extortion racketeering than genuine 'anti-racist' activists.

AI is of course easily manipulated and has been proven so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top