Charlie Kirk - so what now ?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your personal and obviously personal experience has zero to do with the influence of AI in this world (that is only just beginning). It is your choice to use or not use. It is anti scripture as those who developed and continue to program it, are anti-God.

Discernment. Ues. By all means but not your defintion of it. Don't think I mind if you rush headlong into an intelligenve that far outstrips your own. You are being owned.

For goodness sake, what tech do you use that was developed solely by godly people - the device and software you're posting from? Ever use an internet search engine? How about other tools you use in life? AI is a tool. Maybe it ends up owning more than it does now, but the version we peons currently have is a tool and there's quite a bit of discussion about where it goes from here per current tech and resources.

As you say on each post, "Don’t listen to criticism from someone you would not ask for advice."
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLDBUTNEW
He provides the supporting references to many things that have been said about Erika Kirk and her family. Some people on this thread have asked for this, so here it is:


Exposing Charlie Kirk's Widow, Erika Kirk: She's NOT Who You Think
 
We have also mentioned Erika Kirk's music video. So this is a reference to that as well.


EXPOSING Charlie Kirk WIDOW Erika Kirk's SECRET Music Video!

This demonstrates that Erika is an actress. The previous post demonstrates that Erika has close ties to Donald Trump prior to meeting Charlie Kirk.

"Emerson Drive -- She's my kind of crazy" -- This is the title of the music video.

He investigates this music video as though it is predictive programming. [For those of you having a hard time understanding why FreeMasons have predictive programming, look at it this way. Right now Christians are examining Erika Kirk to see if she is legit. In the same way FreeMasons would also want to know if she is legit, this video would reveal that she is legit in their eyes. Think of Spy vs. Spy.*]


*In the music video she marries a guy named Tyler, and as you know the alleged killer of Charlie Kirk is also named Tyler. Yes, if you believe in coincidences this is a coincidence. However, if you think that predictive programming is done for the sake of the FreeMasons to assure them she is on their side, this would do that. A second coincidence tying her to Tyler Robinson is they prominently feature 9:10 on this music video, the day that Charlie Kirk was shot and killed.
 
I have watched the last two videos on Erika Kirk and feel I should provide a little commentary.

1. I don't think these two videos are scandalous if you are running a political organization or a worldly organization.

But if you are looking at this from a Christian perspective I have a different take.

She went to a Jesuit university prior to the music video and beauty pageant. She was running a ministry for orphans at the same time. So she may present herself as a "Christian", but this is a different type of "Christian" than I am comfortable with. This is my feeling, as a Christian I would not have been in that music video as Tyler and I surely would not expect a Christian sister to be in that music video playing the role that Erika did.

Now if someone got saved after doing a similar video, that I can understand.

So just to be clear, I don't think any of this would harm her political career if she were to run on the same ticket as J.D. Vance. But for me, TPUSA is not a Christian ministry, not anymore. They may claim they are, but as long as Erika is the CEO, IMHO they aren't.

Now as to the creepy connections with FreeMasons and predictive programming, I doubt any of that would be allowed in a court of law and so is not going to be relevant when it comes to convicting the assassin(s) involved in killing Charlie Kirk.
 
One other thing, the term "red widow" might come from the music video because she has the veil on indicating a bride, but she is also dressed in red. Obviously very confusing imagery for a video. It could be a reference to "the lady in red" getting married, or it could be a reference to a "red widow".
 
Is clickbait and deepfakes illegal?
This is what "ai" said:



The legality of deepfakes and clickbait depends on the context and how they are used, but in general, they can potentially be illegal in certain circumstances.

1. Deepfakes

A deepfake is a synthetic media (usually a video or audio) generated using artificial intelligence to manipulate existing content, typically to create misleading or fake content.

When Deepfakes Could Be Illegal:

  • Defamation or Fraud: If a deepfake is used to impersonate someone in a harmful or defamatory way, it could be grounds for defamation or identity theft charges. For example, creating a deepfake video of someone saying something they never said can be considered slander.
  • Sexual Exploitation: Deepfakes involving sexual content, especially if used to create non-consensual pornography or to manipulate someone's likeness for explicit material, can violate laws against harassment, exploitation, and privacy invasion. Many jurisdictions now have specific laws banning the use of deepfakes in this way.
  • Election Interference: Using deepfakes to mislead voters or influence elections could fall under fraud or election interference laws.
  • Copyright Infringement: If a deepfake is made using copyrighted content (e.g., using someone else's likeness or footage without permission), it could violate intellectual property laws.

However, the legality of deepfakes is still evolving, and in some cases, there might not be clear laws in place yet.

2. Clickbait

Clickbait refers to the use of misleading or sensationalized headlines or images designed to attract clicks but often leads to content that doesn't live up to the promise.

When Clickbait Could Be Illegal:

  • False Advertising or Deceptive Practices: If clickbait is used in a way that misleads consumers about the content of an advertisement or product, it could be considered false advertising or a deceptive trade practice under consumer protection laws.
  • Breach of Contract: In some cases, if a clickbait article misrepresents a product or service in a way that violates the terms of a partnership or agreement, it could lead to legal consequences.
  • Fraudulent Content: If the clickbait is part of a scam (for example, leading to a site that steals personal data or money), it could be considered fraud, which is illegal.

However, as a practice in general, clickbait itself is typically not illegal unless it's specifically connected to fraudulent or deceptive practices. Many platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have guidelines and policies that ban misleading content or force content creators to disclose if a title is misleading.

In Summary:

  • Deepfakes can be illegal if used to deceive, defame, commit fraud, or violate privacy rights.
  • Clickbait is not inherently illegal, but it can cross legal boundaries if used in a deceptive or fraudulent manner.

Laws are still catching up with technology, so what is legal in one place might not be in another, and laws often change to adapt to new challenges presented by AI, media, and digital content.
 
Is clickbait and deepfakes illegal?
This is what "ai" said:



The legality of deepfakes and clickbait depends on the context and how they are used, but in general, they can potentially be illegal in certain circumstances.

1. Deepfakes

A deepfake is a synthetic media (usually a video or audio) generated using artificial intelligence to manipulate existing content, typically to create misleading or fake content.

When Deepfakes Could Be Illegal:

  • Defamation or Fraud: If a deepfake is used to impersonate someone in a harmful or defamatory way, it could be grounds for defamation or identity theft charges. For example, creating a deepfake video of someone saying something they never said can be considered slander.
  • Sexual Exploitation: Deepfakes involving sexual content, especially if used to create non-consensual pornography or to manipulate someone's likeness for explicit material, can violate laws against harassment, exploitation, and privacy invasion. Many jurisdictions now have specific laws banning the use of deepfakes in this way.
  • Election Interference: Using deepfakes to mislead voters or influence elections could fall under fraud or election interference laws.
  • Copyright Infringement: If a deepfake is made using copyrighted content (e.g., using someone else's likeness or footage without permission), it could violate intellectual property laws.

However, the legality of deepfakes is still evolving, and in some cases, there might not be clear laws in place yet.

2. Clickbait

Clickbait refers to the use of misleading or sensationalized headlines or images designed to attract clicks but often leads to content that doesn't live up to the promise.

When Clickbait Could Be Illegal:

  • False Advertising or Deceptive Practices: If clickbait is used in a way that misleads consumers about the content of an advertisement or product, it could be considered false advertising or a deceptive trade practice under consumer protection laws.
  • Breach of Contract: In some cases, if a clickbait article misrepresents a product or service in a way that violates the terms of a partnership or agreement, it could lead to legal consequences.
  • Fraudulent Content: If the clickbait is part of a scam (for example, leading to a site that steals personal data or money), it could be considered fraud, which is illegal.

However, as a practice in general, clickbait itself is typically not illegal unless it's specifically connected to fraudulent or deceptive practices. Many platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have guidelines and policies that ban misleading content or force content creators to disclose if a title is misleading.

In Summary:

  • Deepfakes can be illegal if used to deceive, defame, commit fraud, or violate privacy rights.
  • Clickbait is not inherently illegal, but it can cross legal boundaries if used in a deceptive or fraudulent manner.

Laws are still catching up with technology, so what is legal in one place might not be in another, and laws often change to adapt to new challenges presented by AI, media, and digital content.


HeIsHere spends so much time sleeping they must be part vampire. :sleep: Imagine, Charlie Kirk married a dragon lady and nobody knew it! She waited till just the right time, had two children with him then pulled the trigger, or had it pulled. Shrewd business woman that she is. Then covered it all with an affair with the Vp! And it all came down thanks to those tricky, tricky Jews. Lord help us I will be glad when this trial is over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tourist
HeIsHere spends so much time sleeping they must be part vampire. :sleep: Imagine, Charlie Kirk married a dragon lady and nobody knew it! She waited till just the right time, had two children with him then pulled the trigger, or had it pulled. Shrewd business woman that she is. Then covered it all with an affair with the Vp! And it all came down thanks to those tricky, tricky Jews. Lord help us I will be glad when this trial is over.
what trial?
 
For goodness sake, what tech do you use that was developed solely by godly people - the device and software you're posting from? Ever use an internet search engine? How about other tools you use in life? AI is a tool. Maybe it ends up owning more than it does now, but the version we peons currently have is a tool and there's quite a bit of discussion about where it goes from here per current tech and resources.

As you say on each post, "Don’t listen to criticism from someone you would not ask for advice."

Yeah. I made no point whatsoever about wanting to use tech developed solely by Christians. That is a false conclusion in order to make it sound like I live in a nunnery. I probably have forgotten more about websites and tech then you will ever know since you are so dependant on AI. Besides, who needs a search engine when you have AI whispering sweet nothings in your ear.

Like the internet itself, AI is neither bad or good. It is not a moral entity. Also, like the internet, it's people who make it what it is.

People like you even.
 
Yeah. I made no point whatsoever about wanting to use tech developed solely by Christians. That is a false conclusion in order to make it sound like I live in a nunnery. I probably have forgotten more about websites and tech then you will ever know since you are so dependant on AI. Besides, who needs a search engine when you have AI whispering sweet nothings in your ear.

Like the internet itself, AI is neither bad or good. It is not a moral entity. Also, like the internet, it's people who make it what it is.

People like you even.

First you claimed AI was ‘anti-Scripture and anti-God’ because of its developers.

Now you say it’s ‘neither good nor bad’ and that people make it what it is.

If you stop shifting the goalposts, which is it - or do you want to reframe it again?

Either AI is morally defined by its developers and programmers, or it’s just a tool as I said it was, or???.

Looks to me like you’re just looking for an argument and claiming technical superiority you may well not have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Citizen
First you claimed AI was ‘anti-Scripture and anti-God’ because of its developers.

Now you say it’s ‘neither good nor bad’ and that people make it what it is.

If you stop shifting the goalposts, which is it - or do you want to reframe it again?

Either AI is morally defined by its developers and programmers, or it’s just a tool as I said it was, or???.

Looks to me like you’re just looking for an argument and claiming technical superiority you may well not have.
This is not shifting the goal posts. Anti scripture does not mean "against scripture" it means "in place of scripture" or "counterfeit scripture". They are training people to view whatever AI says as "the truth".

Yes, AI is a tool, it is a tool designed to silence dissent and replace the truth. At the moment it is still in the research and development stage, learning from the millions who use it. But the ultimate goal of the elites is to use it to manipulate the masses. Likewise it is learning who it can manipulate and who it can't. So if you are so keen to make sure you are not manipulated you will be at the top of their list to be removed. Right now as it is being trained it is also gathering intelligence. "Mapping out the battlefield".
 
First you claimed AI was ‘anti-Scripture and anti-God’ because of its developers.

Now you say it’s ‘neither good nor bad’ and that people make it what it is.

If you stop shifting the goalposts, which is it - or do you want to reframe it again?

Either AI is morally defined by its developers and programmers, or it’s just a tool as I said it was, or???.

Looks to me like you’re just looking for an argument and claiming technical superiority you may well not have.

What Mr. ZNP said. Looks to me like you are ready for an arguement. Why do you need to defend it so much? It doesn't care if
you would die for it. smh
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLDBUTNEW
Everyone grieves differently so I hate that anyone is analyzing Erika's grieving.

However, there have been so many people disturbed by what they are seeing it seems irresponsible for this thread not to address this directly.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fK8pgSNV7_M

This woman sums up what most people find disturbing about her behavior.

I would also point out that if a man is assassinated his close relationships in his family and in his business would immediately be people of interest for the police to investigate. Since she became CEO and receives what must be a life insurance policies in the tens of millions of dollars they would see that as a motive. All that means is she would be carefully scrutinized as a person of interest and that would include this analysis of her body language.
 
This is not shifting the goal posts. Anti scripture does not mean "against scripture" it means "in place of scripture" or "counterfeit scripture". They are training people to view whatever AI says as "the truth".

Yes, it was shifting: PB.1 claimed AI is anti-Scripture because its developers are anti-God = a moral claim about the tool itself. Then PB.2 shifted to AI is not good or bad and any anti-Scripture effect comes from human misuse.

Then you're coming in and basically agreeing with P.2.

As I said from the beginning, AI is a tool. I agree with you both that the tool can be misused, which is pretty much the case with most tools.

Now, after having asked @pinebeach to choose #1 or #2, and after seeing you basically agree with #2, if either or both of you would like to chase down #1 a bit further, you might find that I do think there are some questions we could ask and discuss about it. But, you'll need to read what I say below first.

What Mr. ZNP said. Looks to me like you are ready for an arguement. Why do you need to defend it so much? It doesn't care if
you would die for it. smh

I'm really not defending it. As I said and I thought I said clearly, I've been assessing and testing it because I already see it being used in theology.

When I first began discussing it conceptually, @ZNP was one of the first I discussed it with on other threads where he was discussing it. And there I did take a positive side for it as I recall in one field - the field of physical health & medicine - after having listened at a symposium to a guy speak of where he sees it going in that arena, which made complete sense with what I know about some of it.

On the other hand, of course it will be misused. Right now it's interesting to see what's going on with it in the investments arena and to consider how some of that is going to shake out.

To both of you, this may not be the thread to be discussing this further. If you have any desire to continue, let me know where.
 
First you claimed AI was ‘anti-Scripture and anti-God’ because of its developers.

Now you say it’s ‘neither good nor bad’ and that people make it what it is.

If you stop shifting the goalposts, which is it - or do you want to reframe it again?

Either AI is morally defined by its developers and programmers, or it’s just a tool as I said it was, or???.

Looks to me like you’re just looking for an argument and claiming technical superiority you may well not have.


WAA WAAA I'm not defending it. Don't you dare insult my pet from the internet.

Yawn.
sleepy-yawn.gif
 

TPUSA Is Falling Apart Without Charlie Kirk — Here’s the Proof.

This is the most important evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.