-Fred Hampton was a black activist from Chicago -- an extraordinary speaker, youth organizer for the NAACP.
-He joined the Black Panthers and shone so brightly that he was made chair of the Chicago chapter when he was only 20.
-He founded the Rainbow Coalition, which brought together Black and Latino activists and radical anti-poverty Catholics. He forged an alliance among major Chicago street gangs to help them make peace and work for social change.
-In 1967, when he was just 19, Hampton was identified by the FBI as a “radical threat.” The FBI tried to subvert his activities in Chicago, sowing disinformation to get the groups he’d drawn together to distrust each other, and getting an FBI plant next to him as a bodyguard.
-(This is part of an illegal FBI program called COINTELPRO, which aimed to paint black civil rights activists (among others) as violent and threatening. If you’ve only seen pictures of the Black Panthers as armed and dangerous revolutionaries, and never heard of their children’s breakfast program, their community health clinics, or their “copwatch” patrols, this is why. It’s because COINTELPRO was a highly successful work of political propaganda.)
-On December 3, 1969, Hampton taught a political education course at a local church, and then several Panthers gathered at his apartment for a late dinner. One of them was the FBI plant bodyguard, who drugged Hampton.
-At 4:45 AM on December 4, a squad of Chicago Police officers and FBI agents with a warrant to search for weapons stormed the apartment. Investigations later showed they fired between 90 and 99 times. The Panther on security detail, Mark Clark, was holding a shotgun. He was shot, and the gun went off into the ceiling. This was the only shot fired by the Panthers.
-Fred Hampton, in another room, didn’t awaken. He was shot in his bed. Twice, in the head, at point-blank range. He was 21.
-Four weeks after witnessing Hampton's death, his finance Deborah Johnson gave birth to their son, Fred Hampton Jr. That’s him in the photograph, visiting the grave of a father who died before he was born. A resting place riddled with bullets.
But it was about the same effort and got very similar results. I mean, you put in a whole lot more effort into your reply and yet you're criticizing people of doing too much. I don't get it. Does ChatGPT trigger people this much?
I have no issue with ChatGPT, I simply dislike when people rely on it as their first and only source and give unhelpful answers because of it. (Edit: Not to mention ChatGPT can be quite dangerous when used this way. Its a bad habit that shouldn't be encouraged.)
And I wouldn't say I put in more effort in my response considering the amount of caveats they added in theirs about how they asked chatgpt and have no idea if its real. Our responses were similar in length, mine is just all one paragraph and so looks bigger. If I had responded to the original question, I would have just dropped a link and that would have been the end of it.
But they were clear about what they did. It's similar, but what you're saying doesn't apply here.
I'm only comparing your response to their effort asking ChatGPT. My point is that typing up a comment on Lemmy is much more effort than formulating a question for ChatGPT, which is negligible, making the entire argument around how much effort one exerts in what a bit forced. Idk, I find it unproductive when there are better points to argue about.
Again, had I responded to the original question, I would have just left a link and that would have been it. Compare that to their comment, where they had to preface it with them asking ChatGPT and not knowing if it was even valid, on top of regurgitating what it said in their own words, and its clear they put more effort in than necessary for what I would consider a less helpful answer.
My response was simply meant to point this out, and that's obviously going to take more effort. I never did and never intended to compare their comment to my whole argument.
I agree the argument is pretty pointless though, it was a simple statement and I even said I appreciated that they did put in some effort and answered the question. Perhaps I should have emphasized that more in my original comment.
It’s annoying and so are the people who defend it to death like you
I'm defending it to death now? Lmao ok
Personally, I find it more annoying when someone starts accusing others of things that have not happened but to each their own.
His result was wrong. He brought up the old donation site I mentioned was now unable to accept donations. He did more work and got less results.
Their point was not about donating but that the fundraiser had changed focus, which was true. If it had been specifically about donating, then I'd agree.
I'll eat that blame even with the warning. I didn't check that's on me.