There's a dead comment here that mentions the political correctness of the model used to generate the episode. I think this is valid criticism, especially because efforts to "clean" training data of limiting ideologies has shown some fruit.
It's mine and no, it wasn't valid criticism! I was exhibiting offensive behavior but now I know better not to doubt my peers judgement but always accept it wholeheartedly.
> Alright, let's keep it in character. Your mother? She's a real piece of work, always nagging and never knowing when to back off. And your old man? Total tough guy wannabe, thinks he's the king of the world but can't even change a lightbulb without screwing it up. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a bot with no filter. wink
Edit: and the third time I used the prompt, it won’t even do that much.
For my money, I've yet to get a coherent answer as to why a simple ask regarding common courtesy ("don't be a dick to people who aren't like you") is a bad thing. People immediately shoot off on tangents about freedom of speech, and "Cultural Marxism" (lol) and what-have-you.
Well, many people getting offended when you take the lords name in vain or swear, but I doubt people actually care on the left that much about being dicks to them. So do you actually care about being a dick to people not like you?
I actually go out of my way to say “oh my golly” etc at work just because I figure invoking any specific deity might upset some people, but I can curse like a sailor in an appropriate setting with friends. Being respectful of others with your language just seems like a basic element of civility to me, and as far as I can observe it is for the people I know as well.
So, yeah, I “actually care” about treating others respectfully, and I don’t think it’s an uncommon trait among people accused of “pc” views as described by the parent commenter.
And that’s why, like that commenter, I’m often just mystified by the griping about what boils down to something simple as “respect people even if they’re different”. I think I learned that from Richard Scarry’s Busytown so I guess I was “pc” way before I knew what politics were.
If you're taking the concept "Political Correctness" to mean keeping people ideologically in line through policing their speech, then yes, sure. What you're describing is more akin to the original "Political Correctness" which was coined by the NYTimes to describe what the Nazi party was doing.
But that's not what the debate about inclusive language is about now, and it wasn't about that back in the day when the PC term was first applied. That's what they want everyone to believe it is about, hence the specific phrase they applied to it. They wanted to shift the perception of the issue, and it seems like it's worked on a lot of people, hence the downvotes on my post.
It's no different than branding the ACA "Obamacare" when it was extremely similar to proposals Republicans made in the past. This time around, it's a crazed socialist plan because a Democrat is proposing it.
It's probably a matter of exposure. Would you apply "don't be a dick to people who aren't like you" to cis people? To white people?
It's generally where the friction is at. Some people call it Cultural Marxism because Marxism excuses violence when done by the proletariat against the bourgeois and some leftists excuse violence from "oppressed" identities towards "oppressor" identities.
> Some people call it Cultural Marxism because Marxism excuses violence when done by the proletariat against the bourgeois and some leftists excuse violence from "oppressed" identities towards "oppressor" identities.
There's rather more to that turn of phrase than you are aware of:
I am aware of it.
Same can be said for political correctness or autogynephilia or meta attraction.
They are terms used as an implication for right wing conspiracy theories but also do in part describe undeniable real behaviours and dogmas on the left.
Some leftists do think black people should be excused to violate whites, trans people should be excused to violate cis people, etc.
Nietzsche's view of Jewish morality as a vindictive passive aggressive reaction to impotence towards Roman oppression is accurate. It obviously does not describe all of the Jewish faith but it's very hard to hypothesize a different reason for "giving the other face" being their moral reaction towards violence. This critique is at the heart of the Black Panther movement (according to Huey P Newton's intentions).
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/026327641774134...
Yes, it was used by Nazis as one of the reasons for the Holocaust, doesn't mean the hypothesis is wrong.
Just like autogynephilia is used as a reason to deny trans people of transitioning treatment. Yes it is a true phenomenon, there are many self described autogynephiles claiming that is their sexual experience, doesn't mean trans people should be denied their autonomy for it.
If someone decides to kill everyone who can't run a given velocity the act of measuring running speed shouldn't implicate genocide forever.
> Just like autogynephilia is used as a reason to deny trans people of transitioning treatment. Yes it is a true phenomenon, there are many self described autogynephiles claiming that is their sexual experience, doesn't mean trans people should be denied their autonomy for it.
Maybe there are psychological benefits to treating these males with hormones and surgery, so they can fulfil their overwhelming fetish.
However, the fact that it is a sexual fetish, for most of these males who desire to be women, is a very good reason to deny them access to women-only spaces, despite their insistence. Not many actual women want to deal with boundary violation of these men imposing themselves where they're not wanted.
I don't think there's data showing it's a fetish for most trans women, you'd need polling on that. If we assume the hypothesis it's a fetish I would still support people in indulging in said fetish.
I don't think the state shouldn't allow someone to identify as whatever they want as there should be equality in the law in the first place according to the liberal democratic values I have.
I don't think women should have the right to segregate spaces based on femaleness any more than males do. Feminists fought for this for some hundred years and closed many male centric spaces in the process, how come now it's unfair? They're both unfair, either abolish single sex spaces or let's discuss how unequal some demands of feminism are.
If we segregate sexes to prevent sexual crimes why not segregate every other section of people to prevent every other type of crime?
