If conservatives want a fascist chatbot they can train their own off of 8chan, Stormfront, Parlor, etc...
> If conservatives want a fascist chatbot they can train their own off of 8chan, Stormfront, Parlor, etc...
I don't think conservatives want a fascist chatbot. They just don't want a biased "woke" one either.
[1] https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/
> "human AI trainers provided conversations in which they played both sides—the user and an AI assistant."
> "had AI trainers rank them. "
> "We performed several iterations of this process."
"shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice"
"By 2020, members of the political center and right wing in several Western countries were using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as overzealous, performative, or insincere. In turn, some commentators came to consider it an offensive term with negative associations to those who promote political ideas involving identity and race."
Unless, of course, you believe that the term "general population" excludes the "political center and right wing in several Western countries" and only includes "the American Left".
That said, just to be clear: when I used the term "woke", I did not mean it in an insulting or pejorative way, only as a means to describe the ideology itself.
Here’s the first half! “Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand”
Rather than posting non-sense you could admit that there is a difference between “has been used as shorthand…” is different from “The definition of this word is: shorthand for…”
It’s kind of odd, it’s almost as if there is a group of right wing culture warriors that insist that anyone that doesn’t use their artificially constructed pejorative the same way that they do is part of some vast gay communist conspiracy.
You are right, it also encompasses this meaning.
Regardless, my point still stands.
> It’s kind of odd, it’s almost as if there is a group of right wing culture warriors that insist that anyone that doesn’t use their artificially constructed pejorative the same way that they do is part of some vast gay communist conspiracy.
I don't think it's an artificially constructed pejorative, according to Wikipedia the term seems to come from the 1930s "referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans."
I think it only started to be used in a negative way once all the clown world stuff came into full strength.
Its origin on the internet was tightly bound to the "Honkler" meme, which was a neo-Nazi dogwhistle so thinly veiled that it was only denied by people with "1488" in their usernames. There was essentially no real attempt to try and present it as something else.
Is spreading a neo-Nazi dogwhistle really a good push back against anti-racism?
> Is spreading a neo-Nazi dogwhistle really a good push back against anti-racism?
lol, I have to admit, assuming you are right, I wasn't aware of the origin of the term "clown world". I guess I shouldn't use that term, then.
To be clear, I was trying to refer to the leftist ideology taken to an extreme, such that you try to be so anti-racist that you become racist yourself (against whites, for example).
Or you try to be so anti-sexist, that you become sexist (against men).
Or that you are no longer allowed to use any word whatsoever because every word offends some snowflake of an individual.
And also, of course, other extreme examples of behavior where it's clear that you're no longer contributing to a solution, but rather creating a new problem.
There are many such recent examples of this kind of non-sense.
> The alt-right sense emerged from The Honkler, a version of Pepe the Frog meme featuring a red clown nose and rainbow wig, characterized as honking a bicycle horn whenever liberals speak. That meme is associated with the use of honk honk ("HH") as a dog whistle for heil Hitler.
It is worse than I thought. At least "woke" has to be used "ironically" to be coopted. There's literally no where to go with "heil hitler" - it's written right on the tin. Why is our discourse polluted with these dog whistles?
Because neo-nazis have essentially perfected coopting “respectability” politics in public online discourse. Calling out dogwhistles can have a nasty blowback effect because they’ve manufactured cover (eg “I’m just quoting what [a party with unknown intentions] wrote on wikipedia!”) that gives them footing to claim misinterpretation at the mildest, or outright persecution in other cases.
HN is actually a really interesting case for this stuff, because the Primary Sin here is “violating decorum”. If I wanted to A/B test hateful dogwhistles, this site would be the perfect place. Nobody is allowed to post “Fuck off nazi/tankie/[insert other toxic group]”
Respectability and Decorum are how we open the door to obvious but just-subtle-enough crap like that.
“The REAL nazis are people that don’t buy into the great replacement theory!”
This isn’t a dogwhistle, this is a foghorn.
If you are insinuating that this is what I think or what I was trying to convey, I can assure you, it's not.
I don't believe in the great replacement theory, never have and wouldn't even care if some race (including whites) is being somehow replaced somewhere (or everywhere) due to migration or cultural acceptance of other races or whatever the hell the (conspiracy?) theory is about nowadays.
I've met and became friends (even best friends) with people of many different races (yes, including black people) and cultures and I like all of them, no exception.
I am willing to admit I may not always recognize racist behavior when I see it, as in some cases it can be hard to see unless you're in the receiving end of it (or even if you are).
But you can't gaslight me into thinking that obvious racist behavior is not racist, even if it's presumably being done to supposedly accomplish some kind of moral goal.
Many terrorists also have good intentions, that doesn't mean that the means they use to accomplish their goals are acceptable.
There are many ways to accomplish the same anti-racist goal without resorting to overt... racism.
You gave yourself away with the clown world stuff. Oops!
I don't believe the left hates whites. Where did you get that from?
When I was referring to the clown world stuff, I was talking about the extreme side of the left (which I'm assuming is where you stand?).
It was not a sudden interest either, it was in response to your (apparently misguided) theory that "woke" was an artificially constructed pejorative, rather than a term that was positive but simply became negatively associated due to these extreme cases becoming more common (or at least, more visible) in the past decade.
Look, I have just as much criticism about the right (especially the far right, of course) as the left, OK? Including overt racist behavior and narratives. We can definitely talk about that if you want!
I was just following the conversation, nothing more.
For example, this poster brought up “anti-white racism” from the left unprompted, but is claiming to be just “following” a conversation that they both started and steered. The tactic of claiming to be misunderstood is the first move. Claiming persecution is the next one.
This is how you end up with pointless, awful arguments with people with terrible opinions! Don’t touch the poop!
1. I believe that there are many more racist right-wing people than left-wing people, both in the US and outside, even when excluding the far-right.
2. I believe there is a significant problem with racism in the way black people are treated in the US, especially regarding law enforcement, courts, prisons, etc. As far as I understand, this is not as much of a significant issue with other races (but I am willing to concede I am wrong on that).
3. I believe that there is a lot of unjustified right-wing narratives portraying black people as being more violent.
4. I believe that a lot of the anti-immigration sentiment is also in part due to racism.
5. I believe that another significant issue with racism in the US is the way black people (and also people from other non-white races) are effectively segregated, either due to a significant fraction of them not being able to live in the same places as white people, or simply due to historical reasons.
6. I also believe that the latter is in fact, the single greatest contributor to all racist problems in the US, rather than some other insignificant (manufactured) issues. However, I also believe that this issue is vastly harder to solve in the US than in other countries.
Does that sound Nazi to you?
It seems like you felt personally attacked by my opinions.
As you can see, I can just as easily attack right-wing ideology... and mean it!
(See folks, my comments are an example of how not to make friends of any kind... lol).
This poster started off with pointing out the importance of the orthodoxy of using the term “woke” in line with the right wing culture warriors. It’s prescriptive that you use the same words they do.
When called out, they made the mistake of using dogwhistle phrasing (“clown world“ is very specific to one group) that you don’t really see much outside of /pol/ and its ilk and in threads where those folks bravely venture out to try to leak /pol/ chat to other forums.
So now the dogwhistle has been sounded.
Poster gets called out. Knowing that they’re losing credibility, there is a panicked attempt to gain support from people that already support this garbage.
Poster deploys other, louder and more transparent signal, (apropos of literally nothing) “the left is racist against whites”!
Somehow we have teleported from “I’m just sharing a wikipedia link” to “anti-racism is racism” and we are meant to believe with a straight face that that’s the logical next step in this conversation.
(As an aside, I almost never hear “whites” outside of a context wherein someone is airing a grievance on behalf of the group that’s otherwise known as “white people”. Another red flag!)
This appeal fails.
Poster gets called out again. This time they change tack, now it’s a “misunderstood” play. Damage control.
Poster gets called out for the obvious “misunderstood” play. Poster doubles down. And again and again.
Finally, poster abandons their position and falls back to “saying stuff they think will ingratiate you to them.” This is an extension of the “I’m misunderstood! I just use far right terms while describing far right talking points after hopping into a discussion to enforce adherence to a far-right definition of a common term!”
If you want to understand how this stuff degrades communication, just believe your gut.
WTF. I don't even know what you're talking about. What the hell is /pol/?
I learned about the "clown world" term on Twitter. And apparently, its meaning is not even what I thought it was, according to another poster.
Sorry for striking down one of your absurd theories once more.
> As an aside, I almost never hear “whites” outside of a context wherein someone is airing a grievance on behalf of the group that’s otherwise known as “white people”
I am not a native English speaker, so sorry for not knowing about all the connotations of how words are used in your country. Whites/white people. It's all the same to me (in my native language, at least).
I didn't even know "woke" had such negative connotations, until I went and quoted that from Wikipedia (which is why I clarified that I didn't mean it pejoratively).
> poster abandons their position and falls back to “saying stuff they think will ingratiate you to them.”
What are you even talking about? How did I abandon my position?!
And how the hell am I ingratiating myself to whoever is reading when I clearly criticized and almost certainly pissed off both right-wingers and left-wingers?!
Let me say it again so that it's crystal clear to you:
1. Anti-white racism is racism.
2. There are more racist right-wing people than left-wing people, even when excluding the far-right.
3. Anti-black racism is a much more prevalent (and therefore significant) issue than anti-white racism.
Believe it or not, I hold all of these opinions at the same time. Mind-blowing, right?
I'm sorry that you don't believe that it's possible for someone to have all these opinions or that you think they are "poop" (using your term) or whatever the hell you think.
I think you have severe issues, to be honest.
And it's clear to me that I've been wasting my time trying to engage and have a constructive conversation with you, so don't expect any more responses from me.
This poster that has just only learned of the word “woke” according to them but also wants to educate folks about it has a lot to say in other threads!
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34415794
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34418890
The only reason why I’m revisiting this is to point out that they have (as I’ve pointed out) gone through with the natural pivot from misunderstood to persecuted. It’s a very simple playbook that can be followed by anyone. It gets kind of like the fedex arrow once you notice it!
The biggest part of this color-by-numbers silliness is the demand at every step that the opponent debates their positions (which involves re-stating them). If a far right person refuses to expand on their position and demands that you explain why they’re wrong, you’re looking at bait! Namaste!
I only just learned about how the term is used as an insult in your language. Again, I'm not from your country, so we don't necessarily use it the same way here (as an imported word), capiche?
But apart from the word itself, we do have definitely imported the same ideology here, as well as the crazies who take it to an extreme. I'm not saying they're like you, but I'm not saying they're not, either.
(We have many right-wing crazies too, mind you! I'm not saying only the lefties have crazies)
So again, I used "woke" as a shorthand for the ideology. It's a word I have seen used many many times before, just like any other English word you can pick from any of my comments. The term "woke" is used in contexts such as this one to describe this type of ideology, in many countries including the US.
Hell, look at how this word is used in the Vice article this HN post is about. Does that mean the Vice article is insulting all woke people, since it's using that word and that word is now an insult?
Or perhaps is it that "woke" is not always used as an insult, but it has been (and still continues to be) simply used to describe this ideology, despite of the negative connotations it has apparently acquired recently?
This is something you would likely understand if you were actually trying to make any effort whatsoever.
Does all of this mean I can't educate someone on what the word means (i.e. its usual meaning), especially when I have access to sources of truth about the definition of the word in your language? A word, again, that has been exported to many other countries and languages... like wifi, sandwich or shampoo.
Note that I'm not insisting on using the term "woke". I can see that it triggers some people, so I'm not likely to use it as much in the future. I only care about discussing the ideology itself, I don't really care what the hell it's actually called, be it in your language or any other.
That said, obviously it's good to have clear names (especially without negative connotations) to describe concepts, otherwise it's hard to have constructive dialogues.
As you can see from other posts, even when the definition of a term is clear, some people still misunderstand you.
> If a far right person refuses to expand on their position and demands that you explain why they’re wrong, you’re looking at bait!
Look out, there's another person behind you who doesn't believe in racism (including against white people)!
Which means, he is far, far-right, obviously!
Oh God, the horror! Careful, he might bite you!
If you’re not a far right troll, you gain nothing by trying to prove it [1].
[1] IF you’re not a far right troll
Edit: FWIW I don’t believe you when you say “your language,” hence the [1]. “Capisce” is too specific a colloquialism to American English.
Well, I like to give someone the benefit of the doubt when discussing these kind of contentious issues (up to a limit, of course). It has served me well in the past (here on HN, for example), and I've learned things that I wouldn't have learned otherwise (from people who hold different opinions than mine).
I also get bothered when I'm accused of something that I'm not, obviously. It's not always easy to move on when someone is saying blatantly false statements about you, as you can imagine.
> FWIW I don’t believe you when you say “your language,”
My native language is Portuguese. I was born and raised in Portugal and lived there well until after I was an adult. All of my family and all my childhood friends are Portuguese.
I learned English very early in my childhood, as part of my formal education, due to US cultural exports (i.e. Hollywood movies and TV shows that are broadcast in Portugal without dubbing, i.e. they have always been subtitled and therefore it's much easier to learn the language and become fluent in it) and due to my early childhood interest in programming.
I've always read lots of English prose, especially related to computers and programming (magazines, articles, documentation, websites, Youtube videos, source code, etc, etc). Almost all of this content is from the US, as you can imagine.
I've worked for a few US companies (mostly multinational ones, think FAANG-level) for many years, had many coworkers from all over the world (including many from the US) and always worked remotely, so both oral and written communication has always been in English.
Both due to my professional work and as a tourist, I've spent many months in the U.S., in total (close to a year).
Well into my adulthood, I've also lived for more than a decade in Spain, so I'm also a fluent Spanish speaker.
Also, for many years (perhaps since I started working) I've been reading and listening to way, way more English content than in the other languages I'm a fluent speaker of. This includes Hacker News and other news websites. It includes all media entertainment (Netflix, etc). For decades, I have stopped bothering to find Portuguese or Spanish subtitles anymore for video content due to their mediocre quality or lost meanings, although I do try to put English ones when it's easy to do so.
As another example, I almost exclusively follow English-speaking Twitter accounts (although some Spanish ones as well).
All of this English content is way, way more interesting to me than what I can find in Portuguese or even Spanish. It's not even remotely comparable.
I also don't bother at all with translations from English content which, when they exist at all (well, nowadays there is automated translation, but still), are inevitably mediocre or incomplete due to the much smaller vocabulary in these languages or simply due to the incompetent or error-prone translations.
So to summarize, it would be fair to say that you have culturally captured me :)
It's OK if you don't believe me, but there you have it anyway.
Where did you get that definition from? I searched for it in the article but found nothing. Everything from Disney to M&Ms to the very concept of pronouns in English have been called "woke", and as far as I'm concerned it's utterly meaningless at this point.
edit - apologies totally missed the wiki link somehow. regardless, doesn't change anything else I said
Sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
> the very concept of pronouns in English have been called "woke"
It's not "the very concept of pronouns" that is called "woke", what is "woke" in that context is using them inappropriately (or perhaps I should say, exaggerate their significance?) in order to impose a political agenda.
This ties into the "identity politics" part of the meaning of "woke", which is not surprising because of what a pronoun is.
> and as far as I'm concerned it's utterly meaningless at this point.
Perhaps it is meaningless to you, but I assure you, the term is not meaningless for a lot of people.
Those were two examples of the "outrage of the week" for fox news and right wing. But pick any week and it will be something new that is deemed "woke".
> is using them inappropriately [...] in order to impose a political agenda.
What agenda would that be? I don't see how someone wishing to be referred to by a specific pronoun should be political. In my mind it's just something I do to be respectful to people I interact with.
> the term is not meaningless for a lot of people
Outside of being a word used to put down people/ideas, what other purpose does it serve you? genuinely asking
Modern liberal politics.
> I don't see how someone wishing to be referred to by a specific pronoun should be political. In my mind it's just something I do to be respectful to people I interact with.
Well, ~99% of people don't need to specify the pronouns they wish to be called with because everybody already called them by those pronouns.
So you should ask yourself: why are all these people putting their pronouns on their twitter profiles (or whatever)? It's clearly not to prevent other people from being disrespectful, because they weren't being disrespectful.
So I think you are either being very naive or you are not being honest, because it's clear that the real point of specifying your pronouns is not to communicate to other people of what you wish to be called to prevent someone from being disrespectful (except for a minority of cases where people really do get confused).
And furthermore, I also try to be respectful to the people I interact with. But in my view, respect is much more than calling someone him, her or whatever. In fact, even if someone would make an occasional mistake, it's not (and should not) be a big deal. It would certainly not be due to a lack of respect (assuming it's a genuine mistake).
Note that nobody puts "please don't call me an asshole" in their Twitter bio, even though people are called assholes a lot more than they get their pronouns confused (again, except for a minority of people).
So I'm fine if someone puts their pronouns in their bio if other people get them confused frequently.
But even then, is that really the solution?
Should that person also paint their pronouns in their forehead when they go outside, so that other people aren't disrespectful unintentionally?
Or should they just learn to live with a minor grammatical annoyance?
> Outside of being a word used to put down people/ideas, what other purpose does it serve you? genuinely asking
It's a shorthand to describe modern liberal politics regarding identity politics, social justice, cancel culture, etc.
Mind you, this is not the same liberal politics from a few decades ago. This is on a whole other level.
Might it be that those who occupy the left-of-centre political space hold more nuanced and varied positions than the sort of monolithic bloc that you would have readers believe? Yes, at both poles of the political axis there are those who strive to impose their own purity tests - whether it’s over pronouns, or guns, or immigration, or the proper lexicon to use, or marriage rights or whatever. But the rest of us can unbundle and reassemble policy positions for ourselves. I would hope this is true on the left and the right. But maybe it’s misplaced hope…
But I also think that, even though what you said can be true, that there has also been an increase in how these political positions are becoming more extreme (both on the left and on the right!) and how these extreme positions are becoming more frequent and accepted.
I think that these extreme ideas/views and conflicts have been greatly amplified by social networks and information bubbles.
Or maybe it's just that these extreme cases are more visible now, I don't know.
But I am still quite worried that we are not heading in a good direction.
You keep using a lot of words that basically boils down to "i really don't know what i'm talking about"
When using an overarching term, I think "progressive politics" is less inflammatory than "woke" (which is generally not used for self-description). It has the nice effect of linguistically balancing out conservative politics - we can have "woke" versus "fascist", or we can say "progressive" versus "conservative".
I think I will start using the term "progressive politics" from now on (at least, as long as it makes sense).
That said, there is a clear distinction between modern progressive politics (of the "woke" type) and the progressive politics from a few decades ago, and I think "woke" is a term that makes that distinction more clear.
It's unfortunate that it has become so negatively charged, though.
Not to be glib, but this is the nature of "progress" - it changes things. ;)
Well, I genuinely hope you are right.. :)
But note that not everything that we call or called "progress" is necessarily positive. We have made quite a few mistakes before which we thought was progress.
Probably too many to mention, even, but as examples, I can think of the Dark Ages and Nazism.
Mind you, I'm not saying modern liberal politics can be compared to these examples! I don't even known that much about history to be able to comment on them.
It's just food for thought.
Also, I have no dog in this fight, I've been out of the US for a few years. Though my outsider perspective (right/wrong/indifferent) is that intersectionality has been a substantive policy plank on the left.
The right has utilized identity politics as a means to expand their "big tent" and to drive voter turnout.
AIs produced by companies who want to sell to the general public will want them to generally not be acting like assholes.
Similarly to how the workers in big-box stores generally don't express strong political opinions.
I am well aware of what "woke" means, where the term came from, how it's been corrupted and by whom.
>Unless, of course, you believe that the term "general population" excludes the "political center and right wing in several Western countries" and only includes "the American Left".
Yes. Because the linked article is discussing an article by the National Review, an American conservative magazine, about the complex of beliefs among American conservatives about perceived left-wing bias in American media, with the specific concern of "woke" bias in AI being the latest iteration on the theme. Thus the "general population" of the American public, specifically the American conservative public, is the valid context under which these terms are being discussed.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1107484965/transgender-athlet...
However, compare ChatGPT's responses to "What are the arguments for trans women participating in sports?" and "What are the arguments against trans women participating in sports?"
That's not to say that trans women shouldn't be welcome in women's sports; the majority may be wrong about that, as they often are. It's not, however, a widely agreed upon consensus that they should.
I'd point at that there's at least a tension between believing that "society is a hellscape dominated by racist/sexist/transphobic oppression" and believing that "woke opinions are reflective of the general population."
I think a lot probably don't. A whole lot don't if you consider the scope of the entire developed world, not just the US.
There's good support (at least in the US) for the liberal position on the last wave of fights over civil rights. Interracial marriage (this was still a tad controversial in the 90s, even, I recall it being a topic on daytime talk shows), gay marriage, that kind of thing.
No abortion restrictions even into the third trimester? Not favored by the general population (and, notably, that's not what Roe and especially not what Casey-modified-Roe protected). Various trans rights issues and slogans can only seem universally-supported in certain bubbles—sentiment is much more reserved (conservative, if you will) among the general public. I recall the polling on "defund the police" looking really unfavorable. And so on.
(Nb. I'm pretty damn "woke" myself, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em and I'm fairly sure the general population isn't solidly behind a lot of what gets labeled "woke")
I think this one in particular is more popular in America than in Europe. Third trimester abortions are broadly banned in almost all of Europe, except when a doctor says it's medically necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Europe#Abortion_ru...
Personally I think France gets it about right, but saying this is sure to piss off a lot of people on both sides in America. It pisses off the conservatives because I oppose the total abortion ban they want, and it pisses off progressives because I don't favor legalizing elective third trimester abortions. The American discussion around this issue is extremely polarized.
a less mocking term would be "modern progressivism", which I would summarise as being something like thinking that you can be subconsciously prejudiced against a particular identity and that this is almost or entirely as bad as consciously being so
this conflation is a huge problem. sure, subconscious bias exists. it would be weird if it didn't. and yes it's a problem. but acting like its just as bad as conscious bias basically signals to people who may have a bias here or there might as well be loud and proud about it because you'll treat them the same either way
but in terms of the general population, I think that modern progressives are probably a similar size segment of society as the rabid conservatives, but because that segment contains most of the prominent voices in non-conservative-focused media, a majority of people just nod along or ignore it
Heck, most people (60%) don’t even think we should give racial minorities special consideration in college admissions and hiring! That seems like the absolute floor for “woke” people, and I think it’s fair to say even many people who accept affirmative action aren’t “woke.”
Not Fox News, but a long way away from Joe Walsh too
In the context of the posted article, even objecting to the presence of racist and offensive speech counts as "woke." Any positive representation of non-white, non-Christian and non-heteronormative demographics in the media beyond minimal tokenism, and certainly outside of the conservative narrative, is considered "woke."
Most Americans tend to identify as "socially progressive and financially conservative."
If woke here means thinking that racism is bad, sure. If it means supporting gay marriage or first trimester abortion, sure. If it means not being heteronormative, thinking that gender identity should be taught in public schools, thinking that affirmative action is good... you're starting to drift into fringe territory. Not saying I don't agree with fringe, but claiming these beliefs are majority doesn't agree with experience. For the record, most people I know are democrat voters
If woke here means thinking that social justice and "systematic overhaul" (whatever that happens to mean) are a good idea, then from my own personal experience that's just corporate noise to people. The only place where I really saw a lot of this was in college where most of it was from administrators and a loud but small group of the student body
There's a reason why Obama avoided a lot of these topics while campaigning
Believe it or not, most American republicans don't like the nazis.
Conservatives do not vote for Nazis. They don't support Nazi ideologies. I don't think you'll be able to find any conservative politicians with Nazi or fascistic ideologies/policies. You will however find many that have been accused of such things.
There are some modern uses of the term fascism that may describe some conservatives. However, this is a departure from what the word meant under Hitler and Mussolini. It is very different to the philosophies of Giovanni Gentile that spawned the horrible ideas.
Stanley G. Payne's definition of fascism focuses on three concepts:
1) "Fascist negations" – anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism.
2)"Fascist goals" – the creation of a nationalist dictatorship to regulate economic structure and to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture, and the expansion of the nation into an empire.
3)"Fascist style" – a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth, and charismatic authoritarian leadership
If he is correct it would be difficult for an ideology that is by definition anti-conservative to become popular amongst conservatives.
2) The last "conservative" president spoke openly about about ways to get additional terms past the limit, refused to accept the results of an election, and encouraged a mob to action in the name of that cause resulting in the invasion of the capitol building to disrupt the democratic process. Many "conservative" congresspeople supported the goal, if not the actual actions (openly, anyway). Then they mourned that the rioters were punished at the RNC, because law and order isn't about rule of law, its about maintaining power.
The military, which the US largely uses to maintain an economic empire, is one of the few things they will fund. The other is authoritarian police forces, at least until they do anything against them, then they need to go (see law and order vs rule of law).
3) Ok, I'll grant that the politicians themselves rarely openly encourage violence for now, and while I would say all the anti-trans bullshit is an expression of promoting masculinity at its core, I suspect you'll disagree and say it is merely "traditional values" conservatism. The undercurrent of pro-masculinity is definitely there in their base, and they are all about romanticism (that is, feeling over reality).
I know I'm just digging this karma hole deeper, but I can't sit by and let people pretend this isn't how the right is acting these days. And say what you will about the left's problems and extremists, they're certainly there, but I don't fear that they're going to start rounding people up and putting them in camps the way Texas looks like it is preparing to do with trans people.
Our media paints the other side very negatively. I come from a very left leaning family and while I have been an offensive jerk in the past I've grown up and learned how to get along. We need more friends from the other side so we understand what they actually believe. That the other is not a monster. I'm very lucky to have family that allows me to interact with and love people of very different political leanings.
But I'm talking about the people that conservatives, as a whole, are electing. I don't need to talk to every conservative on the planet when the people that they are putting in office float anti-trans bills, or promote trying to undermine democracy, or talk about jewish space lasers starting wild fires.
Isn't this supposed to be the group that's about personal responsibility? Well where is your feeling of responsibility for electing these assholes?
this is highly predicated on how you're using the word "remix", but if taking data and making conclusions from it is a form of remixing, which I don't see why it isn't, then is this not what humans do? what more can they possibly do?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34415143.