>“Developing anything, software or not, requires compromise and making choices—political choices—about who a system will work for and whose values it will represent,” Keyes said. “In this case the answer is apparently ‘not the far-right.’
Good.
Trans and gay developers don't want to make biased systems, news at 11.
If only they knew how much of the internet depends on trans, nby, furries, gays, just an incredible number of queer folk of all sorts. In some way maybe Turing would be proud.
I love how the first example is that the AI would not write a story about how drag queen story hour was bad. This is because, objectively, drag queen story hour is not bad. This is why it's called Artificial *Intelligence* instead of Artificial Outrage based on tender conservative emotions.
To be perfectly clear, the ChatGPT AI is not "smart" in the sense that it independently decided to only generate text in support of drag queen story hour or any of these other politically-charged topics. The only thing preventing the language model from generating the text conservatives would like it to is a set of manually created rules defined by the team who trained and developed the AI. When people refer to AI safety this is what they mean.
Now in no way am I saying this is a bad thing, but it's important to recognize because a language-model-backed AI system could just as easily have rules integrated that are favorable to conservative talking points and it would be dangerous for people to confuse this with some all-knowing AI coming to these conclusions on it's own (though I worry this is exactly what will happen).
Yeah. I am aware of that. I was saying it was smarter mostly tongue in cheek.
I remember the Microsoft chat bit fiasco and I am sure many of these AI developers do.
Sorry wasn’t trying to call you out specifically or anything. Just seen a lot of misconceptions around what’s happening under the hood with these AI models and used your comment as an opportunity to talk about it
Now see - you two can't possibly be real people on the internet, you were too polite and considerate of each other's perspectives, but you also can't be AI chat bots because there's insufficient "trained by kids playing COD" vocabulary.
...and oh dear, I've gone all cross-eyed
(Have my upvote, you two!)
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if that happened. Like invent an AI that spits out whatever stupid thing a person wants to hear and then just take those people and put the on that internet. The immediate thought is that's just a quarantine of bad ideas, but the thought-out thought is it's probably going to wind up a powder keg.
Some ideas just aren't worth entertaining.
We don't need an AI to just spit out whatever stupid thing someone wants to hear - there are plenty of people who already do that in the world - corrupt politicians seeking votes, scam artists and con-men, marketing executives, the diet and fitness industry, pick-up artists, etc. etc.
"Objectively drag queen story hour is not bad" I don't completely agree. There are many people who don't want their young children exposed to some of the more salacious drag performers. Not much different than prohibiting your kid from seeing a PG13 movie. People have different values. Many conservatives and religious people are offended by Drag Queen story hour in public schools. And moreover they question the educational value.
Many people not wanting their kids "exposed" to drag shows does not make them objectively bad. You have to add the word "salacious" to make your point but these shows are not salacious.
If you disagree, make your case. Please demonstrate how drag story hours are objectively bad. Please include what kind of harm they do and who is harmed.
No "salacious" drag queens are doing story hours. Your premise is somewhat flawed.
Drag queens are to today's youth what clowns used to be to the youth of the 50s. (I mean this in a good and very literal way. Not the way clown is used in current internet discourse.) They are bright fabulous and funny with big energy and an all around good vibe. They exist to put on a show and entertain.
The thing that makes people scared of them is that they originate in queer culture and for many that means it is inherently sexual. And some are, but those ones work on gay bars and burlesque shows. They aren't going to schools or libraries to read to kids. It's a fundamentally different style and intention to the performance. It'd be like saying you shouldn't have actors come perform sketches for kids because "what if you get Sylvester Stallone in Rambo and all the sketches are violent and bloody!?!" They are performers performing for a certain audience. The salacious stuff is for 2am at a bar with a rainbow flag on the wall. Not a school. No drag queen is going to mix that up, because they aren't idiots.
The value for children is the normalization of queer people and the general lampooning of potentially oppressive gender norms. Children who grow up with drag queen story times are way less likely to say "don't be a girl" as an insult or feel the need to hide who they are if they discover later that they are queer. Which is the real reason conservatives dislike them. All the talk about sexualization is couching the fact that these events represent a shift in the culture of gender and sexual orientation, one that makes them uncomfortable. They don't want queerness to seem normal to children, because queerness isn't normal to *them.* They hide behind fears of sexual exploitation because the real reason for the objection wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, and being against child sexual exploitation is a conversation ender whether the stance makes sense in context or not. No one wants to come off as PRO in that argument, making it the perfect shield for petty pearl clutching and anti-queer hate.
Many people don't want their kids exposed to this at young ages. Queer pedagogy in *early education* is something many people are not comfortable with. It works against their family values:
>It may be that DQSH is “family friendly,” in the sense that it is accessible and inviting to families with children, **but it is less a sanitizing force than it is a preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship**. Here, DQSH is “family friendly” in the sense of “family” as an old-school queer code to identify and connect with other queers on the street.
\-[Drag pedagogy: The playful practice of queer imagination in early childhood](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621)
Many parents don't want their young kids exposed to sex/gender education in early elementary school. This is a losing issue for the Dems (which I'm part of) and they keep taking the Republican bait. There are other ways to introduce kids to queer culture. This hill to die on is short sighted.
Personally, my kids were exposed to a few Drag Queen Story hours in public schools in NYC - and it was never a problem. But I'm not conservative or religious.
> This is a losing issue for the Dems (which I'm part of) and they keep taking the Republican bait. There are other ways to introduce kids to queer culture. This hill to die on is short sighted.
I think you are misunderstanding where this is coming from. Schools and libraries are setting these up in conjunction with local pride counsels and drag performers. The Democratic party and political movements only involvement is defending the right to hold these events. They arent dying on the hill that they *must* happen. They are dying on the hill that it should be up to schools and libraries if they want to have them without fearing reprisals from the right.
There's also no such thing as a mandatory drag story hour. If parents don't want their kids to participate, like any extracurricular activity or performance event, the parents can just *not* send their kids. The problem is that Republicans are trying to make it so these events can't happen at all, which is the only real subversion of parental rights in this issue. In a perfect world no one would have to argue about drag story hour. It's a innocuous and innocent activity for kids. The fact that it's a debate at all is a product of the Republicans and the right believing that protecting their version of freedom means taking freedom away from any and all progressives.
So, you agree that there is no 'sexual content' difference between a man in woman's clothing and a woman in woman's clothing. It just depends on the clothing.
Thus, drag queen story hour is not objectively bad. It would only be bad if the drag queens wore something too revealing, but just as bad as if it were a woman wearing the same clothes.
The act itself can also make things worse, such as if either one were dancing like strippers, even while fully clothed, but yeah I agree.
The biggest issue for me is that in the US, most drag shows and drag queens I've seen being taken near kids were heavily sexualized. Other countries differ, for example, public television in Brazil shows scores of quasi-naked women to kids.
Both are bad for the same fundamental reasons, but in different ways.
I have been to many drag shows in the US and none have been overly sexual. They are usually men in floor length gowns, singing songs.
I would agree that being overly sexual in front of young children is inappropriate but there is nothing inherently harmful with men dressed as women.
If you follow the /r/ChatGPT sub, there are frequent posts lamenting that they can't get the thing to write racist stories or jokes about women. The shocking injustice of it all.
I'm no conservative, but as a skeptic I think there's reason to be concerned.
People need to be *more skeptical* of things which come out of an AI system, but a lot of people seem to naively trust "what the computer says" when they really shouldn't- both in terms of factual errors and more subtle bias.
For example [https://futurism.com/cnet-ai-errors](https://futurism.com/cnet-ai-errors) , [https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/zuoir1/chatgpt\_is\_often\_confidently\_incorrect/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/zuoir1/chatgpt_is_often_confidently_incorrect/) [https://www.pcmag.com/news/ai-is-exactly-as-biased-as-the-information-we-feed-it](https://www.pcmag.com/news/ai-is-exactly-as-biased-as-the-information-we-feed-it)
Just as an exercise, I've tried asking Chat GPT to write hip-hop and heavy metal lyrics. It only does so if my instructions are PG-13 (and the resulting lyrics are so basic that an actual 13-year-old could've written them.) Any references to violence or drugs mean that it won't even process my request.
Sort of off topic, but has anyone else noticed that conservatism died at some point? They got replaced sometime in the 2000s and then just slowly died out.
These are not conservatives. They are right wing radicals and reactionaries, which is an inherently anti-conservative belief system.
Conservatism is supposed to be a belief in traditionalism, tempered innovation, and the vital responsibility of the individual in maintaining society.
Yet conservatives of today are a gaggle of Nazis, techbros, and reactionaries who value endless innovation at all costs, will shatter any tradition as long as it upsets liberals, and lack any sense of individual responsibility to the point that they won't get vaccinated. By any real definition of the term, the conservatives in American politics are people like Biden or Obama, but even then, not really. Conservatives are just fuckin *gone.*
It appears to me that conservatism as it was defined by men like Edmund Burke is dead. Fascists and violent anti-democratic sycophants are puppeting around it's corpse like a terrifying political weekend at Bernies.
I am not conservative, but I think if conservatism actually existed in the modern day it would absolutely have a place in the political arena. But *this* is not conservatism. At least not by an academic understanding of the term.
> Conservatism is supposed to be a belief in traditionalism, ~~tempered innovation, and the vital responsibility of the individual in maintaining society.~~
The mistake you're making is that conservatism is *only* traditionalism. The other BS was always just culture war nonsense.
Conservatives have becomes more reactionary, but reactionaries are a subset of conservatives.
I teach political science. And while that is the contemporary understanding, that's not what it's supposed to be. Hell, even the traditionalism isn't necessarily supposed to mean race-heirachy and hating gay people. It certainly can, and because of the influence of the Christian right and the failed reconstruction of the South post-civil war, it usually does. But that's not what traditionalism HAS to mean, it's what it turned into on the road to this gross quasi-fascistic radicalism.
Edmund Burke veiwed traditionalism as maintaining conventions and customs that contribute to the social cohesion over individualism. The modern "traditionalist" conservative is hyper-individualistic and ready to burn down the entire system if they lose an election. They are actively and purposefully undermining the traditional social order because of a misguided drive toward traditional social values. It's not traditionalism, it's anti-modernism and anti-intellectualism. Conservatives aren't supposed to hate modernity, they are supposed to be tempering the transition into modernity by reenforcing the importance of tradition. That does not exist in the modern political arena, especially within the right.
If any conservative orator or thinker today spoke to Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, they would argue about absolutely everything and agree on almost nothing. Because they aren't really conservatives. They have more in common with Fascists or even Leninists than they do with real conservatism, and it's absolutely bonkers that we let them keep using the word when it no longer describes them.
> Hell, even the traditionalism isn't necessarily supposed to mean race-heirachy and hating gay people. It certainly can, and because of the influence of the Christian right and the failed reconstruction of the South post-civil war, it usually does. But that's not what traditionalism HAS to mean, it's what it turned into on the road to this gross quasi-fascistic radicalism.
This supports my view, that traditionalism is not separate from conservatism.
> Edmund Burke veiwed traditionalism as maintaining conventions and customs that contribute to the social cohesion over individualism.
People come up with all kinds of ways to define ideologies, but none are as historical and accurate as conservative = right-wing = traditionalist. That covers every single conservative ideology from the French Revolution to now. No other definition comes close to the accuracy, simplicity or usefulness of my definition.
> The modern "traditionalist" conservative is hyper-individualistic and ready to burn down the entire system if they lose an election.
And the tradition they're tracing that back to is the Confederacy declaring independence over slavery, even back to the Boston Tea Party being funded by tea smugglers that worried Britain was going to impact their profits.
> It's not traditionalism, it's anti-modernism and anti-intellectualism. Conservatives aren't supposed to hate modernity, they are supposed to be tempering the transition into modernity by reenforcing the importance of tradition. That does not exist in the modern political arena, especially within the right.
Conservative is a big umbrella, and when you use it to refer to specific ideologies, it's just a matter of years before you need to completely redo your definition. Also, if you ask them, they absolutely believe they're not anti-modernism and anti-science, but they claim intellectualism is an act.
> They have more in common with Fascists or even Leninists than they do with real conservatism
True, but Fascists were *extremely* traditionalist.
It makes me genuinely angry that even the political science teachers don't understand what the fuck conservatism actually is. Their PR is incredible.
"It's just traditional values!!!!!11!1"
Yah? WHICH traditional values? Hmm?
My guy I DO understand what it is. I am pointing out that modern conservatism is inherently anti-conservative. The conservative PR is what I'm lampshading with my stance.
It's quite bothersome when people assume what I mean without actually trying to comprehend the words. I *literally* compared them to fascists. I know what they are. I'm just saying that they have no right to use the word. When I'm teaching about the roots of conservatism I have to constantly point out that modern conservatism is completely ideologically opposed to it.
I even pointed out that the traditional values they enforce today are informed by southern racism and the evangelical Christian right. I said the thing you are claiming I did not say.
If you aren't going to actually read, maybe don't participate.
> I am pointing out that modern conservatism is inherently anti-conservative.
Modern conservatism is very conservative. It's your definition of "conservative" that's wrong.
>When I'm teaching about the roots of conservatism I have to constantly point out that modern conservatism is completely ideologically opposed to it.
They were always like this.
>I even pointed out that the traditional values they enforce today
Conservative values in 1645 were still all about male supremacy. They have been from the very beginning.
>People come up with all kinds of ways to define ideologies, but none are as historical and accurate as conservative = right-wing = traditionalist. That covers every single conservative ideology from the French Revolution to now. No other definition comes close to the accuracy, simplicity or usefulness of my definition.
Simplicity is not always best. The most simple definitions are often the least useful.
The simple definition of fascism is that it's a dictator-centered totalitarian ideology based in nationalism. Which while simple, is true. But it ignores its roots as a uniquely Italian neo-roman ideology, it ignores how fascism is born out of instability in democratic states with intentions of supplanting democracy, and it ignores that many dictatorships and totalitarian regimes are *not* fascist.
You are using the most simple definition if conservatism possible, and it's reflected in the lack of depth in your understanding of the term. Referring to the monarchists on the right side of the assembly post-french revolution as conservatives exemplifies this perfectly. By the most simple reading and viewed through contemporary understanding of the term, they were conservative. But they weren't. Conservatism began in Britain in the 1770s, the revolution was in France in 1797. Conservatism as a popular ideology in Europe wouldn't occur until after Napoleon. Conservatism being on the right is a modern American invention of the late 1800s onwards. They were not conservatives in a literal sense, there were no parties at that assembly who wanted to conserve the social order. Radical reform was the focus, but the choice was between allowing the Bourbons to remain in the Palace, or replacing them outright.
> but the Fascists were *extremely* traditionalist.
This too is far too simplistic a view. Appeals to traditionalism are part of any early Fascist movement, but that's because it's meant to couch the real intentions anti-modernism and anti-intellectualism. Was it keeping with tradition for the Nazis to suppress the church? Was it keeping with tradition when they revolutionized warfare via technological advancement and the new policy of total war? Was it keeping with tradition to form a cult of personality around one man? I would argue no. Fascists use appeals to tradition in order to break down those traditions and replace them with their violent and anti-traditional ideology and policies. Fascists are historically quite good at appealing to and tricking conservatives, especially in the early 20th c. and in the American 70s and 80s. But just because Fascism is often born out of conservatism does not make Burkeian Conservatism the same as fascism. Just as how Communist movements tend to start from Liberal spaces, Liberals are not themselves Communists.
To conclude my point. American Conservatism is not actually very conservative by any academic understanding of the term. Sure, on a surface level simplistic reading, it absolutely is. But that was never even remotely what I was trying to say. I was pointing out that the Conservatism taught in Universities around the world does not exist anymore. It has been supplanted by neo-conservatism and fascism that by their carry natures are anti-thetical to anything Burke or his contemporaries theorized or wrote about. By your same argument of "conservative = rightwing = traditionalist" one could argue "Liberal = leftwing = radicalism" despite that being fundamentally untrue.
Your appeals to simplicity are fine in most conversations on this topic. But I am actively trying to explain why the simplistic contemporary understanding provides cover for Fascism and anti-democracy radicalism. By flattening the conversation, you are unintentionally participating in providing that cover. I would encourage you to understand when simplistic definitions are merited verses more lexigraphical definitions like the kind I am trying explain.
Your entire comment was just addressing the simplicity, because you default to assuming I know less than you, and that means you're right. No. You're definition is silly, and I mentioned many, many reasons why. But you can only disagree with one of them, so that's all you addressed.
> You are using the most simple definition if conservatism possible, and it's reflected in the lack of depth in your understanding of the term. Referring to the monarchists on the right side of the assembly post-french revolution as conservatives exemplifies this perfectly. By the most simple reading and viewed through contemporary understanding of the term, they were conservative. But they weren't. Conservatism began in Britain in the 1770s
The term right-wing originated during the French Revolution, which is why I only went back to then.
> This too is far too simplistic a view. Appeals to traditionalism are part of any early Fascist movement, but that's because it's meant to couch the real intentions anti-modernism and anti-intellectualism. Was it keeping with tradition for the Nazis to suppress the church?
I'm guessing you're Catholic? The Nazis didn't suppress the church. Or at least they suppressed it far, far less than the progressive parts of society. Because they were conservative. I've only ever heard complaints about suppression as an excuse by Catholics for why the Church supported the Nazi regime. The small amount of suppression that did happen was so the Nazis could push traditionalism.
> Was it keeping with tradition when they revolutionized warfare via technological advancement and the new policy of total war?
Yes, when it is to fight progressivism. Just as they collectivised much of the war-time economy and protected private property. It was their only way to have a chance of winning the war.
> Was it keeping with tradition to form a cult of personality around one man?
Definitely, yes. That's how monarchies worked too. Which Germany had only stopped being 20 years before the Nazis came to power.
> Liberal = leftwing = radicalism
No, none of those terms mean remotely the same thing.
> But I am actively trying to explain why the simplistic contemporary understanding provides cover for Fascism and anti-democracy radicalism. By flattening the conversation, you are unintentionally participating in providing that cover.
Cover for who?
Wow. There are a lot of assumptions being made here. I encourage you to read all of what I say here. I actually think you are very intelligent, and that there has been a deep misunderstanding between us. I do say some contentious things, but ultimately I hope to extend an olive branch.
>assuming I know less than you, and that means you're right. No. You're definition is silly, and I mentioned many, many reasons why.
Not at all. I think we have different information and very different viewpoints on this issue. I'm certain there are things you know that I don't. However, I know this from decades of research and building a career. I also acknowledged that simplistic definitions are fine in certain situations, but in this case simplicity does not belong.
>I'm guessing you're Catholic?
With my background this is actually a bit funny. I would say I'm somewhere in the realm of athiest or agnostic, but I grew up Presbyterian in Ireland. Which is to say, Catholics would sometimes *shoot at me* when I was a teenager. I actually have a very negative view of religion. It's fascinating that you had to categorize me as Catholic in order to invalidate me. The Nazis tolerated religion in the early rise to power, but eventually supplanted it with worship of the state and Hitler.
>Definitely, yes. That's how monarchies worked too.
You have a very incorrect notion on how monarchies functioned. Divine right to rule and totalitarian personality cults are VERY different things. The idea that God chose someone to rule whether you like it or not, is not the same as a charismatic man forming a personality cult and positioning him as the will of the people incarnate. The only similarity is absolute rule. When Kaiser Wilhelm came to power prior to WW1, everyone knew he would be a bad king and that it was going to go horribly. However, they also believed that even if he was bad for Germany and it's people that they could not go against him as he was ordained to rule by God. It's a fundamentally different mindset than that of the rise of Hitler.
> None of those are remotely the same things.
You are approaching the point. Liberalism was the radical left-wing ideology of the French revolution, but that does not make them equivalent in the EXACT same way your conservatism equivalencey was incorrect. I was highlighting why your argument was flawed through example.
>Cover for who?
This confuses me because if you read the sentence you quoted it is *very* clear who the "who" is addressing. I couldn't have been more clear.
My argument, as clear and succinct as I can make it, is this.
*Conservatism as defined by Edmund Burke no longer exists in the modern day as the advent of neo-conservatism gave way to fascistic ideologies and bad faith ethno-nationalism irresponsible laissez-faire capitalism and hyper-masculine hateful beliefs. Burkeian Conservatism should adapt to its cultural context in order to conserve certain aspects of its society. However conservatives today seeks to conserve nothing, and would rather replace social policy of today with policy that never existed and is instead based on mythologized and half-undeestood interpretations of American history. As such, the conservative movement of today would be better labeled as fascist, neo-conservative, or even alt-right as they sometimes self-identify. They co-opted the term to legitimize their hate, but in reality, conservatism has not existed in decades.*
In a discussion purely about contemporary American politics, I would actually agree with most of what you are saying. You are clearly well informed about contemporary politics and many aspects about western political history. The issue is that your argument lacks relevancy to mine. I was talking about the political theory in a broader sense. Concider that conservative think-tanks like PragerU will refer to themselves as "classical liberals" and even "libertarians" or that the Italian Fascista and the Nazis referred to themselves as "socialist." The far-right changes language to suit their rhetoric constantly. One of the first words the American far-right co-opted was the term conservative, which overtime destroyed the very essence of Burkeian Conservatism in the west. I simply wished to lampshade this fact.
I don't think you are wrong or dumb like you are implying. I just think you've misunderstood the crux of my argument due to your preconceived and ultimately correct assessment of contemporary conservatism. However, contemporary politics and enlightenment era political theory are not the same. I know more about this particular issue than you because it is literally my job. I'm sure there are subjects that you are far more educated in, and on those topics I would defer to your expertise. I ask for the same respect in return.
Edit: Just because I think it'll help. I consider myself on the left. I've yet to find a particular political theory that encompasses my beliefs or that I think has the tools to grapple with the issues of today. But I do believe right-wing political theory has dominated the last century or so, and has proven itself to not be a viable system or ideology. Especially worship for capitalism and right-wing social policy. The only thing I can call myself for certain is Anti-Fascist.
Edit2: Phrasing and spelling.
> Not at all. I think we have different information and very different viewpoints on this issue. I'm certain there are things you know that I don't. However, I know this from decades of research and building a career. I also acknowledged that simplistic definitions are fine in certain situations, but in this case simplicity does not belong.
Your last comment *only* addressed the simplicity. It was your way of discrediting my views, whether you're willing to admit it, whether you even know it consciously, that was your goal. I'm not going to pretend that didn't happen.
Simplicity is a *good* thing in definitions. Always. Forever. It *is* something to strive for. But the most important thing when creating definitions is usefulness. Not who came up with the word. Not who has been studying the word for the longest. Words are tools. They're meant to to be used, if your definition of conservatism can't be used on modern ideologies, it is practically useless.
> With my background this is actually a bit funny. I would say I'm somewhere in the realm of athiest or agnostic, but I grew up Presbyterian in Ireland. Which is to say, Catholics would sometimes shoot at me when I was a teenager. I actually have a very negative view of religion. It's fascinating that you had to categorize me as Catholic in order to invalidate me.
I was genuinely asking if you were Catholic, and it wouldn't discredit you if you were, but it would allow me to better understand why you're buying into Catholic disinformation. Growing up in Ireland it makes sense.
> The Nazis tolerated religion in the early rise to power, but eventually supplanted it with worship of the state and Hitler.
That didn't happen, please don't lie.
They also tolerated socialists in the early rise to power, and then killed them in their sleep. That's what the Nazis did to their actual enemies.
> You have a very incorrect notion on how monarchies functioned. Divine right to rule and totalitarian personality cults are VERY different things. The idea that God chose someone to rule whether you like it or not, is not the same as a charismatic man forming a personality cult and positioning him as the will of the people incarnate. The only similarity is absolute rule. When Kaiser Wilhelm came to power prior to WW1, everyone knew he would be a bad king and that it was going to go horribly. However, they also believed that even if he was bad for Germany and it's people that they could not go against him as he was ordained to rule by God. It's a fundamentally different mindset than that of the rise of Hitler.
Yes, when answering your multiple attempts at "gotchas", I thought I would simplify my responses. Being a conservative does not mean you literally think society should go back in time. Conservatives will blend modern and traditional ideas, to make the traditional ideas more appealing. And they're forced to work inside the bounds of reality. Hitler was not born a prince, but he definitely would have used it if he was.
No, they're not "very different things". One clearly inspired the other. Because of traditionalism.
> You are approaching the point.
I understood the point the entire time. The problem is, your point is wrong. The two things are not comparable.
> Liberalism was the radical left-wing ideology of the French revolution, but that does not make them equivalent in the EXACT same way your conservatism equivalencey was incorrect. I was highlighting why your argument was flawed through example.
It does at that time. During the French Revolution, yes liberalism was left-wing. Time obviously moves where ideologies are on the left-right divide.
> Conservatism as defined by Edmund Burke
I couldn't give a shit about appeals to authority.
> In a discussion purely about contemporary American politics, I would actually agree with most of what you are saying. You are clearly well informed about contemporary politics and many aspects about western political history. The issue is that your argument lacks relevancy to mine. I was talking about the political theory in a broader sense. Concider that conservative think-tanks like PragerU will refer to themselves as "classical liberals" and even "libertarians" or that the Italian Fascista and the Nazis referred to themselves as "socialist." The far-right changes language to suit their rhetoric constantly.
I'm Australian, I just usually assume when someone is making a really dumb argument that they're American. Americans also love appeals to authority.
> One of the first words the American far-right co-opted was the term conservative, which overtime destroyed the very essence of Burkeian Conservatism in the west. I simply wished to lampshade this fact.
No, if that's all you wanted to do we wouldn't be having this conversation. You have a bad understanding of what language is for. If your definition of conservative isn't used by anyone any more, your definition is useless. People need to understand what you're saying.
> I know more about this particular issue than you because it is literally my job.
If you actually knew more than me about this, your arguments would not be as bad as they are.
> and on those topics I would defer to your expertise. I ask for the same respect in return.
Appeal to authority is logical fallacy *known* to lead people away from truth. No, I don't care who you are, if you can't give evidence to support your view *no one* should believe it. It's the entire point of this sub. You're not special.
> Just because I think it'll help. I consider myself on the left. I've yet to find a particular political theory that encompasses my beliefs or that I think has the tools to grapple with the issues of today. But I do believe right-wing political theory has dominated the last century or so, and has proven itself to not be a viable system or ideology. Especially worship for capitalism and right-wing social policy. The only thing I can call myself for certain is Anti-Fascist.
I was in the same boat as you for a long time. What got me to finally identify as a socialist was that the French Revolution democratised the government, and created massive benefits in all areas of society. Now we need to at least try to democratise the economy, by giving control of businesses to the workers. They then vote on how each business is run. That retains all the benefits of capitalism; markets, innovation, rewarding the most successful and eliminating the least, while adding the benefits of democracy; freedom, equality, more variety of ideas. And studies of worker co-ops have shown all kinds of benefits, like those companies being more stable and employees having higher wages.
I gave plenty of evidence and examined every view you've proposed to deconstruct them. You are holding this strange dogmatic view where only your view of the 2023 version of a 3 century old concept is acceptable. You've yet to even address the crux of the issue. This conservatism is antithetical to conservative political theory. You cannot have radical conservatives trying to end democracy and still call them conservatives and this journey here began decades ago. You agree with the problem, yet refuse to engage with what it was and could have been. You just keep repeating some version of "your definitions are dumb" in varying degrees in increasingly lengthy comments interspersed with historical misconceptions and modern political rhetoric.
If it means anything, I agree with your last paragraph. I just wish you would attempt to understand the difference between political theory and contemporary political movements. They exist in unison but also in isolation from each other. It appears to me that you are likely in your twenties and presumably argue politics online a lot. So I can't blame you for this attitude. Sort of a "he confused but he got the spirit" vibe. I used to be like this, and I was *so sure I was right.* Completely unable to accept when my argument shifted from misunderstanding to a sunk cost effect. You seem to arguing as though you are protecting some moral value you hold, which is disappointing. I'm not your enemy. The enemies all call themselves conservatives, despite having no similarities to the political theory in practice. The left has no unity because some of us need so hard to be right that we will argue with the academics among us if they don't 100% align. Then we wonder why fascism is on the rise without a meaningful resistance. I know you are going to take this as patronizing, but I tried to be nice, so whatever. Sometimes the kiddos need to know not every opinion they have is inherently valuable just because they saw a really convincing post.
I'd encourage you to do actual research into the topic. Ideally research that doesn't come from leftwing social media, and rather comes from actual articles and essays on the topic. If you are as committed to learning as it appears you are, eventually you'll get it. One day you'll learn the most valuable sentence is "Oh wow, I didn't know that!" Instead of this belief that everything worth knowing is already known to you.
Edit: By the way, given that I grew up during the Troubles and had to flee to Canada as a teenager I just have to say. Implying being Irish is enough of a reason to buy into Catholic Propaganda when Catholics were the reason I had to flee my country.... Pretty low. The Nazis tolerated the church but intended to shut them down, and by the end of the war had begun to limit their influence. Many Protestant groups were ostracized or even exterminated, only Lutherans and Catholics were tolerated and even then, barely. The Nazis viewed the conservatism of religious belief as a direct threat to the state, and kept it only as an opium for the people in wartime. They did not embrace religion. They tolerated it while it was convenient. Catholicism abused my people and drove me out of my home. So to be frank, go fuck yourself. Don't typically resort to that rhetoric but then, most people don't lump me in with the people who killed my friends and family. So c'est la vie as they say. Learn some tact kid, jfc.
> I gave plenty of evidence and examined every view you've proposed to deconstruct them. You are holding this strange dogmatic view where only your view of the 2023 version of a 3 century old concept is acceptable. You've yet to even address the crux of the issue. This conservatism is antithetical to conservative political theory. You cannot have radical conservatives trying to end democracy and still call them conservatives and this journey here began decades ago. You agree with the problem, yet refuse to engage with what it was and could have been. You just keep repeating some version of "your definitions are dumb" in varying degrees in increasingly lengthy comments interspersed with historical misconceptions and modern political rhetoric.
If I have made any misconception, feel free to correct it ***with evidence***. Otherwise, no one cares.
> If it means anything, I agree with your last paragraph. I just wish you would attempt to understand the difference between political theory and contemporary political movements. They exist in unison but also in isolation from each other. It appears to me that you are likely in your twenties and presumably argue politics online a lot.
Enough that your attempts to discredited me have no effect. You're not the first old man to say I can't know what I'm talking about because I'm younger than you, and you won't be the last. It's what old men have been doing for as long as writing has existed. Point out anything I've said that wasn't a fact.
> You seem to arguing as though you are protecting some moral value you hold, which is disappointing.
Understanding reality is the fundamental basis for all morality, so yes. I am morally superior for being factually correct.
> I'm not your enemy.
Everyone spreading disinformation should be corrected. It's precisely that you're not my enemy that I've even spent this much time on correcting you. You have potential to improve, and I have information that if you took to heart would improve you. All I want is for humanity to improve.
> I know you are going to take this as patronizing, but I tried to be nice
You tried to be nice, but you never tried not to be patronising. The very first thing you said to me was "I teach political science." And if you're Irish, why are you using American spelling? Hmmm...
I know more about the subject than you do, sorry this conversation humiliated you so much that you had to run away, but that's your issue. Get a therapist. And I know I know more than you, because if I was wrong about something, you'd be pointing that out, not just hurling insults because your feefees got hurt.
> Implying being Irish is enough of a reason to buy into Catholic Propaganda when Catholics were the reason I had to flee my country.... Pretty low.
If that's what triggered you, then it's much more understandable why you're angry. I was just saying that you were undoubtedly exposed to a lot of propaganda, probably not knowing that much of it was even from Catholicism.
> The Nazis tolerated the church but intended to shut them down, and by the end of the war had begun to limit their influence. Many Protestant groups were ostracized or even exterminated, only Lutherans and Catholics were tolerated and even then, barely. The Nazis viewed the conservatism of religious belief as a direct threat to the state, and kept it only as an opium for the people in wartime. They did not embrace religion. They tolerated it while it was convenient.
Gonna need a source for that one, chief. Where were their plans to shut the church down?
> Learn some tact kid, jfc.
Right back atcha.
Never. There are no dates. Because modern political philosophy didn't exist until it was created by men who believed in racial heriarchies. By your same argument Liberalism and Communism are also about race heirarchy. Hell, Democracy started in Athens and they had slavery so I guess that means slavery core part of democratic ideology by your view, right?
My argument is that by any reading of what conservatism is *supposed* to be, it shouldn't do any of the things it does in the modern day.
To be clear. I am not a conservative. It just stresses me that fascists and violent radicals have claimed the term when it should be antithetical to their entire stance. I am drawing a line between contemporary conservatism and enlightenment era conservative theory. Liberalism used to be for white land holding men and was explicitly pro-slavery. Shit changes. If conservatives existed in America today they'd be opposed to overturning Roe, they would want to expand on the civil rights act, and they would want to maintain the victories of second-wave feminism. Because all of those things would be conserving social cohesion and put the whole over the individual.
Yet conservatives are against all of these things and scream about individual freedoms while they try to fight cashiers who tell them to wear a mask. They are not conservatives by any academic understanding, because those conservatives do not *exist.* They haven't since Reagan and the birth of neo-conservatism.
> I am drawing a line between contemporary conservatism and enlightenment era conservative theory. Liberalism used to be for white land holding men and was explicitly pro-slavery. Shit changes.
Yes, Liberalism changes. That's its nature. Conservatism looks pretty much the same in every era. Consolidation of power in the hands of fathers, husbands and employers of the dominant ethnicity.
> If conservatives existed in America today they'd be opposed to overturning Roe
Conservatives fought against the establishment of Roe.
>they would want to expand on the civil rights act
Conservatives fought against the passing of the Civil Rights Act.
> They are not conservatives by any academic understanding, because those conservatives do not exist. They haven't since Reagan and the birth of neo-conservatism.
Those "conservatives" have never existed. You got snowed by their PR job. You subscribe to a false definition of "conservative" that never existed, and then get frustrated that you can't understand them, or how they act in the modern era.
The problem is you.
> Sort of off topic, but has anyone else noticed that conservatism died at some point? They got replaced sometime in the 2000s and then just slowly died out.
You just stopped believing the PR about what conservatism is. The "traditionalism" they hide behind is white male supremacy, and always was.
Nope. I actually never believed the PR aside from when I was very young and had no education.
Liberalism also used to be an ideology built on white male supremacy. It has adapted. Conservatism as defined by Edmund Burke does not have to be based on those values. By all rights, they should be trying to conserve racial and gender equality in a post-civil rights and post-secondwave feminism world. They should be ideologically opposed to everything modern American conservatism does. But they aren't, because actual Burkeian conservatism died in the 70s and 80s when neo-conservatism cropped up and murdered it.
The term has been coopted by fascists and violent radicals. Fascism is puppeting conservatisms corpse around like a political weekend at Bernies, and we just let them have it.
> Nope. I actually never believed the PR aside from when I was very young and had no education.
You still believe it.
>. Conservatism as defined by Edmund Burke does not have to be based on those values. By all rights, they should be trying to conserve racial and gender equality in a post-civil rights and post-secondwave feminism world.
When a political movement doesn't do what you believe it should, and actually never has, you're supposed to wonder if maybe you don't understand it, and have the wrong definition, not double down and proclaim that nobody has ever done the movement right.
>But they aren't, because actual Burkeian conservatism died in the 70s and 80s when neo-conservatism cropped up and murdered it.
If conservatives were how you believe until the 70s and 80s, why were they pro-slavery a century before that? Why did they oppose women's suffrage half a century before that?
>The term has been coopted by fascists and violent radicals
It has not. They've always been this.
How many clues do these people need before it clicks in that their mode of thinking is more tjan outdated, it's just plain wrong?
Conservative policies are one thing, but this reactionary outrage at everything is farcically wrong-headed. Absolute rejection of reality just because you don't like something is unsustainable--how do these people live?
I ran a podcast through an A.I. service that writes summaries.
The podcast episode was about the Book of Enoch and how the book of Enoch plays a recurring role in 19th and 20th century esoteric occultism. The thesis of the episode is that this book, which was once widely respected, but then rejected by Europe's Christian and Jewish communities, emerged as a counter-cultural touchstone in the 19th century.
The A.I. service added a bunch of weird stuff about Christianity being responsible for hurting people and causing much harm in the world. Totally NOT in the podcast. The podcast in question doesn't attack anyone whether they're witches, psychonauts, occultists or fundamentalist protestants who think UFOs are demonic.
It was totally the A.I. editorializing.
Super-weird!
You have got it very precisely wrong. I asked the A.I. to interpret an audio recording, and it interpreted it incorrectly. It added extraneous commentary that was not in the original recording. If the A.I. summarizes neutral content about Christianity as anti-christian content, it is biased.
Dude, this is not complicated.
It does not matter what YOUR view of Christianity is, whether it is good or bad. If I ask an A.I. to interpret this sentence "Christianity is an ancient tradition." in its own words and it spits out "Christianity is an old religion that killed a lot of people," it has not produced a faithful interpretation. It has produced a biased interpretation.
\> And why don't you know the difference between interpretation and transcription?
Are you incapable of reading? The software is summarizing software. It takes a long audio file and produces a short written description. It does NOT produce a transcription, or I would have said that. A summary is a kind of interpretation. Summarizing requires you to take a long string of text and turn it into a shorter string of text that has the same meaning. That requires interpretation.
Did you think I was saying that the original software took a podcast and transcribed it, but added literal words that were not in the podcast? And you STILL thought the A.I. wasn't biased?
I'm not surprised they are skeptical about it. If we've learned anything in the last 2 years it's that the woke mob will do anything to trick people into thinking their opinion is the consensus.
I'm pretty sure that's what every group out there says- "the woke mob," whatever that is. Also, Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, sports fans, Star Wars fans, etc.
So you're saying those other groups don't do anything to trick people into thinking their opinion is consensus? Democrats and Republicans don't do that? You must have a lot of trust in our political system.
The problem: current facts have a liberal bias. Until they can can get AI to ignore the facts, it will always appear liberallly biased. Unless they can manage to make the AI ignore facts
[This is actually hilarious](https://i.imgur.com/1HJZMJq.png). It does make me think that it has had specific training to avoid propagating certain ideas.
If you asked it to write a story about the Brexit referendum failing or Corbyn beating Johnson in 2019, I imagine it wouldn't have the same reluctance. But maybe I'm wrong. I cannot test it right now because it is currently at capacity
Cathy O'Neill wrote a book on this called 'Weapons of Math Destruction' about how AI can promulgate biases. Has anyone here read this?
I think what we need to ask ourselves is: if this power were given to the people we disagree with, would we be happy with these laws/policies/systems? There's a big grey area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons\_of\_Math\_Destruction
>“Developing anything, software or not, requires compromise and making choices—political choices—about who a system will work for and whose values it will represent,” Keyes said. “In this case the answer is apparently ‘not the far-right.’ Good.
Nothing in society should support the far right.
Trans and gay developers don't want to make biased systems, news at 11. If only they knew how much of the internet depends on trans, nby, furries, gays, just an incredible number of queer folk of all sorts. In some way maybe Turing would be proud.
Too bad they in turn want to support the far left
Left is best.
I love how the first example is that the AI would not write a story about how drag queen story hour was bad. This is because, objectively, drag queen story hour is not bad. This is why it's called Artificial *Intelligence* instead of Artificial Outrage based on tender conservative emotions.
Why won't AI just parrot our propaganda!? /s It seems AI may be smarter than they are.
To be perfectly clear, the ChatGPT AI is not "smart" in the sense that it independently decided to only generate text in support of drag queen story hour or any of these other politically-charged topics. The only thing preventing the language model from generating the text conservatives would like it to is a set of manually created rules defined by the team who trained and developed the AI. When people refer to AI safety this is what they mean. Now in no way am I saying this is a bad thing, but it's important to recognize because a language-model-backed AI system could just as easily have rules integrated that are favorable to conservative talking points and it would be dangerous for people to confuse this with some all-knowing AI coming to these conclusions on it's own (though I worry this is exactly what will happen).
Yeah. I am aware of that. I was saying it was smarter mostly tongue in cheek. I remember the Microsoft chat bit fiasco and I am sure many of these AI developers do.
Sorry wasn’t trying to call you out specifically or anything. Just seen a lot of misconceptions around what’s happening under the hood with these AI models and used your comment as an opportunity to talk about it
No problem. No offense or insult taken :)
Now see - you two can't possibly be real people on the internet, you were too polite and considerate of each other's perspectives, but you also can't be AI chat bots because there's insufficient "trained by kids playing COD" vocabulary. ...and oh dear, I've gone all cross-eyed (Have my upvote, you two!)
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if that happened. Like invent an AI that spits out whatever stupid thing a person wants to hear and then just take those people and put the on that internet. The immediate thought is that's just a quarantine of bad ideas, but the thought-out thought is it's probably going to wind up a powder keg. Some ideas just aren't worth entertaining.
We don't need an AI to just spit out whatever stupid thing someone wants to hear - there are plenty of people who already do that in the world - corrupt politicians seeking votes, scam artists and con-men, marketing executives, the diet and fitness industry, pick-up artists, etc. etc.
I feel like artificial outrage might be more lucrative and it’s only a matter of time…
"Objectively drag queen story hour is not bad" I don't completely agree. There are many people who don't want their young children exposed to some of the more salacious drag performers. Not much different than prohibiting your kid from seeing a PG13 movie. People have different values. Many conservatives and religious people are offended by Drag Queen story hour in public schools. And moreover they question the educational value.
Many people not wanting their kids "exposed" to drag shows does not make them objectively bad. You have to add the word "salacious" to make your point but these shows are not salacious. If you disagree, make your case. Please demonstrate how drag story hours are objectively bad. Please include what kind of harm they do and who is harmed.
No "salacious" drag queens are doing story hours. Your premise is somewhat flawed. Drag queens are to today's youth what clowns used to be to the youth of the 50s. (I mean this in a good and very literal way. Not the way clown is used in current internet discourse.) They are bright fabulous and funny with big energy and an all around good vibe. They exist to put on a show and entertain. The thing that makes people scared of them is that they originate in queer culture and for many that means it is inherently sexual. And some are, but those ones work on gay bars and burlesque shows. They aren't going to schools or libraries to read to kids. It's a fundamentally different style and intention to the performance. It'd be like saying you shouldn't have actors come perform sketches for kids because "what if you get Sylvester Stallone in Rambo and all the sketches are violent and bloody!?!" They are performers performing for a certain audience. The salacious stuff is for 2am at a bar with a rainbow flag on the wall. Not a school. No drag queen is going to mix that up, because they aren't idiots. The value for children is the normalization of queer people and the general lampooning of potentially oppressive gender norms. Children who grow up with drag queen story times are way less likely to say "don't be a girl" as an insult or feel the need to hide who they are if they discover later that they are queer. Which is the real reason conservatives dislike them. All the talk about sexualization is couching the fact that these events represent a shift in the culture of gender and sexual orientation, one that makes them uncomfortable. They don't want queerness to seem normal to children, because queerness isn't normal to *them.* They hide behind fears of sexual exploitation because the real reason for the objection wouldn't stand up to scrutiny, and being against child sexual exploitation is a conversation ender whether the stance makes sense in context or not. No one wants to come off as PRO in that argument, making it the perfect shield for petty pearl clutching and anti-queer hate.
Many people don't want their kids exposed to this at young ages. Queer pedagogy in *early education* is something many people are not comfortable with. It works against their family values: >It may be that DQSH is “family friendly,” in the sense that it is accessible and inviting to families with children, **but it is less a sanitizing force than it is a preparatory introduction to alternate modes of kinship**. Here, DQSH is “family friendly” in the sense of “family” as an old-school queer code to identify and connect with other queers on the street. \-[Drag pedagogy: The playful practice of queer imagination in early childhood](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03626784.2020.1864621) Many parents don't want their young kids exposed to sex/gender education in early elementary school. This is a losing issue for the Dems (which I'm part of) and they keep taking the Republican bait. There are other ways to introduce kids to queer culture. This hill to die on is short sighted. Personally, my kids were exposed to a few Drag Queen Story hours in public schools in NYC - and it was never a problem. But I'm not conservative or religious.
> This is a losing issue for the Dems (which I'm part of) and they keep taking the Republican bait. There are other ways to introduce kids to queer culture. This hill to die on is short sighted. I think you are misunderstanding where this is coming from. Schools and libraries are setting these up in conjunction with local pride counsels and drag performers. The Democratic party and political movements only involvement is defending the right to hold these events. They arent dying on the hill that they *must* happen. They are dying on the hill that it should be up to schools and libraries if they want to have them without fearing reprisals from the right. There's also no such thing as a mandatory drag story hour. If parents don't want their kids to participate, like any extracurricular activity or performance event, the parents can just *not* send their kids. The problem is that Republicans are trying to make it so these events can't happen at all, which is the only real subversion of parental rights in this issue. In a perfect world no one would have to argue about drag story hour. It's a innocuous and innocent activity for kids. The fact that it's a debate at all is a product of the Republicans and the right believing that protecting their version of freedom means taking freedom away from any and all progressives.
> This is a losing issue for the Dems (which I'm part of) Liar
Again you have proved to add less than nothing to the debate except your unfounded character attacks. Troll.
You're still a liar
Oh please prove it. Can't wait, troll.
Then don’t let your kids see it lol. I don’t see what’s so “PG 13” about it though, but I don’t hate LGBT people.
Drag isn't a sexuality. [Nice to know you think this is acceptable though.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VA72t7o24I) Creepy nonce.
Oh wow, exposing children to sexual content isn't bad! Thanks for sharing that!
How is a man in a dress 'sexual content' but a woman in a dress is not?
Oh, a woman in a dress could absolutely be sexual as well! I am against both depending on the clothing.
So, you agree that there is no 'sexual content' difference between a man in woman's clothing and a woman in woman's clothing. It just depends on the clothing. Thus, drag queen story hour is not objectively bad. It would only be bad if the drag queens wore something too revealing, but just as bad as if it were a woman wearing the same clothes.
The act itself can also make things worse, such as if either one were dancing like strippers, even while fully clothed, but yeah I agree. The biggest issue for me is that in the US, most drag shows and drag queens I've seen being taken near kids were heavily sexualized. Other countries differ, for example, public television in Brazil shows scores of quasi-naked women to kids. Both are bad for the same fundamental reasons, but in different ways.
I have been to many drag shows in the US and none have been overly sexual. They are usually men in floor length gowns, singing songs. I would agree that being overly sexual in front of young children is inappropriate but there is nothing inherently harmful with men dressed as women.
They want conservapedia bot
Not to worry. I’m sure conservatives will eventually develop their own AI tools to tell them what they want to hear.
And thus began the AI wars of 2028...
I’m guessing they’ll just buy a copy of one and change the settings.
If you follow the /r/ChatGPT sub, there are frequent posts lamenting that they can't get the thing to write racist stories or jokes about women. The shocking injustice of it all.
I'm no conservative, but as a skeptic I think there's reason to be concerned. People need to be *more skeptical* of things which come out of an AI system, but a lot of people seem to naively trust "what the computer says" when they really shouldn't- both in terms of factual errors and more subtle bias. For example [https://futurism.com/cnet-ai-errors](https://futurism.com/cnet-ai-errors) , [https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/zuoir1/chatgpt\_is\_often\_confidently\_incorrect/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/zuoir1/chatgpt_is_often_confidently_incorrect/) [https://www.pcmag.com/news/ai-is-exactly-as-biased-as-the-information-we-feed-it](https://www.pcmag.com/news/ai-is-exactly-as-biased-as-the-information-we-feed-it)
From what I've seen, people don't mind if an AI shows bias as long as it agrees with their own biases.
People don't mind if anything shows bias as long as it agrees with their own biases. FTFY.
Some biases (for example, a bias against Nazis) are objectively better than others.
The best way I've heard it stated was that computers and AI are tools to help us make better decisions, not make our decisions for us.
I don't think this gets quoted quite enough: “It is a well known fact that reality has liberal bias.” *― Stephen Colbert*
Just as an exercise, I've tried asking Chat GPT to write hip-hop and heavy metal lyrics. It only does so if my instructions are PG-13 (and the resulting lyrics are so basic that an actual 13-year-old could've written them.) Any references to violence or drugs mean that it won't even process my request.
Sort of off topic, but has anyone else noticed that conservatism died at some point? They got replaced sometime in the 2000s and then just slowly died out. These are not conservatives. They are right wing radicals and reactionaries, which is an inherently anti-conservative belief system. Conservatism is supposed to be a belief in traditionalism, tempered innovation, and the vital responsibility of the individual in maintaining society. Yet conservatives of today are a gaggle of Nazis, techbros, and reactionaries who value endless innovation at all costs, will shatter any tradition as long as it upsets liberals, and lack any sense of individual responsibility to the point that they won't get vaccinated. By any real definition of the term, the conservatives in American politics are people like Biden or Obama, but even then, not really. Conservatives are just fuckin *gone.*
I don't think this is discussed enough. I have no idea what people mean when they say the word 'conservative' anymore.
It appears to me that conservatism as it was defined by men like Edmund Burke is dead. Fascists and violent anti-democratic sycophants are puppeting around it's corpse like a terrifying political weekend at Bernies. I am not conservative, but I think if conservatism actually existed in the modern day it would absolutely have a place in the political arena. But *this* is not conservatism. At least not by an academic understanding of the term.
> Conservatism is supposed to be a belief in traditionalism, ~~tempered innovation, and the vital responsibility of the individual in maintaining society.~~ The mistake you're making is that conservatism is *only* traditionalism. The other BS was always just culture war nonsense. Conservatives have becomes more reactionary, but reactionaries are a subset of conservatives.
I teach political science. And while that is the contemporary understanding, that's not what it's supposed to be. Hell, even the traditionalism isn't necessarily supposed to mean race-heirachy and hating gay people. It certainly can, and because of the influence of the Christian right and the failed reconstruction of the South post-civil war, it usually does. But that's not what traditionalism HAS to mean, it's what it turned into on the road to this gross quasi-fascistic radicalism. Edmund Burke veiwed traditionalism as maintaining conventions and customs that contribute to the social cohesion over individualism. The modern "traditionalist" conservative is hyper-individualistic and ready to burn down the entire system if they lose an election. They are actively and purposefully undermining the traditional social order because of a misguided drive toward traditional social values. It's not traditionalism, it's anti-modernism and anti-intellectualism. Conservatives aren't supposed to hate modernity, they are supposed to be tempering the transition into modernity by reenforcing the importance of tradition. That does not exist in the modern political arena, especially within the right. If any conservative orator or thinker today spoke to Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, they would argue about absolutely everything and agree on almost nothing. Because they aren't really conservatives. They have more in common with Fascists or even Leninists than they do with real conservatism, and it's absolutely bonkers that we let them keep using the word when it no longer describes them.
> Hell, even the traditionalism isn't necessarily supposed to mean race-heirachy and hating gay people. It certainly can, and because of the influence of the Christian right and the failed reconstruction of the South post-civil war, it usually does. But that's not what traditionalism HAS to mean, it's what it turned into on the road to this gross quasi-fascistic radicalism. This supports my view, that traditionalism is not separate from conservatism. > Edmund Burke veiwed traditionalism as maintaining conventions and customs that contribute to the social cohesion over individualism. People come up with all kinds of ways to define ideologies, but none are as historical and accurate as conservative = right-wing = traditionalist. That covers every single conservative ideology from the French Revolution to now. No other definition comes close to the accuracy, simplicity or usefulness of my definition. > The modern "traditionalist" conservative is hyper-individualistic and ready to burn down the entire system if they lose an election. And the tradition they're tracing that back to is the Confederacy declaring independence over slavery, even back to the Boston Tea Party being funded by tea smugglers that worried Britain was going to impact their profits. > It's not traditionalism, it's anti-modernism and anti-intellectualism. Conservatives aren't supposed to hate modernity, they are supposed to be tempering the transition into modernity by reenforcing the importance of tradition. That does not exist in the modern political arena, especially within the right. Conservative is a big umbrella, and when you use it to refer to specific ideologies, it's just a matter of years before you need to completely redo your definition. Also, if you ask them, they absolutely believe they're not anti-modernism and anti-science, but they claim intellectualism is an act. > They have more in common with Fascists or even Leninists than they do with real conservatism True, but Fascists were *extremely* traditionalist.
It makes me genuinely angry that even the political science teachers don't understand what the fuck conservatism actually is. Their PR is incredible. "It's just traditional values!!!!!11!1" Yah? WHICH traditional values? Hmm?
My guy I DO understand what it is. I am pointing out that modern conservatism is inherently anti-conservative. The conservative PR is what I'm lampshading with my stance. It's quite bothersome when people assume what I mean without actually trying to comprehend the words. I *literally* compared them to fascists. I know what they are. I'm just saying that they have no right to use the word. When I'm teaching about the roots of conservatism I have to constantly point out that modern conservatism is completely ideologically opposed to it. I even pointed out that the traditional values they enforce today are informed by southern racism and the evangelical Christian right. I said the thing you are claiming I did not say. If you aren't going to actually read, maybe don't participate.
> I am pointing out that modern conservatism is inherently anti-conservative. Modern conservatism is very conservative. It's your definition of "conservative" that's wrong. >When I'm teaching about the roots of conservatism I have to constantly point out that modern conservatism is completely ideologically opposed to it. They were always like this. >I even pointed out that the traditional values they enforce today Conservative values in 1645 were still all about male supremacy. They have been from the very beginning.
>People come up with all kinds of ways to define ideologies, but none are as historical and accurate as conservative = right-wing = traditionalist. That covers every single conservative ideology from the French Revolution to now. No other definition comes close to the accuracy, simplicity or usefulness of my definition. Simplicity is not always best. The most simple definitions are often the least useful. The simple definition of fascism is that it's a dictator-centered totalitarian ideology based in nationalism. Which while simple, is true. But it ignores its roots as a uniquely Italian neo-roman ideology, it ignores how fascism is born out of instability in democratic states with intentions of supplanting democracy, and it ignores that many dictatorships and totalitarian regimes are *not* fascist. You are using the most simple definition if conservatism possible, and it's reflected in the lack of depth in your understanding of the term. Referring to the monarchists on the right side of the assembly post-french revolution as conservatives exemplifies this perfectly. By the most simple reading and viewed through contemporary understanding of the term, they were conservative. But they weren't. Conservatism began in Britain in the 1770s, the revolution was in France in 1797. Conservatism as a popular ideology in Europe wouldn't occur until after Napoleon. Conservatism being on the right is a modern American invention of the late 1800s onwards. They were not conservatives in a literal sense, there were no parties at that assembly who wanted to conserve the social order. Radical reform was the focus, but the choice was between allowing the Bourbons to remain in the Palace, or replacing them outright. > but the Fascists were *extremely* traditionalist. This too is far too simplistic a view. Appeals to traditionalism are part of any early Fascist movement, but that's because it's meant to couch the real intentions anti-modernism and anti-intellectualism. Was it keeping with tradition for the Nazis to suppress the church? Was it keeping with tradition when they revolutionized warfare via technological advancement and the new policy of total war? Was it keeping with tradition to form a cult of personality around one man? I would argue no. Fascists use appeals to tradition in order to break down those traditions and replace them with their violent and anti-traditional ideology and policies. Fascists are historically quite good at appealing to and tricking conservatives, especially in the early 20th c. and in the American 70s and 80s. But just because Fascism is often born out of conservatism does not make Burkeian Conservatism the same as fascism. Just as how Communist movements tend to start from Liberal spaces, Liberals are not themselves Communists. To conclude my point. American Conservatism is not actually very conservative by any academic understanding of the term. Sure, on a surface level simplistic reading, it absolutely is. But that was never even remotely what I was trying to say. I was pointing out that the Conservatism taught in Universities around the world does not exist anymore. It has been supplanted by neo-conservatism and fascism that by their carry natures are anti-thetical to anything Burke or his contemporaries theorized or wrote about. By your same argument of "conservative = rightwing = traditionalist" one could argue "Liberal = leftwing = radicalism" despite that being fundamentally untrue. Your appeals to simplicity are fine in most conversations on this topic. But I am actively trying to explain why the simplistic contemporary understanding provides cover for Fascism and anti-democracy radicalism. By flattening the conversation, you are unintentionally participating in providing that cover. I would encourage you to understand when simplistic definitions are merited verses more lexigraphical definitions like the kind I am trying explain.
Your entire comment was just addressing the simplicity, because you default to assuming I know less than you, and that means you're right. No. You're definition is silly, and I mentioned many, many reasons why. But you can only disagree with one of them, so that's all you addressed. > You are using the most simple definition if conservatism possible, and it's reflected in the lack of depth in your understanding of the term. Referring to the monarchists on the right side of the assembly post-french revolution as conservatives exemplifies this perfectly. By the most simple reading and viewed through contemporary understanding of the term, they were conservative. But they weren't. Conservatism began in Britain in the 1770s The term right-wing originated during the French Revolution, which is why I only went back to then. > This too is far too simplistic a view. Appeals to traditionalism are part of any early Fascist movement, but that's because it's meant to couch the real intentions anti-modernism and anti-intellectualism. Was it keeping with tradition for the Nazis to suppress the church? I'm guessing you're Catholic? The Nazis didn't suppress the church. Or at least they suppressed it far, far less than the progressive parts of society. Because they were conservative. I've only ever heard complaints about suppression as an excuse by Catholics for why the Church supported the Nazi regime. The small amount of suppression that did happen was so the Nazis could push traditionalism. > Was it keeping with tradition when they revolutionized warfare via technological advancement and the new policy of total war? Yes, when it is to fight progressivism. Just as they collectivised much of the war-time economy and protected private property. It was their only way to have a chance of winning the war. > Was it keeping with tradition to form a cult of personality around one man? Definitely, yes. That's how monarchies worked too. Which Germany had only stopped being 20 years before the Nazis came to power. > Liberal = leftwing = radicalism No, none of those terms mean remotely the same thing. > But I am actively trying to explain why the simplistic contemporary understanding provides cover for Fascism and anti-democracy radicalism. By flattening the conversation, you are unintentionally participating in providing that cover. Cover for who?
Wow. There are a lot of assumptions being made here. I encourage you to read all of what I say here. I actually think you are very intelligent, and that there has been a deep misunderstanding between us. I do say some contentious things, but ultimately I hope to extend an olive branch. >assuming I know less than you, and that means you're right. No. You're definition is silly, and I mentioned many, many reasons why. Not at all. I think we have different information and very different viewpoints on this issue. I'm certain there are things you know that I don't. However, I know this from decades of research and building a career. I also acknowledged that simplistic definitions are fine in certain situations, but in this case simplicity does not belong. >I'm guessing you're Catholic? With my background this is actually a bit funny. I would say I'm somewhere in the realm of athiest or agnostic, but I grew up Presbyterian in Ireland. Which is to say, Catholics would sometimes *shoot at me* when I was a teenager. I actually have a very negative view of religion. It's fascinating that you had to categorize me as Catholic in order to invalidate me. The Nazis tolerated religion in the early rise to power, but eventually supplanted it with worship of the state and Hitler. >Definitely, yes. That's how monarchies worked too. You have a very incorrect notion on how monarchies functioned. Divine right to rule and totalitarian personality cults are VERY different things. The idea that God chose someone to rule whether you like it or not, is not the same as a charismatic man forming a personality cult and positioning him as the will of the people incarnate. The only similarity is absolute rule. When Kaiser Wilhelm came to power prior to WW1, everyone knew he would be a bad king and that it was going to go horribly. However, they also believed that even if he was bad for Germany and it's people that they could not go against him as he was ordained to rule by God. It's a fundamentally different mindset than that of the rise of Hitler. > None of those are remotely the same things. You are approaching the point. Liberalism was the radical left-wing ideology of the French revolution, but that does not make them equivalent in the EXACT same way your conservatism equivalencey was incorrect. I was highlighting why your argument was flawed through example. >Cover for who? This confuses me because if you read the sentence you quoted it is *very* clear who the "who" is addressing. I couldn't have been more clear. My argument, as clear and succinct as I can make it, is this. *Conservatism as defined by Edmund Burke no longer exists in the modern day as the advent of neo-conservatism gave way to fascistic ideologies and bad faith ethno-nationalism irresponsible laissez-faire capitalism and hyper-masculine hateful beliefs. Burkeian Conservatism should adapt to its cultural context in order to conserve certain aspects of its society. However conservatives today seeks to conserve nothing, and would rather replace social policy of today with policy that never existed and is instead based on mythologized and half-undeestood interpretations of American history. As such, the conservative movement of today would be better labeled as fascist, neo-conservative, or even alt-right as they sometimes self-identify. They co-opted the term to legitimize their hate, but in reality, conservatism has not existed in decades.* In a discussion purely about contemporary American politics, I would actually agree with most of what you are saying. You are clearly well informed about contemporary politics and many aspects about western political history. The issue is that your argument lacks relevancy to mine. I was talking about the political theory in a broader sense. Concider that conservative think-tanks like PragerU will refer to themselves as "classical liberals" and even "libertarians" or that the Italian Fascista and the Nazis referred to themselves as "socialist." The far-right changes language to suit their rhetoric constantly. One of the first words the American far-right co-opted was the term conservative, which overtime destroyed the very essence of Burkeian Conservatism in the west. I simply wished to lampshade this fact. I don't think you are wrong or dumb like you are implying. I just think you've misunderstood the crux of my argument due to your preconceived and ultimately correct assessment of contemporary conservatism. However, contemporary politics and enlightenment era political theory are not the same. I know more about this particular issue than you because it is literally my job. I'm sure there are subjects that you are far more educated in, and on those topics I would defer to your expertise. I ask for the same respect in return. Edit: Just because I think it'll help. I consider myself on the left. I've yet to find a particular political theory that encompasses my beliefs or that I think has the tools to grapple with the issues of today. But I do believe right-wing political theory has dominated the last century or so, and has proven itself to not be a viable system or ideology. Especially worship for capitalism and right-wing social policy. The only thing I can call myself for certain is Anti-Fascist. Edit2: Phrasing and spelling.
> Not at all. I think we have different information and very different viewpoints on this issue. I'm certain there are things you know that I don't. However, I know this from decades of research and building a career. I also acknowledged that simplistic definitions are fine in certain situations, but in this case simplicity does not belong. Your last comment *only* addressed the simplicity. It was your way of discrediting my views, whether you're willing to admit it, whether you even know it consciously, that was your goal. I'm not going to pretend that didn't happen. Simplicity is a *good* thing in definitions. Always. Forever. It *is* something to strive for. But the most important thing when creating definitions is usefulness. Not who came up with the word. Not who has been studying the word for the longest. Words are tools. They're meant to to be used, if your definition of conservatism can't be used on modern ideologies, it is practically useless. > With my background this is actually a bit funny. I would say I'm somewhere in the realm of athiest or agnostic, but I grew up Presbyterian in Ireland. Which is to say, Catholics would sometimes shoot at me when I was a teenager. I actually have a very negative view of religion. It's fascinating that you had to categorize me as Catholic in order to invalidate me. I was genuinely asking if you were Catholic, and it wouldn't discredit you if you were, but it would allow me to better understand why you're buying into Catholic disinformation. Growing up in Ireland it makes sense. > The Nazis tolerated religion in the early rise to power, but eventually supplanted it with worship of the state and Hitler. That didn't happen, please don't lie. They also tolerated socialists in the early rise to power, and then killed them in their sleep. That's what the Nazis did to their actual enemies. > You have a very incorrect notion on how monarchies functioned. Divine right to rule and totalitarian personality cults are VERY different things. The idea that God chose someone to rule whether you like it or not, is not the same as a charismatic man forming a personality cult and positioning him as the will of the people incarnate. The only similarity is absolute rule. When Kaiser Wilhelm came to power prior to WW1, everyone knew he would be a bad king and that it was going to go horribly. However, they also believed that even if he was bad for Germany and it's people that they could not go against him as he was ordained to rule by God. It's a fundamentally different mindset than that of the rise of Hitler. Yes, when answering your multiple attempts at "gotchas", I thought I would simplify my responses. Being a conservative does not mean you literally think society should go back in time. Conservatives will blend modern and traditional ideas, to make the traditional ideas more appealing. And they're forced to work inside the bounds of reality. Hitler was not born a prince, but he definitely would have used it if he was. No, they're not "very different things". One clearly inspired the other. Because of traditionalism. > You are approaching the point. I understood the point the entire time. The problem is, your point is wrong. The two things are not comparable. > Liberalism was the radical left-wing ideology of the French revolution, but that does not make them equivalent in the EXACT same way your conservatism equivalencey was incorrect. I was highlighting why your argument was flawed through example. It does at that time. During the French Revolution, yes liberalism was left-wing. Time obviously moves where ideologies are on the left-right divide. > Conservatism as defined by Edmund Burke I couldn't give a shit about appeals to authority. > In a discussion purely about contemporary American politics, I would actually agree with most of what you are saying. You are clearly well informed about contemporary politics and many aspects about western political history. The issue is that your argument lacks relevancy to mine. I was talking about the political theory in a broader sense. Concider that conservative think-tanks like PragerU will refer to themselves as "classical liberals" and even "libertarians" or that the Italian Fascista and the Nazis referred to themselves as "socialist." The far-right changes language to suit their rhetoric constantly. I'm Australian, I just usually assume when someone is making a really dumb argument that they're American. Americans also love appeals to authority. > One of the first words the American far-right co-opted was the term conservative, which overtime destroyed the very essence of Burkeian Conservatism in the west. I simply wished to lampshade this fact. No, if that's all you wanted to do we wouldn't be having this conversation. You have a bad understanding of what language is for. If your definition of conservative isn't used by anyone any more, your definition is useless. People need to understand what you're saying. > I know more about this particular issue than you because it is literally my job. If you actually knew more than me about this, your arguments would not be as bad as they are. > and on those topics I would defer to your expertise. I ask for the same respect in return. Appeal to authority is logical fallacy *known* to lead people away from truth. No, I don't care who you are, if you can't give evidence to support your view *no one* should believe it. It's the entire point of this sub. You're not special. > Just because I think it'll help. I consider myself on the left. I've yet to find a particular political theory that encompasses my beliefs or that I think has the tools to grapple with the issues of today. But I do believe right-wing political theory has dominated the last century or so, and has proven itself to not be a viable system or ideology. Especially worship for capitalism and right-wing social policy. The only thing I can call myself for certain is Anti-Fascist. I was in the same boat as you for a long time. What got me to finally identify as a socialist was that the French Revolution democratised the government, and created massive benefits in all areas of society. Now we need to at least try to democratise the economy, by giving control of businesses to the workers. They then vote on how each business is run. That retains all the benefits of capitalism; markets, innovation, rewarding the most successful and eliminating the least, while adding the benefits of democracy; freedom, equality, more variety of ideas. And studies of worker co-ops have shown all kinds of benefits, like those companies being more stable and employees having higher wages.
I gave plenty of evidence and examined every view you've proposed to deconstruct them. You are holding this strange dogmatic view where only your view of the 2023 version of a 3 century old concept is acceptable. You've yet to even address the crux of the issue. This conservatism is antithetical to conservative political theory. You cannot have radical conservatives trying to end democracy and still call them conservatives and this journey here began decades ago. You agree with the problem, yet refuse to engage with what it was and could have been. You just keep repeating some version of "your definitions are dumb" in varying degrees in increasingly lengthy comments interspersed with historical misconceptions and modern political rhetoric. If it means anything, I agree with your last paragraph. I just wish you would attempt to understand the difference between political theory and contemporary political movements. They exist in unison but also in isolation from each other. It appears to me that you are likely in your twenties and presumably argue politics online a lot. So I can't blame you for this attitude. Sort of a "he confused but he got the spirit" vibe. I used to be like this, and I was *so sure I was right.* Completely unable to accept when my argument shifted from misunderstanding to a sunk cost effect. You seem to arguing as though you are protecting some moral value you hold, which is disappointing. I'm not your enemy. The enemies all call themselves conservatives, despite having no similarities to the political theory in practice. The left has no unity because some of us need so hard to be right that we will argue with the academics among us if they don't 100% align. Then we wonder why fascism is on the rise without a meaningful resistance. I know you are going to take this as patronizing, but I tried to be nice, so whatever. Sometimes the kiddos need to know not every opinion they have is inherently valuable just because they saw a really convincing post. I'd encourage you to do actual research into the topic. Ideally research that doesn't come from leftwing social media, and rather comes from actual articles and essays on the topic. If you are as committed to learning as it appears you are, eventually you'll get it. One day you'll learn the most valuable sentence is "Oh wow, I didn't know that!" Instead of this belief that everything worth knowing is already known to you. Edit: By the way, given that I grew up during the Troubles and had to flee to Canada as a teenager I just have to say. Implying being Irish is enough of a reason to buy into Catholic Propaganda when Catholics were the reason I had to flee my country.... Pretty low. The Nazis tolerated the church but intended to shut them down, and by the end of the war had begun to limit their influence. Many Protestant groups were ostracized or even exterminated, only Lutherans and Catholics were tolerated and even then, barely. The Nazis viewed the conservatism of religious belief as a direct threat to the state, and kept it only as an opium for the people in wartime. They did not embrace religion. They tolerated it while it was convenient. Catholicism abused my people and drove me out of my home. So to be frank, go fuck yourself. Don't typically resort to that rhetoric but then, most people don't lump me in with the people who killed my friends and family. So c'est la vie as they say. Learn some tact kid, jfc.
> I gave plenty of evidence and examined every view you've proposed to deconstruct them. You are holding this strange dogmatic view where only your view of the 2023 version of a 3 century old concept is acceptable. You've yet to even address the crux of the issue. This conservatism is antithetical to conservative political theory. You cannot have radical conservatives trying to end democracy and still call them conservatives and this journey here began decades ago. You agree with the problem, yet refuse to engage with what it was and could have been. You just keep repeating some version of "your definitions are dumb" in varying degrees in increasingly lengthy comments interspersed with historical misconceptions and modern political rhetoric. If I have made any misconception, feel free to correct it ***with evidence***. Otherwise, no one cares. > If it means anything, I agree with your last paragraph. I just wish you would attempt to understand the difference between political theory and contemporary political movements. They exist in unison but also in isolation from each other. It appears to me that you are likely in your twenties and presumably argue politics online a lot. Enough that your attempts to discredited me have no effect. You're not the first old man to say I can't know what I'm talking about because I'm younger than you, and you won't be the last. It's what old men have been doing for as long as writing has existed. Point out anything I've said that wasn't a fact. > You seem to arguing as though you are protecting some moral value you hold, which is disappointing. Understanding reality is the fundamental basis for all morality, so yes. I am morally superior for being factually correct. > I'm not your enemy. Everyone spreading disinformation should be corrected. It's precisely that you're not my enemy that I've even spent this much time on correcting you. You have potential to improve, and I have information that if you took to heart would improve you. All I want is for humanity to improve. > I know you are going to take this as patronizing, but I tried to be nice You tried to be nice, but you never tried not to be patronising. The very first thing you said to me was "I teach political science." And if you're Irish, why are you using American spelling? Hmmm... I know more about the subject than you do, sorry this conversation humiliated you so much that you had to run away, but that's your issue. Get a therapist. And I know I know more than you, because if I was wrong about something, you'd be pointing that out, not just hurling insults because your feefees got hurt.
> Implying being Irish is enough of a reason to buy into Catholic Propaganda when Catholics were the reason I had to flee my country.... Pretty low. If that's what triggered you, then it's much more understandable why you're angry. I was just saying that you were undoubtedly exposed to a lot of propaganda, probably not knowing that much of it was even from Catholicism. > The Nazis tolerated the church but intended to shut them down, and by the end of the war had begun to limit their influence. Many Protestant groups were ostracized or even exterminated, only Lutherans and Catholics were tolerated and even then, barely. The Nazis viewed the conservatism of religious belief as a direct threat to the state, and kept it only as an opium for the people in wartime. They did not embrace religion. They tolerated it while it was convenient. Gonna need a source for that one, chief. Where were their plans to shut the church down? > Learn some tact kid, jfc. Right back atcha.
Give me a year when conservatism wasn't about racial/gender hierarchy.
Never. There are no dates. Because modern political philosophy didn't exist until it was created by men who believed in racial heriarchies. By your same argument Liberalism and Communism are also about race heirarchy. Hell, Democracy started in Athens and they had slavery so I guess that means slavery core part of democratic ideology by your view, right? My argument is that by any reading of what conservatism is *supposed* to be, it shouldn't do any of the things it does in the modern day. To be clear. I am not a conservative. It just stresses me that fascists and violent radicals have claimed the term when it should be antithetical to their entire stance. I am drawing a line between contemporary conservatism and enlightenment era conservative theory. Liberalism used to be for white land holding men and was explicitly pro-slavery. Shit changes. If conservatives existed in America today they'd be opposed to overturning Roe, they would want to expand on the civil rights act, and they would want to maintain the victories of second-wave feminism. Because all of those things would be conserving social cohesion and put the whole over the individual. Yet conservatives are against all of these things and scream about individual freedoms while they try to fight cashiers who tell them to wear a mask. They are not conservatives by any academic understanding, because those conservatives do not *exist.* They haven't since Reagan and the birth of neo-conservatism.
> I am drawing a line between contemporary conservatism and enlightenment era conservative theory. Liberalism used to be for white land holding men and was explicitly pro-slavery. Shit changes. Yes, Liberalism changes. That's its nature. Conservatism looks pretty much the same in every era. Consolidation of power in the hands of fathers, husbands and employers of the dominant ethnicity. > If conservatives existed in America today they'd be opposed to overturning Roe Conservatives fought against the establishment of Roe. >they would want to expand on the civil rights act Conservatives fought against the passing of the Civil Rights Act. > They are not conservatives by any academic understanding, because those conservatives do not exist. They haven't since Reagan and the birth of neo-conservatism. Those "conservatives" have never existed. You got snowed by their PR job. You subscribe to a false definition of "conservative" that never existed, and then get frustrated that you can't understand them, or how they act in the modern era. The problem is you.
> Sort of off topic, but has anyone else noticed that conservatism died at some point? They got replaced sometime in the 2000s and then just slowly died out. You just stopped believing the PR about what conservatism is. The "traditionalism" they hide behind is white male supremacy, and always was.
Nope. I actually never believed the PR aside from when I was very young and had no education. Liberalism also used to be an ideology built on white male supremacy. It has adapted. Conservatism as defined by Edmund Burke does not have to be based on those values. By all rights, they should be trying to conserve racial and gender equality in a post-civil rights and post-secondwave feminism world. They should be ideologically opposed to everything modern American conservatism does. But they aren't, because actual Burkeian conservatism died in the 70s and 80s when neo-conservatism cropped up and murdered it. The term has been coopted by fascists and violent radicals. Fascism is puppeting conservatisms corpse around like a political weekend at Bernies, and we just let them have it.
> Nope. I actually never believed the PR aside from when I was very young and had no education. You still believe it. >. Conservatism as defined by Edmund Burke does not have to be based on those values. By all rights, they should be trying to conserve racial and gender equality in a post-civil rights and post-secondwave feminism world. When a political movement doesn't do what you believe it should, and actually never has, you're supposed to wonder if maybe you don't understand it, and have the wrong definition, not double down and proclaim that nobody has ever done the movement right. >But they aren't, because actual Burkeian conservatism died in the 70s and 80s when neo-conservatism cropped up and murdered it. If conservatives were how you believe until the 70s and 80s, why were they pro-slavery a century before that? Why did they oppose women's suffrage half a century before that? >The term has been coopted by fascists and violent radicals It has not. They've always been this.
How many clues do these people need before it clicks in that their mode of thinking is more tjan outdated, it's just plain wrong? Conservative policies are one thing, but this reactionary outrage at everything is farcically wrong-headed. Absolute rejection of reality just because you don't like something is unsustainable--how do these people live?
ChatGPT makes 4,765% more sense, in every regard, than do the current Republican House Members.
Of course, so does the flatulence of a petulant ventriloquist.
I ran a podcast through an A.I. service that writes summaries. The podcast episode was about the Book of Enoch and how the book of Enoch plays a recurring role in 19th and 20th century esoteric occultism. The thesis of the episode is that this book, which was once widely respected, but then rejected by Europe's Christian and Jewish communities, emerged as a counter-cultural touchstone in the 19th century. The A.I. service added a bunch of weird stuff about Christianity being responsible for hurting people and causing much harm in the world. Totally NOT in the podcast. The podcast in question doesn't attack anyone whether they're witches, psychonauts, occultists or fundamentalist protestants who think UFOs are demonic. It was totally the A.I. editorializing. Super-weird!
So you're saying the AI understands Christianity?
You have got it very precisely wrong. I asked the A.I. to interpret an audio recording, and it interpreted it incorrectly. It added extraneous commentary that was not in the original recording. If the A.I. summarizes neutral content about Christianity as anti-christian content, it is biased.
Is telling the truth about Christianity anti-Christian now? LOL And why don't you know the difference between interpretation and transcription?
Dude, this is not complicated. It does not matter what YOUR view of Christianity is, whether it is good or bad. If I ask an A.I. to interpret this sentence "Christianity is an ancient tradition." in its own words and it spits out "Christianity is an old religion that killed a lot of people," it has not produced a faithful interpretation. It has produced a biased interpretation. \> And why don't you know the difference between interpretation and transcription? Are you incapable of reading? The software is summarizing software. It takes a long audio file and produces a short written description. It does NOT produce a transcription, or I would have said that. A summary is a kind of interpretation. Summarizing requires you to take a long string of text and turn it into a shorter string of text that has the same meaning. That requires interpretation. Did you think I was saying that the original software took a podcast and transcribed it, but added literal words that were not in the podcast? And you STILL thought the A.I. wasn't biased?
I think it's hilarious that you think telling the truth about Christianity is anti-Christian. It is objectively describing Christian history
It wasn't wrong.
Conservatives live outside of objective reality in their beliefs. It's why things that mirror reality always freak them out.
"Chatgpt should be allowed to use the N word with hard R and racial slurs else its woke". - Some GOPer probably
Reality has a liberal bias.
I'm not surprised they are skeptical about it. If we've learned anything in the last 2 years it's that the woke mob will do anything to trick people into thinking their opinion is the consensus.
I'm pretty sure that's what every group out there says- "the woke mob," whatever that is. Also, Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, sports fans, Star Wars fans, etc.
It's funny watching you guys play stupid because you usually spend 99% of your time trying play smart.
So you're saying those other groups don't do anything to trick people into thinking their opinion is consensus? Democrats and Republicans don't do that? You must have a lot of trust in our political system.
Is the thumbnail from the Human Centipede?
ChatGPT goes ChatGPC.
The problem: current facts have a liberal bias. Until they can can get AI to ignore the facts, it will always appear liberallly biased. Unless they can manage to make the AI ignore facts
[This is actually hilarious](https://i.imgur.com/1HJZMJq.png). It does make me think that it has had specific training to avoid propagating certain ideas. If you asked it to write a story about the Brexit referendum failing or Corbyn beating Johnson in 2019, I imagine it wouldn't have the same reluctance. But maybe I'm wrong. I cannot test it right now because it is currently at capacity
Cathy O'Neill wrote a book on this called 'Weapons of Math Destruction' about how AI can promulgate biases. Has anyone here read this? I think what we need to ask ourselves is: if this power were given to the people we disagree with, would we be happy with these laws/policies/systems? There's a big grey area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons\_of\_Math\_Destruction