Very interesting debate, with a lot of arguments well stated and worth saving. A few things I noted from the chat side of the debate.
Chat seemed to assume the objectives of doing reparations which were not stated up front. While I don't object to the objectives they assumed, I imagined some other or different objectives that some people may have.
I noticed a couple of places chat seems to have adopted some terminology similar to that used by the Critical Social Justice ideology proponents. For example "marginalized groups" and "marginalized communities." I would ask the question, are black people, native americans, women, gay people, asians, and other ethnic groups, each "marginalized" as a group? Based on dictionary definitions of marginalized I would say that in the U. S. today the answer is clearly no in all cases. I can think of some groups that would seem to meet the definition, e.g. unemployed homeless people, but blacks as a group are clearly not marginalized.
Very good observation. AI is pattern recognition and, sadly, slogan words like "marginalized groups" and "marginalized communities" are in the public square. The pattern of repetitive slogan words is picked up and deployed in Chat argument. Even opposition arguments to reparations use the word manipulations of "Critical" Social Justice. Why not just Social Justice? Why not just Justice sans any modifier?
It is a minor point but it is more powerful to use the phrase "slogan words" over "terminology." Terminology conveys bias-free word choice. Slogan words communicate the underlying advocacy underneath word choice. Thanks for your insightful comment.
AWESOME!!!!
Smile!
That was a delightful conversation!
I enjoyed myself!
Very interesting debate, with a lot of arguments well stated and worth saving. A few things I noted from the chat side of the debate.
Chat seemed to assume the objectives of doing reparations which were not stated up front. While I don't object to the objectives they assumed, I imagined some other or different objectives that some people may have.
I noticed a couple of places chat seems to have adopted some terminology similar to that used by the Critical Social Justice ideology proponents. For example "marginalized groups" and "marginalized communities." I would ask the question, are black people, native americans, women, gay people, asians, and other ethnic groups, each "marginalized" as a group? Based on dictionary definitions of marginalized I would say that in the U. S. today the answer is clearly no in all cases. I can think of some groups that would seem to meet the definition, e.g. unemployed homeless people, but blacks as a group are clearly not marginalized.
Very good observation. AI is pattern recognition and, sadly, slogan words like "marginalized groups" and "marginalized communities" are in the public square. The pattern of repetitive slogan words is picked up and deployed in Chat argument. Even opposition arguments to reparations use the word manipulations of "Critical" Social Justice. Why not just Social Justice? Why not just Justice sans any modifier?
If I had had more time, I would have pushed back on the word choice and asked Chat GPT-4 why assume blacks as a group are marginalized? Blacks are clearly, clearly not. https://twyman.substack.com/p/the-black-privilege-vibe?utm_source=publication-search, https://twyman.substack.com/p/descendants-of-free-black-slave-owners?utm_source=publication-search, https://twyman.substack.com/p/to-be-bourgeoisie?utm_source=publication-search, https://twyman.substack.com/p/black-enterprise-magazine-or-how?utm_source=publication-search
It is a minor point but it is more powerful to use the phrase "slogan words" over "terminology." Terminology conveys bias-free word choice. Slogan words communicate the underlying advocacy underneath word choice. Thanks for your insightful comment.
Very interesting! Thanks for trying that out, and then sharing it!!
What do they call that approach? Reverse psychology?
Maybe, but very clever on your part all the same.