[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.13130[View All]

File: 1713307188519.jpg (117.69 KB, 720x950, 72:95, Olivia.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

So when is it gonna end?
39 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


It still bothers me a lot that you'll say left-wing / progressive / liberal propaganda lines such as "living under the boot of the CCP without basic human rights such as freedom of speech is terrible" without understanding either that this, first, is highly emotionally charged propaganda that millions of those on the right-wing side of the political spectrum oppose you on and, second, is a matter of general principle that ought to apply everywhere and not just in two particular sets of territories.

If a Chinese policeman beating up a gay Chinese man who's wearing a rainbow shirt in public is morally wrong, or beating up a labor union activist, or beating up somebody opposing COVID-19 related policies, then why is the exact same behavior by an American policeman against an American man morally correct?

The Chinese government personifies anti-woke policies. It's a statist organization founded on the idea that all aspects of personal morality must be communal and founded on traditional values. You're not going to have, say, transgender furries in a public parade holding up pacifist banners in China. Not if the government has anything to do with it. They take family values seriously. No "woke" shit allowed.


>This is rather stinking of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy...

There isn't a true scotsman.  There was never a scotsman in this debate.  We're still arguing past each other about what "woke" means.  I don't think we're even still on the topic about "when woke culture will end", so I'm gonna go through the list.


This version of woke ends when right-wing media finds a new scary buzzword for their reactionary speeches.


Identity politics is simply unlikely to end.  I don't think humanity is ever going to achieve such an egalitarian society that people do not perceive theselves as part of a group that is underprivileged and others as part of a group that is overprivileged.  A lot of the time, those people will be correct, and that's before getting into actual situations of oppression.

>This doesn't change my point. We need woke politics. We need centrism. We need moderation. We need to end racial, religious, and ethnic hatred.

I don't think centrism and moderation are likely to die off any time soon, either, even if they never become dominant.

>Wokes have promoted racially discriminatory admissions to universities.

It is likely that the concept of a university dies before the concept of balancing admissions dies.  Maybe if college becomes so large that it can simply accept everyone there will no longer be a need for admissions?

>Wokes support Hamas, making excuses for the horrible things Hamas did on Oct 7.

Hamas probably won't last particularly long, but people given a bad lot in life and violently (and/or immorally) rebelling against the status quo is likely permanent, as are distant unrelated parties choosing sides in the conflict.  This largely wraps into the identity politics portion from earlier.

>Wokes try to suppress speech and research in politically inconvenient subjects such as intelligence and genetics.

Politics are *very* unlikely to end, so suppressing opposing sides is also unlikely to end, regardless of the exact nature or validity of the content suppressed.

>I'd also say that I'm "woke" in that I support Taiwan's independence against mainland China as well as Ukraine's independence against Russia and South Korea's independence against North Korea,

I think there's a fair chance that Taiwan and North Korea may at some point end.  One of them will be missed.  Ukraine and Russia will likely continue, though at some point the conflict itself will filter out.

>Being "woke" means having a system of ethics inherently based on the idea that everybody has the freedom of speech, of religion, of assembly, and so on.

This version of woke has never actually existed.  All people and all political parties can and have named speeches, religions, and assemblies that should not be allowed to continue.

>There's also the second meaning that has supposedly developed more recently such that "woke" refers to people in or having sympathy to political factions such as the New Black Panther Party in the U.S. Revolutionary communist ideologies. Militant left-wing activism. May involve non-white men being regarded as superior to white men. That sort of movement has the label applied to it.

This, again, ties back to the identity politics definitions, and will almost certainly never be solved.

>The third meaning is as a vapid insult.

Insulting each other is a tradition ingrained permanently in our genes.  It will not end.


To me that's a core difference between left and right.
A left minded person sees the rsponsibility of the community to lookout for its members and it becomes the job of the government to make sure that people don't have to be destitute (as much as they can).
That's why housing programs, social programs, affordable education, healthcare, free lunches for kids at school.
I don't care if money of my paycheck goes towards those things, because I feel it's the best approach for society.
1. I may be at the short end of the stick sometimes. Life is unpredictable and if I get a bad hand dealt to me, I want to have some safety net that allows me to get back into society.
2. For society as a whole it would be a lot better not to break it up into a class of people who can manage their life and a class of people who live in ghettos/slums and are just there to die in the streets and become a nuissance to the well off people.

Now to talk about woke. I feel that things like LGBTQ, religion, heck even being a furry is everyone's own right. I hope nobody here agrees that gay people or even trans people should be punished for being gay or trans, or for simply being Muslim, or Asian or black.
That's a freedom I feel like people both on the left and the right should get behind.

That does mean that our society will reflect that as well, with people being gay / trans / muslim /black hanging around, being on equal footing with the rest of us.
At that point, I can understand why there would be books targetted at childeren that attempt to normalise LGB and even T/Q relationships and personalities. Given the issues seen in the industry with all the abuse towards women, I understand that messages will be sent out that a woman has the right to assert herself.
A movie / video game may focus on characters outside of their traditional roles.
For people who live outside of the traditional rolls it can be empowering to consume stories about characters they relate to.
For kids it helps them understand these oddities and understand that we live in a society where it is okay to step outside the traditional roles. They may grow up knowing neighbours / family members or friends who are gay or trans, or may come to realize they are gay / trans themselves.
And individual racism can still exist, so stories about people struggling against racism themselves, it can be a relief to see their feelings represented in a story they can read.

And that, to me, is an issue with the Anti-Woke movement. It is overly defensive. It is as if the message is that it is wrong to normalize deviancy from the traditional roles. It is wrong to be gay or to be trans. It is not okay if you're Asian, black in a predominantly white society. As a woman it is not your place to have any say in things and stand up against male figures. As a man it is wrong to not be manly and do man things all day.


File: 1713610265584.jpg (43.42 KB, 648x648, 1:1, Olivia smile.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Can anyone here honestly name a single time Woke Culture has ever helped anyone out? Does anyone here have any personal stories?

Meanwhile, the only thing I've ever heard of woke culture doing is getting people canceled either for something they said 10 years ago, or some misunderstanding because they didn't say trans people or blacks are brave, or someone took it as an implication. People are too sensitive these days. To top that off for the past like 14 years woke culture has been getting crammed down everyone's throats. You'd thing these activists would know when to stop and recuperate whatever ground they got. When you attempt to violently throw out an old world, an old world is going to aggressively fight back and cling to their ideals.



If we're talking woke foreign policy, then there's also:




I would much rather the U.S. government take a far stronger stance against the anti-woke regimes in the world, such as the Chinese and Russian dictatorships, but this all is at least a positive start.


File: 1713628111432.png (447.51 KB, 1920x1209, 640:403, USA_Presidential_Elections….png) ImgOps Google


Going by the definition of "woke culture" where it's just kind of a broadly left aligned vibe, I think it's agreeable to say that left leaning movements have not been particularly effective as of late.  There's certainly been some positive strides for inclusion, stuff like the legalization of gay marriage, but it's kind of just been a series of failures.  Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter both pretty much came and went, and no other related movement has even been as organized as those two (which, to be clear, were very poorly organized, if at all).

There's been all sorts of "cancellations", and while some of them were effective in the sense that some people had less revenue, none of them really stopped those people from continuing their businesses, and also most of the targets weren't particularly high profile in terms of social movements.  It was all random actors or YouTubers, half of which were revealed to be innocent later, if there was even compelling evidence to begin with.  Meanwhile the legitimate mouthpieces for movements that generally oppose lefist idealogies have gone untouched.  You can't cancel Ben Shapiro in any meaningful capacity because his entire audience is already on board with what he's saying.  Any attempt to do so just gets him more air time.  Protesting a public appearance doesn't prevent them from speaking, it puts them in the news, so everyone can see someone's speech being legitimately shut down, which looks bad even if the speech itself would've been a bunch of hatemongering.

"Social justice" is inherently "justice", which is conceptually the idea that some people in the world are bad and bad things should happen to those people.  But, since the movements are so disorganized they cannot go after any truly bad people that might have an impact on the world at large.  (And those people might simply be too powerful to assault regardless of organizational skills.)  Instead, they largely go for lower hanging fruit, which often amounts to just yelling at people on Twitter or random passersby on the street, which is not an especially good look.

The problems talked about from the left I think are mostly legitimate.  There's some good points that could really be addressed.  I just don't think it's likely because those problems mostly affect minorities.  And not minorities in the sense of racial or religious subgroups or anything, just literally too small a number of people to galvanize a movement together.  The majority of the US is perfectly happy with the status quo, it's why we have so few voters.  The two major parties are forced by circumstance to not shake the boat too much in either direction, with their extremist members mostly publically ridiculed even if they got successfully voted in.

So, again, is "woke culture" going to end?  No, I think however we define the term, the problems that spawned it continue and likely will always continue because "woke culture" is incapable of dealing with those problems.  It's firmly planted and we're stuck with it.


That isn't woke culture at work. They also haven't made your life better. Unless you're a gay old black man who was alive during the 60s, you were born into those changes. What youre doing is the same thing as when feminist try to clump together feminism in a single stroke and act like the movement havent evoluved into different waves. Just because I disagree with 3rd wave feminism doesnt mean i disagree with 1st and second wave. We are talking about woke culture of today.

The last bit about the Ukraine is ridiculous.  There's nothing woke about that. Ad for being woke, what laws are left to change? Treating people better is a cultural thing rather than a systematic one so government protest is out of the question

Also fuck Ukraine. Fuck Russia. Fuck Israel. And fuck Palestine. There is zero reason anyone in America should care about any of those people


Your sociopathic insanity is noted

If it makes you feel any better, your compatriots in foreign countries such as China and North Korea and also in the U.S. here have succeeded quite a bit in killing inferior classes of people, and you'll succeed more in the future, especially since America is teetering on the brink of becoming a totalitarian dictatorship under Trump coming back to power

I suppose I can take solace somewhat in that people like you enjoy people like me suffering and dying, so some good comes out of the process


>I don't care if money of my paycheck goes towards those things, because I feel it's the best approach for society.
You are in error conflating the reality of taxation, with your own personal feelings about taxation.

You can feel however you please about taxation. You can be some bible-thumping ultranationalist, proudly paying taxes as your civic duty to the state.
That doesn't change the reality of it, though, which is that taxation is, factually, coerced through violence.

There's also a level of naivety, of course, in that you seem to assume taxation only goes to positive things, as though the federal government has not done deeply questionable things on numerous occasions with that finance.
The penchant for the US to arm terrorists who fight those we dislike, for instance, in the Middle East. It's in large part the reason for the regional instability, and certainly something I'd hope most could recognize as an irresponsible expenditure.

> It is wrong to be gay or to be trans. It is not okay if you're Asian, black in a predominantly white society.
If that were actually the case, you wouldn't have so many members of those communities coming out to say "Hey, no, this is wrong."

To be frank; It seems like ideologues of the worst sort are using it as a shield.

Especially the Asians, given the rather disgusting treatment they face in education...
I find it frankly rather reprehensible that they're used so often as a shield, whilst at the same time, they must face outright discrimination in academia simply because their racial "group" happens to preform well in those environments.


File: 1713657640160.jpg (49.93 KB, 624x401, 624:401, _79674532_024327221-1-2518….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Considering how ultra-nationalist Ukraine is, I always found the left-wing defense of them incredibly strange.
Even leaving aside the 'woke' angle.

I guess it's some "enemy of my enemy" shit.

>Also fuck Ukraine. Fuck Russia. Fuck Israel. And fuck Palestine.
They're all shit and shouldn't receive funding from American taxpayers, that's for sure.


> totalitarian dictatorship under Trump
Last I checked, it wasn't him who tried to remove a rival candidate as a voting option.

It's always dreadfully laughable when people cry "dictator" to the guy who seems to get the most overt authoritarianism in response to his mere presence in politics.

But, then, I suppose I shouldn't expect better these days.


File: 1713677937819.jpeg (32.88 KB, 450x675, 2:3, 01392-4164236449.jpeg) ImgOps Google

So because I disagree with you and have strong opinions that makes me a sociopath with ties to china? Lol. Lmao even.  

We need Trump back in office if it boils down to him or Biden.


As a European I am very concerned about Russia forcing their way into neighbouring countries to sort them out because they are becoming too pro Western and pro NATO.


As someone who doesn't give a fuck about your country. So fucking what? Why should my world power country help you out? What the fuck are you gonna do to help us out?


More and more Americans don't even care about their literal neighbors living in the same towns as them, to be frank, since those neighbors might be Asian or black or be in wheelchairs or be gay or whatever else, so why the hell would they care about foreigners in a foreign land speaking a foreign language?

Sure, the minority of woke people in the U.S. care, but they're not the majority really by far and sure as hell won't have power forever (even if they somewhat, partially, have power now if you assume that Biden is woke [which I can understand as an argument]) since they naturally haven't had power forever in the past.

If you want to support woke values against anti-woke regimes in North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, etc, then strengthen military forces locally without leaning on an American security umbrella.


Which is a fine and reasonable justification, that I have no qualms about.
But calling it 'woke' is laughable.

What you're describing is territorial concerns. Frankly, rather nationalistic ones.


Ukraine isn't about being woke. That's a big point.
It's about taking a stand and letting Russia feel that it can't just invade a neighbouring country and easily get away with it with a big thumbs up from the US.
>Considering how ultra-nationalist Ukraine is, I always found the left-wing defense of them incredibly strange.
This is the point. At this point I care less about Ukrain as a country run before and more about not letting Russia run its tanks into the rest of Europe and let it take out Paris, Berlin or Brussels. When Russian tanks roll into Paris, it will not be with the sweetest intention and the promise to install the great government everyone hopes for.

I would even need some solid unbiased notes on how Ukrain was a far right nazi hellhole as Russia claims.

The part where I could argue it's a question about being woke or not is knowing that Russia has an incredible hard stance against "woke" ideals.
And the people in the West now cheering for Russia are getting a hardon thinking about a strong leadership that will clean up the LGBTQ and other deviants.
And when I say cleaning up, I am not talking about getting rid of ridiculous laws forcing fines on those critical of the LGBTQ people.
I'm talking about taking gay people to the street and putting them up for a public execution.


At any rate, I think people should be able to be gay. I think kids should be able to be gay.
I think it's okay if society gives a platform where gay people are allowed to live their life in as much a capacity as straight people.

I think in the last decade, I have seen a lot more people raise the question about being trans and I think it the budding world being trans is a growing phenomenon that needs to go a long way to be as accepted as being gay.
I think trans people should have the right to be trans and to figure their way through it in as much as they care. That doesn't mean that they can't be bad people, but I don't think they should be thrown struggles in their way for being themselves.

We are on Ponyville, we are surrounded by people who are gay / trans. And I want them to have the freedom to be who they like without facing pushbacks.


File: 1713758725767.png (882.9 KB, 911x911, 1:1, Screenshot_20240422-000151.png) ImgOps Google

The "disparate impact" doctrine needs to be tossed in the trash ASAP.


You know that thing that happens sometimes when headlines are sometimes sensationalized implying something different from what the story itself actually says?


File: 1713760363932.png (303.67 KB, 1080x654, 180:109, Screenshot_20240422-003217.png) ImgOps Google


>civil rights laws are interpreted by current courts in a way that leads, with this current executive branch, into terrible outcomes
>therefore kill all civil rights laws and don't allow them to exist

This is basically the same mental process as my younger sister getting a broken elbow and me using a nearby hacksaw to chop her entire arm off immediately, and the fact that this sort of obvious logical fallacy is normal politics in America today is horrifying

If you apply this """logic""" consistently, then you would get rid of literally all laws applied to any form of commerce whatsoever, at the level of turning being mad about some public celebrity being falsely accused of rape (the Duke lacrosse case comes to mind) into becoming an advocate for age of consent rules not existing anymore and nothing preventing sexual abuse being on the books in order to never have false accusations ever again (4chan trolls on /b/ who actually believe that come to mind)


File: 1713779939806.jpeg (124.96 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, GLSy0MKaIAADRsL.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Most Americans (and American businesses) wouldn't discriminate against minorities even without the government pointing a gun at their heads forcing them not to.  The Civil Rights Act was useful back in the 1960s to kick-start the move away from racism, but nowadays it probably fails a cost/benefit analysis.  But in any case, I wasn't advocating going as far as the New Hampshire Libertarian Party.  I just want to get rid of the "disparate impact" doctrine, which is truly an abomination.

>advocate for age of consent rules not existing anymore
Yeah, I think if a person is going to be convicted of rape, the prosecution should prove that the alleged victim actually didn't consent.  If you want it to be illegal for an 18-year-old to have sex with 15-year-old, fine, but don't pretend that it's automatically rape.


The Libertarian Party using "criminal" and "having a criminal history" interchangeably is a pretty big tell, imo. The two aren't the same thing, and treating them as the same thing is extremely suspicious.

Having "a criminal history" is an extremely vague and broad concept and also ignores any possibility of reform. If an 18 year old man gets caught with having a bunch of marijuana, he could be given a felony just for that. How he has a "criminal history" but if years later he tried to get a job, would it be right to call him a "criminal" and that it's actually good for employers to automatically deny him?

Plus there's this weird notion that like... in America you basically have to have a job or you're just screwed. So like... once you have any sort of crime on your history, you should just be barred from any future employment? It doesn't really seem like a good system for helping reforming and reintegrating people with past crimes in their history.

I feel like the EEOC is justified in this lawsuit honestly, because just blanket denying "people with criminal histories" especially if the history isn't relevant, is probably just not a good thing in general - and especially if the outcome is discriminatory. I feel like Sheetz would need to prove the relevance (like not hiring someone with a history of petty theft to a cash register position).


I don't see how it's a "big tell" or "extremely suspicious" when you already admit in your post here that this is pretty much the common standard practice for companies around the country.
That's what every background check is for. To see if you've done something in the past that'd make you a poor candidate for hiring.

While I do agree with you that it's a rather poor practice for a myriad of reasons, especially in respect to personal privacy, the implication of racism is completely unfounded.
There's nothing 'Suspicious" about it. There's no "big tell".
You're conflating your own personal disagreement with a standard practice to racism.


>once you have any sort of crime on your history, you should just be barred from any future employment? It doesn't really seem like a good system for helping reforming and reintegrating people with past crimes in their history.
Okay, but that is a policy issue for the legislature to address.  Some states (e.g., CA) have enacted laws regarding this.

>I feel like the EEOC is justified in this lawsuit honestly, because just blanket denying "people with criminal histories" especially if the history isn't relevant, is probably just not a good thing in general
That's a bad justification.  EEOC doesn't have free reign to punish companies that do things that are bad policy.  It's supposed to be limited to racial discrimination.

>especially if the outcome is discriminatory
That doesn't make sense.  Actions can discriminate, but outcomes cannot discriminate.



Refusing to hire "criminals" is both not really the best business practice and also problematic on a wider societal scale, but I don't think it's illegal and I don't know that it'll hold up in court.  The law is not on our side in this.  We have to do it on our own.


>I don't see how it's a "big tell" or "extremely suspicious"
It's a bit sloppy reasoning to conflate "has criminal history" with "is presently criminally inclined".  But tweets (I refuse to call them "xeets") are limited in length, and P(commit another crime given a criminal history) >> P(commit a crime given no criminal history), especially with today's catch-and-release woke DAs, so I agree it's not a "big tell".


>especially if the outcome is discriminatory
I disagree that a disparate impact should be grounds for anything in a legal trial.
See https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/the-happy-birth-day-question


>don't see how it's a "big tell" or "extremely suspicious" when you already admit in your post here that this is pretty much the common standard practice for companies around the country.
The thing I am suspicious of is LPNH's beliefs -- not Sheetz's. Sheetz probably just is following whatever standard protocol is, I agree

Nah what I find suspicious is that we have a case where the EEOC is filing a lawsuit where the company's standard practice of doing background checks is leading to very likely completely unintended discrimination and is going to be looked at..... but then the LPNH is framing this like "These mostly-black criminals are weaponizing their race to attack a company, and this is why civil rights laws are bad."

>Okay, but that is a policy issue for the legislature to address.
Shoulds don't really matter, because courts still are going to interpret whatever is the current law. Maybe the legislature should address it, but it doesn't suddenly become out of interpretation of the courts.

>Actions can discriminate, but outcomes cannot discriminate.
An outcome can unintentionally (or intentionally in some cases) affect different types of people disproportionately.


Yeah it may not end up holding in court, so who knows there. It is just a sort of weird societal catch-22 though. I wonder what sort of good solution there could really be?

It can be grounds for starting the trial at least. Like to investigate further, find out what's happening, have them defend themselves, etc.

This is a lawsuit, not them being found guilty yet.


>courts still are going to interpret whatever is the current law
There isn't any current law against refusing to hire those with a criminal history.  The fact that blacks commit proportionately more crime than whites adequately explains the racial discrepancy at issue.

>An outcome can unintentionally (or intentionally in some cases) affect different types of people disproportionately.
Yes, like shorter people tend to have poorer outcomes in basketball.  It's not a good reason for the govt to bully a company.

>It can be grounds for starting the trial at least.
If the racial gap is suspicious, I agree it can be grounds for discovery at trial.  But this particular racial gap isn't suspicious at all.


so, "woke" culture can mean different things 2 different ppl.

for some, liberalism. for others, necessary change. still others, a tiring, flawed, overly-promoted philosophy.

...but i don't think it means very much.

wat is there, afterall, but such?

consider the triangle, a gift from the Gods.

Let us learn, then. and together, we shall oak.


File: 1714947613916.jpeg (428.06 KB, 800x1067, 800:1067, Yuno gasai phone smile.jpeg) ImgOps Google

I think it's time people stopped talking about when it should end; and more so about how to stop it.



File: 1715478117186.png (1014.21 KB, 1079x1213, 1079:1213, Screenshot_20240511-214053.png) ImgOps Google


Oh my God!
If she would have seen a sign protesting the genocide in Gaza, she would have been traumatized!


Pretty sure that's not what her security team was concerned about.


Why do you always post screenshots of random people's commentary on news events, rather than just posting the actual news article?

Like, why should I or anyone care about this screenshot? It isn't proof of anything, because he's allowed to be as biased and uncharitable and lie if he wants to because it's a Twitter post and not a news article. Why post this screenshot at all?


The tweet is what is directly connecting the article to the topic of this thread (wokeness / social justice).
The link to article is right in the screenshot: trib.al/HFRnCW1 which expands to


You literally said earlier that you'd be on the side of that angry mob w.r.t. Eurovision since you said: "There's also 'woke' as in how the UK is infringing freedom of speech by throwing people in jail for 'hate speech'."

It's at: >>13173

So, for fuck's sake, which is it?

Are angry mobs advocating for violence against those who're gay / Jewish / transgender / disabled / black etc a good thing? Or a bad thing? Should the should the government let them be? Or should the government put a stop to their speech (by "infringing it", as you put it using the correct legal terminology)?

It's an either-or. If you're a conservative libertarian who believes in absolute and unconditional free speech, then what happened to Golan is wholly acceptable. And you're on the side of the angry mob. By definition.

If you think that incitement to criminal violence and other expressions of 'hate speech' should be illegal, then, alright, that can be defended. And you're against this mob. Because you're against all mobs expressing violent discrimination based on whatever trait (from nationality to gender identity to religion or whatever else). Which means that you're "woke" like the U.K. government.

Either a far-left supporter of Palestinian Islamic Jihad calling for burning down a synagogue AND a far-right supporter of the Proud Boys calling for burning down a synagogue both get the free speech to say their near identical words, or neither of them can say that. Laws are based on universal maxims. Principles of universal morality. Applied to all. If one guy can't do it, then nobody else can. That's how reality works.


File: 1715603887755.jpg (1.8 MB, 891x1637, 891:1637, eed3b738d207ab7e915ed2633b….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

First, I can harshly criticize someone's speech without calling for government to punish the person for his/her speech.

Second, inciting an assembled mob to imminent illegal violence is a lot different than posting online comments about Muslim immigrants and calling for *the government* to deport them.  One is protected under the First Amendment, the other isn't.


>The tweet is what is directly connecting the article to the topic of this thread (wokeness / social justice).
But that's what I mean. It's tied to "wokeness/social justice"... because this guy says it is? I mean, if they are protesting around the Palestine-Israel conflict, then that's not exactly social justice... that's just regular justice. Social justice is about justice over social issues. I don't think protesting over a genocide is considered a "social justice" issue?

The article itself doesn't seem like it has any relation to "woke culture" other than this random guy's tweet saying it is.


File: 1715619724139.png (353.16 KB, 972x1277, 972:1277, Screenshot_20240513-125032.png) ImgOps Google

>I don't think protesting over a genocide is considered a "social justice" issue?
Eh, I'd disagree.  (Maybe I'm weird, so I checked with ChatGPT, and it agrees with me.)

Woke types tend to view everything thru an oppressor/oppressed lens.  They view the Palestinians as oppressed by the Israelis.


ChatGPT isn't a knowledge source, it's a LLM that is trained on insane amount of data to be able to recognize and replicate text patterns. It's unknown how much of the data it is given is factual or not, and ChatGPT is only ever able to replicate what looks like a reasonable response, but isn't guaranteed to be a factual response.

Please. I'm begging you to not rely on ChatGPT as if it were a factual knowledge source. It can straight up just make thing up while presenting it as if it were fact.


>Woke types tend to view everything thru an oppressor/oppressed lens.  They view the Palestinians as oppressed by the Israelis.
Also what does this even mean? Would it also be "woke" to view the Israelis as being oppressed by Hamas? Are both sides of the conflict "woke"?

Also that Ed Leon Klinger seemed like he was concerned about the singer being oppressed by the mob. Is he being "woke" by claiming the protestors are being misogynistic? Is claiming to be oppressed by "woke types" itself being woke? Are the people who are anti-woke actually being woke themselves when they stand up against anti-white discrimination?


You're underestimating how well GPT-4 works.  Yeah, it makes mistakes, but it is especially good at simple things like "How do people on the internet use the term 'social justice'?".

Oh, you haven't heard of that before?  Here is a web page that goes into it:


>it is especially good at simple things like "How do people on the internet use the term 'social justice'?".
It isn't actually good at that. It's good at making what sounds like a reasonable answer to the question.

LLMs aren't actually intelligent, no matter how sophisticated or advanced they are. Despite making a good answer, ChatGPT doesn't know what "justice" means conceptually in the same way a human would understand the term. ChatGPT just knows that words like "justice" is often used with words like "equality" and "fairness" but it doesn't actually know what those concepts mean. ChatGPT is really cool and fun, it just isn't a knowledge source.


>It isn't actually good at that.
What failures have you seen on GPT-4 here?

>LLMs aren't actually intelligent, no matter how sophisticated or advanced they are.
GPT-4 certainly isn't human-level AGI, but I'd say it certainly has intelligence to some degree.  

>ChatGPT just knows that words like "justice" is often used with words like "equality" and "fairness" but it doesn't actually know what those concepts mean.
I disagree with that.  What's a prompt that demonstrates GPT-4 failing to understand what the concepts mean?

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]