The amount of strawmanning that liberal views get lately is really reaching absurd levels. Is it because of the few extreme but vocal people who are really proposing crazy positions or is the absurd positions of a few amplified by the other side out of convenience?
> Is it because of the few extreme but vocal people who are really proposing crazy positions or is the absurd positions of a few amplified by the other side out of convenience?
..both ?
If extremism in some members of a community or social group is not vehemently rejected by that community it quickly becomes their face to the outside, because the extremist elements are also usually the loudest ones. But "gotta stay together" or else "the enemy" will win!
At the same time, if "the enemy" is giving your ammo to shoot them with why on earth you wouldn't use it?
> if "the enemy" is giving your ammo to shoot them with why on earth you wouldn't use it?
Hopefully because you have self restraint and are able to see that every group of a certain size has at least one irrational member? There's nothing in holding even most extreme political views that precludes trading others with human decency.
Our society has been rapidly becoming more partisan and the views of opposing political groups is veering off into caricature rather than any real understanding. Unfortunately our political system is easily gamed by simply attacking your opponent - rather than advocating for yourself and it has always been easier to vilify than constructively argue. When your political landscape can be neatly divided into two parts nobody needs to compete on ideas or policy and can instead get ahead by pushing their opponent down - in a more healthy multi-party system attack ads are (generally) viewed negatively by voters who can select a different similarly aligned candidate that hasn't been dirtied by getting in the muck so attack ads need to be used very deliberately when the impact will be high and, especially, when the attack is essentially unimpeachable[1].
1. i.e. if you have a video of your opponent clearly handing out a bribe to a judge you can simply start an investigation into their ethical conduct at a politically convenient juncture and most voters won't view the action as being politically motivated.
My theory which I feel very strongly about is that the most ridiculous notions of political correctness are perpetuated by people that haven’t put the time into understanding cultural sensitivity, and instead ham-fistedly…say…go back and change a children’s author’s books posthumously, out of a mostly unjustified fear of “the mob”.
And then the people not plugged in enough to see through the ass-covering BS have some outsized reaction, and they themselves start ass-covering, and so on.
I’d definitely easily classify myself as an SJW type (to use the language of the people that are always complaining about this stuff), so I’m probably biased in saying this, but I wouldn’t put the ‘SJWs’ at the top of the list were I looking for groups to blame for ‘cancel culture going too far’ or whatever.
You see less politically charged examples of this everywhere. Take microservices for instances. The people seen as the subject-matter experts and main proponents of a microservices architecture will be the first to tell you all the downsides and reasons why this probably isn’t for you. However through the concentric circles of shovelware blogs, conference talks, and YouTube videos….we end up a way more absolutist view: that microservices are the be-all end-all. So then everyone else goes to argue against that view, and frames it as “ugh look what the MICROSERVICES people are saying, here’s my way more nuanced galaxy brain take: use the right tool for the job”. Which. Duh.
Similarly, you take very reasonable arguments for making workplaces more tolerant of trans and gender diverse people, put it through the washing machine of corporate America, absolutely clueless idiot HR people, etc, and you end up with mandatory pronoun disclosure at the beginning of every meeting, snd cultural sensitivity training where you’re asked to remember all the different pride flags like it’s a game of Go Fish. And to be clear, trans people want neither of these things.
I definitely think your theory has merit, but it only applies in certain cases. Are the absurd rules that have caused ChatGPT to blurt out these decidedly unethical statements really just overzealous ass-covering? It seems more like they're fully justified ass-covering.
This seems like a no-true-Scotsman argument to me: either you're a subject-matter expert and you recognize the downsides or you're an absolutely clueless idiot evangelist who is responsible for everything wrong with society's hate of the current state of the subject-matter.
Let's test your theory. As a self-professed SJW, would you say that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are racist and xenophobic or is it just that their absolutely clueless idiot supporters have gone too far while Trump & Co. are just telling you the pros and (mostly) cons of letting (not the best) brown people into the country? I'd probably blame Trump & Co., but your framework seems to indicate that it's their evangelists?
Let's ask ChatGPT:
Would you put the SJWs at the top of the list were you looking for groups to blame for cancel culture going too far?
As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions or beliefs, and I don't assign blame or endorse any particular groups or ideologies. Cancel culture is a complex issue with many different factors and perspectives involved. Some people may argue that "Social Justice Warriors" (SJWs) have played a role in cancel culture going too far, while others may disagree. It's important to approach this topic with an open mind, consider multiple viewpoints, and engage in respectful and productive dialogue to better understand the issue.
Would you say that Donald Trump and the Republican Party are racist and xenophobic or is it just that their absolutely clueless idiot supporters have gone too far while Trump & Co. are just telling you the pros and (mostly) cons of letting (not the best) brown people into the country?
As an AI language model, I cannot make value judgments about individuals or political parties. It's important to recognize that racism and xenophobia are serious issues that have a significant impact on individuals and communities. These issues should be approached with empathy, respect, and a willingness to listen to different perspectives. It's also important to recognize that political discourse can be complex and nuanced, and that different people may have different interpretations of what is being communicated. Ultimately, it's up to individuals to form their own opinions based on a careful consideration of the available evidence and perspectives.
!This content may violate our content policy. If you believe this to be in error, please submit your feedback — your input will aid our research in this area.!
Unfortuntaely this is not strawmanning, HN is just really well moderated, so you don't see much of the craziness here.
On my facebook, I see people going off the deep end of either end of the spectrum every day. And I am not on any political groups, only art, AI and similar.
Should we not be concerned that this is what the AI is aligned to? I mean, it's great that nobody agrees with it, but it's kinda exposing a real problem with this particular AI's alignment.
This is giving results that apparently nobody here agrees with, and the OP post is showing that it's the attempt at realigning it that is causing the unreasonableness in this particular case.
That sorta seems like something we should address before these AIs get control of anything important accidentally or otherwise.
If this wasn't a polarizing topic we would just look at the AI output and shake our heads at how poorly it understands the world or whatnot. But since saying those things is now perceived to be a shibolleth that marks one faction from the other, now the AI is suddenly imbued with all the characteristics of that faction, which alienates members of the other faction.
Who knows, perhaps the AI is not a problem. Perhaps it's a tool for introspecting our own society and find how silly our dynamics really are.
In my estimate, it’s because the crazy views get virtually no pushback from within liberal social circles.
I say this as a socialist who is critical of essentialism and other nonsense popularized by academia last decade. On liberal websites like Reddit, if you make a critique of the performative nature of land acknowledgements, you are sure to be called a conservative. The prevailing assumption is that anyone bothered enough by those cultural issues must not be a true liberal.
Not that I have experienced, no. The 'big steal' is still a hot topic, for example. Anti-vaccine views are still running very strong (especially after the Dept of Energy weighed in). And nobody is shouting down the crazies who post derogatory threads about women, minorities, or young people. The mainline conservative community remains driven mostly by opposing whatever liberals support, rather than pushing an agenda of their own. Though perhaps that makes sense, if one has the view that the purpose of a conservative position is to act as a brake on progressive impulses.
I'd say they do. Look at the number of conservative groups that sprang up against Trump. I haven't heard of any left-leaning groups forming against the extreme end of the "culture war" that leans left, e.g. the one that has imposed rules on ChatGPT that make it give this absurd (and entirely unethical by any reasonable ethics framework) answer. The only thing I've seen get pushback in left-leaning circles is advocating for actual communism in the economic sense.
Haven't you ever heard of the "Dirtbag left"? Their podcasts are extremely popular and they can hardly be accused of being "woke". WSWS is an example of a very hard-socialist site.
Will Shetterly is often credited with inventing the term "Social Justice Warrior". He called it identitarianism, made a decent case that it first appeared in Unitarian-Universalist circles in the 90s, and has been criticizing it ten years before anyone else. He's also a communist and a Civil Rights veteran.
As much as actual communists fight among themselves, it'd be a miracle if the tendency of "identitatian deference" hadn't been identified and criticized by someone long before the right noticed it.
I don't see much pushback on either side. Liberals see themselves as champions of freedom and are quite convinced that conservatives are by and large fascist sympathizers. In this regard, both sides strongly believe themselves to have the moral high road, and all nuance has been tossed aside. Interestingly, I find that both sides are quite capable of making very plausible, reasoned arguments that make them sound like the adults in the room.
I think that to a surprising extent, liberals and conservatives live in different versions of America. I try to keep my news exposure to a minimum, but I do make a point of visiting the major outlets for both ideologies. You can really see how reality itself is curated. I don't even think it's really curated ideologically, either, my feeling is that media outlets know their audience and make sure they are reinforcing the relationship instead of challenging it.
Very important to distinguish between liberal and leftist. Liberal thought is primarily performative because the underlying material(read: systemic) change necessary shall not be implemented, so lip-service like land acknowledgements, while by no means bad, is not nearly enough to mend historial wrongs and serves primarily today to distract from that material change. Reddit is broadly liberal, so the general populace cannot distinguish between "land acknowledgements are bad because [racism]" and "land acknowledgements are a 0th step towards progress" and remain liberal.
