7 ms·

Because this follows what the Associated Press style guide suggests and it’s either in enough of the training data to be followed, or, OpenAI purposefully made

Because this follows what the Associated Press style guide suggests and it’s either in enough of the training data to be followed, or, OpenAI purposefully made it follow a style guide that happened to contain this rule after the fact when generating responses? https://apnews.com/article/archive-race-and-ethnicity-9105661462 https://apnews.com/article/archive-race-and-ethnicity-910566... Why do _you_ think this is the case?

ffsm8 1y ago
[flagged]
- rayiner 1y ago
  Ironically, by flippantly dismissing the concern about the issue, you’re also dismissing the motivations of the people who championed the term and encouraged its adoption. They certainly think it’s important. Labels are very important! The term “Hispanic” was created in an effort to politically organize disparate Hispanic populations, who identified with myriad different nationalities rather than a common race (“La Raza”). Capitalizing “black” is a political statement, not a linguistic description. In English, races aren’t capitalized, while terms referring to distinct ethnic groups are (so you capitalize “German” but not “white”). As John McWhorter persuasively explains, rationale for capitalizing “Black” is that American descendants of slaves are a distinct group bound by shared history and culture. That’s fine insofar as “Black” is used to refer to what we might call “ADOS.” But in practice “Black” is used as a racial designator. At Harvard, for example, 40% of the “Black” students are african immigrants. Obama is “Black”—that describes his race, not his ethno-cultural group. Capitalizing “black” is a political effort to center the experience of black people in American life. Consider the term “BIPOC,” which breaks out “black” and “indigenous” as first among equals even though they’re included in the “POC.” What is the intention of that? These labels and classifications, in turn, have real world ramifications. My daughter’s school has a segregated “black girl magic” lunch every week. There’s no “half white half bangladeshi girl magic,” and few non-black, non-white students, so she was invited to attend the weekly lunch once a month. Even at age 12, my daughter is able to perceive there is a racial hierarchy designed to invert the historical one.
  - philistine 1y ago
    > designed to invert the historical one You genuinely believe that's the endgame? White people being segregated. Fancy Colored washrooms and For whites only outhouses?
    - hollerith 1y ago
      No. The endgame of most people who are pro-DEI is to smash or dismantle structures of oppression. The more ideological fraction views every matter of public policy through that lens. Too much crime? Let's not get hung up on dis-incentivizing crime or separating chronic criminals from society, particularly if doing so would harm an oppressed group. The proper response to crime is to dismantle the structures of oppression, after which the crime problem will probably take care of itself because people are basically good. If some group is committing a lot of crimes, it is probably a reaction to having been oppressed. Or so the ideologues believe. Dismantling oppression is also the best long-term solution to every other social problem, and probably the only lasting or sustainable solution.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      I’m talking about social structures, not policies. The endgame is to develop social structures where non-whites, and especially black people, have moral superiority while whites have moral culpability. These social and moral norms are already developing: https://www.aol.com/news/james-carville-calls-ilhan-omar-135257831.html https://www.aol.com/news/james-carville-calls-ilhan-omar-135.... The risk is not to the material interests of white people—they have a plurality of the population so you won’t get a situation like South Africa. Instead, you’ll get a breakdown of racial egalitarianism. Half the country will feel comfortable being openly racist against whites—and each other—even if they don’t have the votes to act on that animus. Meanwhile, most whites raised in that environment—the ones who don’t have economic privilege to fall back on—will develop a racial animosity we haven’t seen since the 1950s. The result will be ethnic conflict that cripples our ability to do anything (just as in virtually all multi-ethnic societies).
      - surgical_fire 1y ago

ffsm8 1y ago

[flagged]

rayiner 1y ago
Ironically, by flippantly dismissing the concern about the issue, you’re also dismissing the motivations of the people who championed the term and encouraged its adoption. They certainly think it’s important. Labels are very important! The term “Hispanic” was created in an effort to politically organize disparate Hispanic populations, who identified with myriad different nationalities rather than a common race (“La Raza”). Capitalizing “black” is a political statement, not a linguistic description. In English, races aren’t capitalized, while terms referring to distinct ethnic groups are (so you capitalize “German” but not “white”). As John McWhorter persuasively explains, rationale for capitalizing “Black” is that American descendants of slaves are a distinct group bound by shared history and culture. That’s fine insofar as “Black” is used to refer to what we might call “ADOS.” But in practice “Black” is used as a racial designator. At Harvard, for example, 40% of the “Black” students are african immigrants. Obama is “Black”—that describes his race, not his ethno-cultural group. Capitalizing “black” is a political effort to center the experience of black people in American life. Consider the term “BIPOC,” which breaks out “black” and “indigenous” as first among equals even though they’re included in the “POC.” What is the intention of that? These labels and classifications, in turn, have real world ramifications. My daughter’s school has a segregated “black girl magic” lunch every week. There’s no “half white half bangladeshi girl magic,” and few non-black, non-white students, so she was invited to attend the weekly lunch once a month. Even at age 12, my daughter is able to perceive there is a racial hierarchy designed to invert the historical one.
- philistine 1y ago
  > designed to invert the historical one You genuinely believe that's the endgame? White people being segregated. Fancy Colored washrooms and For whites only outhouses?
  - hollerith 1y ago
    No. The endgame of most people who are pro-DEI is to smash or dismantle structures of oppression. The more ideological fraction views every matter of public policy through that lens. Too much crime? Let's not get hung up on dis-incentivizing crime or separating chronic criminals from society, particularly if doing so would harm an oppressed group. The proper response to crime is to dismantle the structures of oppression, after which the crime problem will probably take care of itself because people are basically good. If some group is committing a lot of crimes, it is probably a reaction to having been oppressed. Or so the ideologues believe. Dismantling oppression is also the best long-term solution to every other social problem, and probably the only lasting or sustainable solution.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    I’m talking about social structures, not policies. The endgame is to develop social structures where non-whites, and especially black people, have moral superiority while whites have moral culpability. These social and moral norms are already developing: https://www.aol.com/news/james-carville-calls-ilhan-omar-135257831.html https://www.aol.com/news/james-carville-calls-ilhan-omar-135.... The risk is not to the material interests of white people—they have a plurality of the population so you won’t get a situation like South Africa. Instead, you’ll get a breakdown of racial egalitarianism. Half the country will feel comfortable being openly racist against whites—and each other—even if they don’t have the votes to act on that animus. Meanwhile, most whites raised in that environment—the ones who don’t have economic privilege to fall back on—will develop a racial animosity we haven’t seen since the 1950s. The result will be ethnic conflict that cripples our ability to do anything (just as in virtually all multi-ethnic societies).
    - surgical_fire 1y ago