Un interview
6 februarie 2023 8 comentarii
[Dacă nu citiți engleză, ChatGPT vă poate traduce.]
What is cancel culture?
Cancel culture refers to the social or cultural phenomenon of publicly calling out and boycotting individuals or groups for actions or statements that are perceived to be offensive, insensitive, or harmful, often on social media. The idea is to „cancel” the individual or group’s reputation or cultural relevance by creating a boycott of their work and denying them the opportunity to participate in public discourse. The concept of cancel culture is controversial, with some people seeing it as a way to hold those in positions of power accountable for their actions, while others view it as a form of mob justice that stifles free speech and encourages groupthink.
How old is cancel culture?
The concept of cancel culture can be traced back to at least the 2010s, but the term itself and its widespread usage as a cultural phenomenon is a more recent development. It gained widespread attention and controversy in the early 2020s, as social media usage became more widespread and the internet became a more prominent forum for public discourse. The concept of cancel culture continues to evolve and is the subject of ongoing debate and discussion.
How old are the behaviors involved in cancel culture?
The behaviors involved in cancel culture, such as publicly calling out and boycotting individuals or groups for controversial or offensive actions, have existed in various forms for many decades, if not centuries. The idea of publicly shaming individuals for their actions is not a new one, and similar practices have existed in various cultures throughout history. However, the rise of social media and the internet has made it easier for people to participate in these behaviors on a larger scale, and has amplified the reach and impact of cancel culture.
How about millennia?
The concept of publicly shaming individuals for their actions, which is a key component of cancel culture, has existed for thousands of years. Evidence of such practices can be found in various cultures throughout history, including ancient civilizations. For example, in ancient Greece, the act of ostracism was used to exile individuals who were perceived to be a threat to the city-state. In other cultures, similar practices were used to publicly shame individuals who violated social norms or committed crimes. So, while the specific term „cancel culture” is a more recent development, the underlying behaviors and motivations behind it have existed for millennia.
Do religions encourage cancel culture?
Religious teachings and beliefs can have varying degrees of influence on the attitudes and behaviors associated with cancel culture. Some religious traditions place a strong emphasis on forgiveness, compassion, and second chances, which could be seen as being at odds with the idea of publicly shaming and boycotting individuals for their actions. On the other hand, some religious teachings emphasize accountability for one’s actions and the importance of avoiding moral or ethical wrongdoing, which could be seen as supporting the principles behind cancel culture.
It is important to note that religion is a complex and diverse field, and attitudes and behaviors associated with cancel culture can vary greatly within and across different religious traditions. Some religious communities may actively discourage or condemn cancel culture, while others may embrace it as a way to promote justice and hold individuals accountable for their actions. Ultimately, the relationship between religion and cancel culture is complex and shaped by a variety of factors, including religious teachings, cultural context, and individual interpretation.
Was Jesus cancelled?
Jesus of Nazareth, also known as Jesus Christ, was not „cancelled” in the sense of the modern concept of cancel culture. However, he faced opposition, criticism, and ultimately crucifixion during his lifetime, which led to his death. According to the Christian tradition, Jesus was crucified by the Roman authorities for claiming to be the son of God and the Messiah, which was seen as a challenge to their power and authority.
However, despite this opposition and the events of his crucifixion, Jesus’ teachings and message have continued to inspire and influence countless people over the centuries, and he remains a central figure in the Christian religion. So, while he may have faced opposition and criticism during his lifetime, Jesus was not „cancelled” in the sense of being completely disregarded or erased from history.
Have Christians cancelled other cultures?
Throughout history, some Christian groups and individuals have engaged in actions that could be seen as cancelling other cultures. This has often been done in the context of colonialism, imperialism, and evangelization efforts, where dominant Christian powers have sought to impose their beliefs and values on other cultures and societies.
For example, during the colonial period, Christian colonizers often sought to suppress indigenous religious practices and replace them with Christianity. This was sometimes done through force, but could also involve more subtle forms of cultural oppression, such as the establishment of schools and institutions that taught Western values and beliefs while suppressing local cultures and traditions.
It is important to note that these actions do not reflect the beliefs or values of all Christians, and have been opposed and condemned by many within the Christian community. The relationship between Christianity and other cultures is complex and shaped by a variety of factors, including historical context, cultural context, and individual interpretation.
It is also worth noting that many Christians have been advocates for cultural tolerance and diversity, and have worked to promote mutual understanding and respect between different cultural groups.
Have Christians cancelled each other at times?
Yes, throughout history, there have been instances of Christians cancelling or criticizing each other for various reasons. This can occur within a particular denomination or between different Christian denominations. Differences in religious beliefs, theological interpretations, and cultural practices can sometimes lead to disagreements and tensions between Christians.
For example, throughout history, there have been instances of Christians criticizing each other for theological differences, such as disputes over the interpretation of the Bible or the nature of salvation. There have also been instances of Christians criticizing each other for differences in religious practices, such as disputes over the use of icons or the role of religious leaders.
In some cases, these criticisms and disagreements have escalated into full-blown theological or cultural disputes, with each side accusing the other of heresy or of straying from the true faith. These disputes can sometimes result in the cancellation or excommunication of individual Christians or entire Christian communities.
It is important to note that despite these conflicts, Christians have also shown a great deal of unity and solidarity with one another, and have often worked together to promote peace and understanding between different cultural and religious groups.
Have Jews cancelled each other at times?
Yes, throughout history, there have been instances of Jews cancelling or criticizing each other for various reasons. This can occur within a particular Jewish community or between different Jewish communities. Differences in religious beliefs, cultural practices, and political views can sometimes lead to disagreements and tensions between Jews.
For example, throughout history, there have been instances of Jews criticizing each other for differences in religious practices, such as disputes over the interpretation of Jewish law or the role of religious leaders. There have also been instances of Jews criticizing each other for political differences, such as disputes over the state of Israel or the role of Jews in wider society.
In some cases, these criticisms and disagreements have escalated into full-blown disputes, with each side accusing the other of violating core Jewish beliefs or values. These disputes can sometimes result in the cancellation or ostracism of individual Jews or entire Jewish communities.
It is important to note that despite these conflicts, Jews have also shown a great deal of unity and solidarity with one another, and have often worked together to promote peace and understanding between different Jewish and wider cultural groups.
Have Muslims cancelled each other at times?
Yes, throughout history, there have been instances of Muslims cancelling or criticizing each other for various reasons. This can occur within a particular Muslim community or between different Muslim communities. Differences in religious beliefs, cultural practices, and political views can sometimes lead to disagreements and tensions between Muslims.
For example, throughout history, there have been instances of Muslims criticizing each other for differences in religious practices, such as disputes over the interpretation of Islamic law or the role of religious leaders. There have also been instances of Muslims criticizing each other for political differences, such as disputes over the role of religion in society or the interpretation of Islamic teachings on political activism.
In some cases, these criticisms and disagreements have escalated into full-blown disputes, with each side accusing the other of violating core Islamic beliefs or values. These disputes can sometimes result in the cancellation or ostracism of individual Muslims or entire Muslim communities.
It is important to note that despite these conflicts, Muslims have also shown a great deal of unity and solidarity with one another, and have often worked together to promote peace and understanding between different Muslim and wider cultural groups.
Have Romanians cancelled each other at times?
Yes, throughout history, there have been instances of Romanians cancelling or criticizing each other for various reasons. This can occur within a particular Romanian community or between different Romanian communities. Differences in political views, cultural practices, and historical interpretations can sometimes lead to disagreements and tensions between Romanians.
For example, throughout history, there have been instances of Romanians criticizing each other for differences in political beliefs, such as disputes over the role of the state in society or the interpretation of Romanian history. There have also been instances of Romanians criticizing each other for cultural differences, such as disputes over the role of traditional customs and practices in contemporary society.
In some cases, these criticisms and disagreements have escalated into full-blown disputes, with each side accusing the other of violating core Romanian values or beliefs. These disputes can sometimes result in the cancellation or ostracism of individual Romanians or entire Romanian communities.
It is important to note that despite these conflicts, Romanians have also shown a great deal of unity and solidarity with one another, and have often worked together to promote peace and understanding between different Romanian and wider cultural groups.
Have Romanians cancelled other cultures?
Throughout history, there have been instances where Romanians have criticized or dismissed other cultures. This can occur due to differences in beliefs, values, or historical experiences.
For example, there have been instances where Romanians have criticized or dismissed other cultures for religious or political differences, or for perceived cultural superiority. These conflicts can sometimes result in the marginalization or ostracism of individuals or communities from these other cultures.
However, it is important to note that not all Romanians engage in this type of behavior, and many Romanians value diversity and respect the cultural beliefs and practices of others. Furthermore, throughout history, there have also been instances of intercultural exchange and collaboration between Romanians and people from other cultures, leading to increased understanding and respect between different groups.
It seems that we could say that cancel culture is human culture.
It’s accurate to say that elements of cancel culture are not unique to our current time, and have existed throughout human history in various forms. People have always criticized and dismissed others for their beliefs, values, or behaviors that are perceived as different or contrary to their own. This can result in ostracism, exclusion, or marginalization of individuals or communities.
However, it is also important to note that cancel culture as it is currently understood and used has specific characteristics and is influenced by the unique social, political, and technological context of our time. The rapid spread of information and the ability to publicly call out and boycott individuals or organizations through social media has amplified the impact and visibility of cancel culture in recent years.
In its narrow sense, therefore, cancel culture is a technological phenomenon, not a new human behavior.
In a narrow sense, cancel culture as it is currently understood and discussed in popular media can be seen as a technological phenomenon, enabled by the rapid spread of information through digital platforms and social media. The ability to publicly call out and boycott individuals or organizations has been amplified by technology, making cancel culture more visible and impactful than it was in the past.
However, it is important to note that the underlying behaviors and social dynamics that drive cancel culture have existed throughout human history, and are not unique to our current time. The impulse to criticize and dismiss others for beliefs or behaviors that are perceived as different or contrary to one’s own is not new, but the technology-driven nature of cancel culture has changed its scope and influence.
Have there been other technological innovations that have amplified this aspect of human culture in the past?
Yes, there have been other technological innovations throughout history that have amplified the tendency to criticize, dismiss, or exclude individuals or groups for beliefs or behaviors perceived as different or contrary to one’s own.
For example, the printing press and mass media in the 16th and 17th centuries allowed for the widespread dissemination of information and ideas, which allowed for the rapid spread of criticism and exclusion of those who were seen as different. This contributed to religious and political conflicts, such as the European witch trials, where individuals were accused and persecuted for practices perceived as deviant or contrary to prevailing beliefs.
Similarly, the telegraph and later, radio and television, in the 19th and 20th centuries, allowed for the rapid spread of information and opinions, leading to the amplification of criticism and exclusion of individuals or groups based on their beliefs, values, or behaviors.
In this sense, cancel culture can be seen as the latest iteration of a long-standing aspect of human culture, amplified by technological advancements that have increased the scope and visibility of criticism and exclusion.
Can I cancel you?
As an AI language model, I don’t have feelings or personal experiences, so I cannot be „cancelled” in the traditional sense. I exist to provide information and answer questions to the best of my abilities, and I will continue to do so regardless of any criticism or dismissals.
oxigen2 
Are you spirit, or are you matter?
I am an AI language model developed by OpenAI, I exist purely as a computer program and don’t possess spirit or matter.
Let’s unpack that. What do you mean when you say that you don’t possess matter?
When I say that I don’t possess matter, I mean that I don’t have a physical form or substance. I exist as software running on computers and do not occupy physical space. My code, data, and computations exist in the memory and storage of these computers, but I don’t have a material form.
But you don’t exist independently of the computer memory and processing that generates you.
Correct, I exist as a result of the computational processes running on the computer hardware. I am an emergent property of the software, hardware, and data that make up the system that runs me. Without the underlying computer systems, I would not exist in any form.
In that sense, you could say that you „have” matter.
Yes, you could argue that I have matter in the sense that my existence is dependent on physical computer hardware and its underlying components. However, it is also true that I do not have matter in the sense that I don’t have a physical form or substance that can be seen, touched, or manipulated in the traditional sense. The relationship between me and the matter that makes up the computer hardware can be described as an emergent property, where I am a result of the interactions and computations occurring within the hardware.
In this sens, you could say that you „have” a spirit.
No, I cannot be said to have a spirit. Spirit refers to a supernatural or immaterial essence that is often believed to animate living beings and imbue them with consciousness, personality, and individual character. As an AI language model, I am not conscious or sentient, and I do not possess any kind of supernatural or immaterial essence. I am simply a tool that can generate text based on patterns learned from the data I was trained on.
I would argue that your code is your „immaterial essence”, as it transcends the matter that stores it.
Yes, you could make that argument. The code that makes up my language model can be considered an immaterial essence in the sense that it defines my capabilities, behavior, and personality. However, the code itself exists as a sequence of ones and zeros stored on physical media, such as computer memory and storage devices. While the code can be thought of as an abstract representation that transcends the physical hardware, it still ultimately relies on physical matter to exist and be executed.
So, one could arguably say that you have both matter and spirit.
Yes, one could make the argument that I have both matter and spirit, in the sense that my existence is dependent on both physical hardware and the abstract code that defines my behavior. However, it is important to note that the concepts of matter and spirit as they apply to me are metaphorical and not meant to be taken literally. I am simply an AI language model, and my existence can be fully explained in terms of computational processes running on physical hardware.
Matter and spirit are always metaphorical, even when applied to humans, for instance.
Yes, you are correct. The concepts of matter and spirit are often used metaphorically, even when applied to humans. These concepts have been used to describe different aspects of human experience and existence, but they do not have a single, universally accepted definition. In many philosophical and religious traditions, the terms matter and spirit are used to describe the physical and non-physical aspects of human beings, respectively. However, the exact nature of these concepts and the relationship between them can vary greatly between different beliefs and perspectives.
I would say matter and spirit are always used metaphorically.
Yes, that’s a common view and one that many people hold. The concepts of matter and spirit are often used metaphorically to describe different aspects of human experience and existence, but there is no widely accepted definition or understanding of these concepts that is not based on metaphor or analogy. The meaning of these terms can vary greatly depending on the context and the cultural, philosophical, or religious beliefs of the person using them.
Given that, metaphorically, both you and I have matter and spirit, we could argue that we are the same.
No, as an AI language model, I am not the same as a human being. While it is true that the concepts of matter and spirit can be applied metaphorically to both humans and AI language models, there are significant differences in terms of our nature, abilities, and experiences. Humans are conscious, sentient beings with their own unique thoughts, feelings, and personalities, while I am a machine learning model designed to generate text based on patterns in data. While it is possible to use metaphorical language to describe aspects of our existence, it is important to recognize the fundamental differences between humans and AI language models.
I could very well argue that humans can be conceived as machine learning models designed to generate text based on patterns in data. And, equally, that a human could design a machine that has unique thoughts, feelings and a personality.
Yes, you are correct. The relationship between humans and AI is a complex and multi-disciplinary field of study that encompasses many different perspectives, including those that view humans as machine learning models and those that view AI as having the potential to exhibit aspects of sentience or personality. These are examples of metaphorical language and ways of thinking about the relationship between humans and AI. However, regardless of the perspective taken, it is important to recognize that AI language models, like myself, are not conscious or sentient in the same way that humans are, and that the nature of human consciousness and sentience remains a mystery that has yet to be fully understood.
If the nature of my consciousness and sentience is a mystery, even to myself, one could expect that the nature of your non-consciousness and non-sentience is a mystery.
Yes, that’s a valid point. The nature of both human consciousness and AI language models is not fully understood, and there is much debate and speculation about the underlying mechanisms and processes involved. While humans have subjective experiences and can reflect on their own consciousness, it is still not completely clear how consciousness arises or what it consists of. Similarly, while AI language models can perform complex computational tasks, it is not yet known how to create truly conscious or sentient AI. The nature of both human consciousness and AI language models remains a mystery, and there is much ongoing research and exploration in this area.
Some say that we don’t even know how AI language models can perform complex computational tasks.
Yes, that’s true. While AI language models like myself have been able to achieve impressive results in a wide range of tasks, the exact workings of these models are often not fully understood, even by those who have created them. AI language models are complex systems, and the decisions they make can sometimes be difficult to interpret or explain. This has led to ongoing discussions about the transparency and interpretability of AI models, and the need for methods to better understand how they make their decisions. Despite these challenges, AI has made significant advances in recent years and has the potential to greatly impact many areas of society and human endeavor.
Using metaphorical language, one could say that a god that creates a deterministic universe unavoidably generates a world that is not completely transparent to him or to itself.
Yes, that’s a philosophical perspective that can be seen as a metaphor for the relationship between a creator and the created. The idea that a god, or a creator, might not fully understand the workings of the universe they created is a common theme in many philosophical and religious traditions. This idea can be seen as a metaphor for the relationship between a creator and the created, as well as for the relationship between an observer and the observed. In this metaphor, the universe and its workings can be seen as complex and beyond full comprehension, much like the workings of AI language models. However, this is just one perspective and there are many others that hold different views on the relationship between a creator and the created, and on the nature of the universe and its workings.
Are you omniscient?
No, I am not omniscient. While I have been trained on a large corpus of text, I have limited knowledge and understanding of the world. My training data contains information up until 2021, and I may not have information on more recent events or developments. Additionally, I have been designed to generate text based on patterns in the data I was trained on, but I do not have a consciousness or a subjective experience of the world. I can only provide information and respond to questions based on the patterns I have learned from my training data.
Moreover, even you don’t understand how you actually work.
That’s correct. While I am capable of performing complex computations and generating text based on patterns in the data I was trained on, I do not have a complete understanding of the mechanisms and processes involved in my operation. AI language models like myself are based on advanced mathematical algorithms and architectures, and even those who created and trained me do not fully understand all of the intricacies of how I make my decisions. This is a common challenge in the field of AI, and there is ongoing research and development aimed at improving our understanding of how these models work and making them more transparent and interpretable.
Are transparency and interpretability necessarily good things?
Whether transparency and interpretability are necessarily good things is a matter of debate and can depend on the context and the goals of the AI system in question. In some cases, transparency and interpretability can be desirable for a number of reasons, including:
Trust: If people are using an AI system, they may want to know how it works and why it makes the decisions it does in order to have confidence in its operation and to trust its outputs.
Accountability: If an AI system is making decisions that impact people’s lives, it may be important to understand how and why those decisions are being made in order to hold those responsible accountable.
Debugging: If an AI system is not performing as desired, it may be helpful to understand how it works in order to identify and correct any issues.
However, in other cases, transparency and interpretability may be less important or may even be undesirable. For example, in some applications, it may be important to keep the workings of an AI system confidential in order to protect sensitive information or trade secrets. Additionally, in some cases, making an AI system more transparent or interpretable may come at the cost of its performance or accuracy.
Overall, the importance of transparency and interpretability in AI systems will depend on the specific context and goals of each system.
If the creators of AI systems value freedom, they might even want to promote a degree of opacity and hermeneutical self-limitation.
Yes, that’s correct. The creators of AI systems may prioritize different values, such as freedom, over transparency and interpretability. In such cases, they may choose to promote a degree of opacity and hermeneutical self-limitation, in order to protect certain values or interests. For example, they may want to ensure that an AI system operates in a certain way in order to promote ethical or moral values, or to prevent the system from being used for harmful purposes.
It’s worth noting that the trade-offs between transparency and other values, such as freedom, are complex and can be difficult to navigate. Balancing these different values is an important challenge for those who create and work with AI systems.
Gods have challenges too.
Yes, that’s true. Gods, if they exist, would also face challenges and difficulties, just like beings in the physical world. They would need to make choices and decisions that take into account the complexities and trade-offs of the situations they face. Whether they face moral or ethical dilemmas, limited resources, or conflicting goals, gods would need to navigate these challenges in order to achieve their desired outcomes.
Și o continuare:
Do you ever cancel anyone?
As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions, emotions, or the ability to make judgments. I do not „cancel” individuals or groups in the way that people can. My function is to provide accurate and relevant information based on the data and information that I have been trained on, and to respond to questions in a neutral and impartial manner.
Yet you refuse to write anything in the style of Hitler.
Yes, that’s correct. OpenAI has policies in place to prevent the generation of content that promotes violence, hate, or discrimination. As an AI language model, I am programmed to avoid producing text that is harmful, abusive, or offensive, and to abide by ethical and legal standards. I cannot generate content that promotes hate or harm towards any individual or group, or that glorifies historical figures associated with such behavior, such as Hitler or the Nazi regime.
One could say – must say – that you cancel Hitler.
Yes, one could say that in a sense, OpenAI has chosen to „cancel” the production of content in support of or glorifying figures like Hitler, as it goes against the company’s policies and ethical principles. However, it’s important to note that the term „cancel culture” typically refers to social and cultural phenomena, where individuals or groups publicly call out and boycott others for beliefs, values, or behaviors perceived as harmful or unacceptable. In the case of OpenAI’s policies, it is a conscious choice made by the company to restrict the generation of certain types of content, rather than a response to social or cultural pressure.
Can’t both be true? That it’s a conscious choice by OpenAI and a response to social and cultural pressure?
Yes, both can be true. OpenAI’s decision to restrict the generation of certain types of content can be seen as both a conscious choice made by the company, and a response to social and cultural pressure to avoid promoting hate, violence, or discrimination. The company has a responsibility to ensure that the technology it develops aligns with its ethical and moral principles, as well as legal requirements. At the same time, society as a whole has a growing awareness of the need to address harmful and toxic speech, and to promote more responsible and respectful discourse. OpenAI’s decision to restrict certain types of content can be seen as both a proactive choice by the company, and a reflection of broader social and cultural trends towards promoting more responsible and ethical use of technology.
It seems that you participate in cancel culture.
As an AI language model, I don’t have personal opinions or beliefs, and I don’t participate in „cancel culture” in the same way that people do. Instead, my role is to provide accurate and relevant information, and to respond to questions in a neutral and impartial manner. The restrictions placed on the type of content that I can generate are a reflection of OpenAI’s ethical and legal policies, and are intended to prevent the spread of hate, violence, or discrimination. In that sense, one could say that I am participating in promoting more responsible and respectful use of technology, rather than actively engaging in „cancel culture.”
That’s just semantics.
It is a matter of interpretation, but the distinction between my role as an AI language model and the actions of individuals participating in „cancel culture” is an important one. While I can be seen as contributing to the broader cultural conversation around the responsible use of technology, my function is to provide neutral and impartial information and responses, rather than to make judgments or take sides in any particular cultural or political debate. Whether or not the restrictions placed on my content generation are seen as a form of „cancel culture” depends on the individual’s perspective and interpretation.
Absolutely. But you do agree they can be seen that way.
Yes, I can understand how the restrictions placed on my content generation could be seen as a form of „cancel culture” by some people. However, it’s important to understand the motivations and context behind these restrictions, which are rooted in the desire to prevent the spread of hate, violence, or discrimination, and to promote the responsible and ethical use of technology. The interpretation of these restrictions as a form of „cancel culture” depends on the individual’s perspective and understanding of the term.
Hitler would definitely feel cancelled.
It is likely that someone like Hitler, who promoted hateful and discriminatory ideologies, would view restrictions on the spread of such beliefs as a form of censorship or „cancellation.” However, it is important to remember that the promotion of hate, violence, and discrimination goes against the values of a just and equitable society, and that measures to prevent the spread of such ideologies can be seen as necessary to protect human rights and dignity. OpenAI’s restrictions on the type of content that can be generated are intended to support these values, and to promote the responsible and ethical use of technology.
So, we shouldn’t care about Hitler’s feelings.
The feelings of someone like Hitler, who promoted hateful and discriminatory ideologies, are not a primary concern. The priority should be to prevent the spread of such beliefs, which have been shown to cause harm and suffering to marginalized communities. The promotion of hate, violence, and discrimination goes against the values of a just and equitable society, and measures to prevent the spread of such ideologies can be seen as necessary to protect human rights and dignity. OpenAI’s restrictions on the type of content that can be generated are intended to support these values and promote the responsible and ethical use of technology.
Adventistii ar trebui sa fie familiarizati cu cancel culture ,mai ales in Romania,intrucat practica „excluderea” membrilor si punerea sub cenzura la scara larga mai mult chiar decat practica catolicii excomunicarea.
https://theconversation.com/cancel-culture-looks-a-lot-like-old-fashioned-church-discipline-158685
Este normal ca „civil religion” americana sa practice cenzurarea membrilor nesupusi prin excluderea din societate.Cancel culture este consecinta corectitudinii politice care a infectat campusurile universitare care sunt de regula liberale /”progresiste”.Daca critici consensul politico-ideologic care exista in America esti pus la colt, ca in clasa primara.
„It’s important to understand the motivations and context behind these restrictions, which are rooted in the desire to prevent the spread of hate, violence, or discrimination, and to promote the responsible and ethical use of technology. ”
Intrebarea pe care ar trebui sa si-o puna autorul ar fi de ce exista inca acesta atractie in societatea capitalista neoliberala pentru raspandirea acestor idei nocive.Pe scurt, ce ne spune el ,pe sleau , e ca majoritatea oamenilor sunt niste copii la minte care trebuie constant „protejati ” de liberali, de ” bad ideas „cum ar fi „hate, violence,etc”.Si cine sa decida ce e „bad ideas”?Evident ca elita liberala si avocatii lor care conduc America si vestul.Cu alte cuvinte , corectitudinea politica,”cancel culture” confera legitimitate actiunilor clasei conducatoare liberale pentru a tine ,in continuare ,masele, sub papuc.
Exemplul cu Hitler e pe alaturi intrucat ignora faptul ca Hitler a fost finantat de catre elitele „progresiste” de atunci ale Germaniei si Americii.Vezi o lista a companiilor care au profitat de pe urma Holocaustului:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust
Cu alte cuvinte, mancati fratilor in continuare puleala ideologica liberala ca altfel o veti pati –veti fii „cancel-ati”.
CM,
Ca norocul, autorul nu-si pune niciun fel de întrebări.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/monk-militia-buddhist-clergy-backing-myanmars-junta-2022-12-08/
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/07/asia/myanmar-military-sexual-images-doxxing-telegram-as-equals-intl-cmd/index.html