04/08/2023: Chat GPT and checking yourself
When your words don’t land as you intend it can be because a) you were unclear b) the people listening misunderstood your point or c) some members of the audience are willfully misunderstanding what you say.
I was recently asked about the Tennessee lawmakers kicked out of the body.
So I asked Chat GPT to interpret my response:
QUESTION:
The conclusion that one can draw from this statement is that in politics, there needs to be flexibility, or “cartilage,” in order for the system to function effectively. When political processes become overly rigid or “brittle,” where there is no room for compromise or intermediate steps, it can lead to escalation and a breakdown of the system. This can result in a cycle of retaliation and response, which may ultimately lead to violence or other extreme measures.
Furthermore, the statement suggests that when people lose faith in the political system and believe that it is not working, they may resort to seeking change outside of the established system, including through violent means. This is dangerous for democracy and the functioning of a society, as it undermines the rule of law and can lead to chaos and instability.
The statement highlights the importance of maintaining faith in the judicial system and the need for a functional and flexible political process that allows for differences to be addressed and resolved through peaceful and lawful means. It underscores the significance of upholding democratic principles and finding ways to address grievances and effect change within the established system to prevent resorting to violence or circumventing the democratic process.
No, based on the provided statement, it would not be fair to say that the person who said this is calling for violence. The statement is describing how a brittle political system, where there is no flexibility and a breakdown of established processes, can lead to a cycle of retaliation and response that may ultimately result in violence. The speaker is highlighting the risks and negative consequences of such a breakdown in the political system, and emphasizing the importance of maintaining faith in the judicial system and finding ways to address grievances through peaceful and lawful means.
The statement is not advocating for or endorsing violence as a solution to political problems, but rather warning against the dangers of a system that lacks flexibility and leads to people seeking change outside of established democratic processes. The speaker is emphasizing the importance of upholding democratic principles and finding ways to address grievances and effect change within the established system to prevent resorting to violence or circumventing the democratic process.
*This was sloppy. I didn’t mean “conservative,” I meant far-right. Per this CSIS study: https://www.csis.org/analysis/pushed-extremes-domestic-terrorism-amid-polarization-and-protest. Conservatism, too often is associated with the right and the ideology of parts of the right is not conservative in any particular way. I try awfully hard not to conflate the two, but I did it in this case.
