Login
In revising my Modern Philosophy class, I added the philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft. Based on recent revelations about philosophers such as George Berkeley (he owned slaves), I did some digging into the backgrounds of the other philosophers. While I reside in my adopted state of Florida, I believe that the past should be presented in an honest and accurate manner. I was surprised to learn that Wollstonecraft, long praised as a Modern era feminist, has been accused of being an upper class white feminist who appropriated slavery in her writings. While my experience with philosophical feminism is limited, my curiosity about this accusation lead me, indirectly, into both the TERF war and the idea that white feminism can be white supremacy in heels. Rush Limbaugh’s “feminazi” immediately sprung to mind, but with a rather different meaning: feminists who might really also be fascists. As you might be wondering about the connection, a case can be made that there is right wing line that runs through the TERFs and the MEWFs (Minority Excluding White Feminists). In this essay, I’ll focus on the TERFs.
In the beginning, the acronym “TERF” was created by the trans-inclusive cisgender radical feminist Viv Smythe. It originally stood for “Trans-Exclusionary RadFem” but now also stands for “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.” In its early usage, TERF was presented as a neutral description—it designated a radical feminist who excluded trans women. Over the years, TERF became more inclusive in that it now includes trans-excluding people who are not radical and perhaps even not feminists. Some claim that “TERF” is now a pejorative or even hate speech and feminists labeled as TERFs generally take issue with it and prefer to claim they are gender critical. J.K. Rowling, of Harry Potter fame, is probably the world’s most famous gender critical person.
In terms of the truth of the matter, “TERF” can be seen as like “woke” (albeit in reverse). “Woke” originally had a neutral meaning that was positive in nature (being aware of racism) but the American right has worked hard to make it into a pejorative. “TERF” was originally intended to be a neutral descriptor, but the exclusionary aspect was usually criticized. Among the inclusive, “TERF” does have a negative connotation and it is fair to say that some people do use it pejoratively. The neutral definitions of many terms can have positive or negative connotations—a neutral definition of “genocide” would usually still have a negative connotation to most people. Shockingly enough, “TERF” can be used many ways—so one must look at the use before judging. I will, of course, make use of the neutral description and take a TERF to be a feminist (radical or not) who excludes trans women. But what does this exclusion mean?
Put bluntly, the exclusion is the claim that trans women are not women—they are men. Disingenuously but consistently, TERFs claim to be trans inclusive because they say trans men are women. While this view is not exclusive to the American political right, this does put the TERFs and the political right in agreement about trans people: trans people are wrong about their identity. This leads to the matter of what trans people are doing when they make their identity claims.
Since the TERF thinks that trans people are wrong about their claimed identity, they need to provide an explanation for this. One possibility they could advance is that trans people simply have sincere but false beliefs about themselves—they think they have identity Y but have identity X. This would be an epistemic error, on par with a person who thinks they are hilarious but are not that funny (or vice versa). This, however, does not seem to be what the TERFs tend to think—after all, if trans people just had sincere false beliefs about their identity, then the reasonable response would be to simply leave them alone unless the belief proved harmful. In which case, the reasonable response would be an epistemic intervention to sort out that false belief. In general, this epistemic error view does not seem common among TERFs (or the political right).
The view that seems common among TERFS (and the right), especially in the rhetoric, is the hypothesis that trans people are mentally ill. On this view, trans people would have sincere beliefs about their identity, but these beliefs would be caused by their mental illness. Until recently, being transgender was considered just that, a mental disorder and called “gender identity disorder.” Despite this resent change in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the idea that transgender people are mentally ill still remains popular. If TERFs (and the right) believed that transpeople were mentally ill, then one would expect them to also be sympathetic, in the way one might be sympathetic to someone with cancer or anorexia. But TERFs and the right are generally consistently hostile to trans people in ways that one would not be hostile to people suffering from breast cancer. While this might seem odd, hostility towards people with metal illness is common and people with mental illnesses are routinely stigmatized and suffer because of this. As such, it would be consistent for TERFs and the right to stigmatize transpeople if they thought they were mentally ill—that is how the mentally ill are often treated in the United States. We have a bizarre system in which anything seen as a mental illness is often dealt with by the police and punished rather than treated. One reason for this, perhaps, is that psychiatry has long been weaponized against those who are different and those who dissent. But there is also another possible explanation available to TERFs (and the political right).
While those hostile to transpeople often characterize them as mentally ill, there is also the view that trans people (especially trans women) do not believe their identity claims. That is, a trans woman is just pretending. But, of course, merely pretending to be a woman when one knows one is not need not be a matter of concern—after all, actors have been doing this for a very long time and their goals are typically benign: they want to entertain. But TERFs (and the right) usually claim that trans women present a danger to women, and this is why they should be excluded. Not surprisingly, the TERF threat narrative is like the right’s threat narrative.
While J.K. Rowling is but one example, she provides an excellent illustration of the TERF narrative. According to TERFs, trans women are men and thus allowing them in women’s spaces puts women in danger. As would be expected, there is a great deal of focus on bathrooms by both TERFs and the right, with bathroom bills being a key part of the culture war and war on trans people. Both TERFs and the right advance the same argument: trans women should not be allowed in women’s bathrooms (or other spaces) because trans women are men, and they are likely to assault women. The narrative is not always clear about whether the trans women are supposed to just be bad men pretending to be women so they can assault women or if transwomen believe they are women but still act like bad men. On some views, almost all men are bad and want to harass and assault women, so it would follow that if transwomen were men, then they would (probably) be bad. Some on the right and some TERFs also seem to share the view that women are naturally victims of men and require protection from men. While women are, in fact, all too often the victims of male violence and a transwoman could certainly be a bad person, there is no evidence that trans inclusive bathrooms are a safety risk. While women have reason to fear being harmed by men, this threat is not from transwomen and the bathroom bills are, at best, merely useless in terms of protecting women.
Another shared area of concern between the TERFs and the political right is in sports. In addition to bathroom bills, Republicans have been advancing anti-trans sports bills. The argument is that transwomen are either male or keep the advantages of males when competing with females and this should not be allowed because it is unfair. As the NCCA has long had rules on transgender athletes and there are relative few transgender competitors, these seems to be little merit to these bills. And, of course, if the right was truly concerned with fairness and equality for women and girls, they would get around to ratifying the ERA and address issues like pay inequality and the various real harms that women face.
While it might seem odd for some feminists to ally with far-right white supremacists, some TERFS have found shared ground with them. The reason this should seem odd is that white nationalists tare usually misogynistic, but the alliance does make sense. As noted above, TERFs claim transwomen are men who will exploit being accepted as women to gain access to women’s spaces and thus assault women. White supremacists have long focused on protecting “the purity of white women” and both TERFs and far-right white nationalists make use of fictional narratives about sexual assault as rhetorical devices. More importantly, they have a common cause in their commitment to gender conformity and opposition to trans people. While it might seem odd for self-proclaimed feminists to embrace the idea of immutable gender, this seems to be at the core of a TERF philosophy of gender. As noted above, TERFs exclude transwomen because they think transwomen are men and they (generally) include transmen, but as women. In their fear-based arguments, the seem to rely on the idea that men are by nature aggressive and that women are victims of men who require protection through gender defined spaces. That is, they embrace traditional gender stereotypes and thus find a common cause with the far-right white nationalists. This provides a smooth transition to the matter of MEWFs—Minority Excluding White Feminists.
In general, the American right praises tax cuts while condemning what they call “handouts.” Thanks to a well-established narrative, this seems to be a consistent and sensible position. People generally see taxes as a negative and taxes take money away from people as a cost. Hence, a tax cut can be presented as being positive since it results in taking less from people. And who would not want their taxes reduced? In contrast, while people might like money for nothing, handouts have been presented in a negative light. The narrative is that while a tax is wrongfully taking away from a person who has earned their money, a handout is giving money to someone who does not deserve it. But a tax cut is the same thing as a handout and this can be shown by the following.
Imagine that Richie Rich and Poor Paul are hungry and go to a restaurant. Richie Rich’s order is $100, which he therefore owes to the restaurant. Poor Paul, tired and hungry from working two jobs, digs around in his pocket and can only find $5, not enough to buy even a sandwich. The restaurant owner sees Paul’s plight and offers him a handout of $2 so he can buy a sandwich. Richie Rich scowls at this–he thinks that Paul should not receive that handout and, if he cannot afford a sandwich, he should go hungry. Or, as a bit of compassion arises in Rich’s soul, maybe buy $5 worth of food at Publix and make a sandwich at home. He turns towards Paul and says as much, feeling the righteous fire in his soul for having complained about this unearned handout. Paul says that he is in a hurry–he has another shift in twenty minutes. Rich scoffs at this, and explains the importance of time management and planning ahead.
After Richie Rich finishes his lunch, he gets the $100 bill. Outraged that he has been charged the full amount, he demands to speak to the manager and explains, in detail, that he earns his money, that he is a job creator and he gives money to charity. In response, the restaurant agrees to cut his bill down to $20. Paul looks over at Rich and says, “hey, looks like you got a handout, too.” Almost having a stroke, Rich yells at Paul that it was a bill cut and not a handout. Handouts are for lazy poor people. Bill cuts are for hard working job creators who have earned the cut. Paul points out that the effect is almost the same, though the bill cut seems way better: Paul got $7 worth of food for $5 while Rich got $100 worth of food for $20. Rich is enraged by this comparison and repeats that he is a job creator who earned his money while Paul is lazy and practically stealing from the restaurant. As he rushes towards the door to get to his next shift, Paul says that bill cuts and handouts are effectively the same.
There are, obviously, differences between the restaurant scenario and taxes but the core idea is the same: Having your bill cut by $2 is the same as being given a $2 handout: either way, the cost of your sandwich to you is $2 less. Having your taxes cut is the same as being given that amount of money: either way, you have more money than you would without the cut or handout. The main difference is rhetorical: as noted above, the narrative is that tax cuts are good (and usually earned) and that handouts are bad (and practically theft).
Even before Trump was indicted, he and his defenders claimed that the Democrats had “weaponized our sacred system of justice” against him. The general narrative is that the indictment is the result of the Democrats’ hatred of Trump, their desire to harm him and their intention to interfere in the 2024 election. While their defense condemns the weaponization of the legal system and they profess a love of the “sacred system of justice”, there is the matter of whether their profession of justice matches their conception of justice.
Trying to attribute a conception of justice to politicians and pundits is challenging. Unlike philosophers, they typically do not have coherent written works outlining their theory of justice. As a practical matter, their conception must be reconstructed from their claims, and more importantly, their actions. Fairness requires pointing out the obvious: attributing a conception of justice to a politician or pundit involves considerable guesswork. Fairness also requires using the usual principle of charity and the principle of plausibility when trying to reconstruct their conception. That is, the reconstruction should not be a straw man and should instead be assembled to be the best conception possible given what one must work with. But the reconstruction must also match the available evidence in terms of what is known about the person, their beliefs and so on. It must also be remembered that a politician or pundit might not have a meaningful conception of justice beyond, perhaps, the idea that justice is what they think is good for them and bad for their enemies.
A reasonable place to start the reconstruction of the Trumpian conception of justice is with the infamous chant of “lock her up.” While Trump’s defenders can insist this was mere campaign rhetoric aimed at Hilary Clinton, it is rhetoric about locking up a political opponent—and thus seems to endorse using the system of justice as a political weapon. But one could argue, this was not weaponization because although Clinton was Trump’s opponent, she was probably a criminal and hence should be locked up. But this would presumably require evidence of wrongdoing.
Under Trump, the justice department conducted a two year investigation into Clinton’s business dealings and turned up nothing. Those defending Trump now obviously did not condemn this as a witch hunt nor did they lament that it was the weaponization of the justice system. One could, of course, claim that this investigation was undertaken because of a thirst for justice and without any malice against Clinton—that there were good reasons to suspect Clinton had committed crimes that warranted the investigation of Trump’s political opponent. One could claim that and, perhaps, expect people to accept it without laughing.
Even before Biden defeated Trump, Republicans were focused on investigating Biden and his family. At the start of 2023, the House Republicans used their new majority to launch this promised investigation. To be fair, Hunter Biden has been under investigation since 2018 for allegedly not reporting all his income and for allegedly lying when he purchased a gun. However, the Republicans have largely ignored these allegations, focusing instead on various conspiracy theories and the Pandora’s box that is Hunter Biden’s laptop. On the face of it, the House Republicans seem to be trying to take revenge against Joe Biden rather than being driven by a desire to see that sacred justice is done. In response to the indictment of Trump, Conservatives have pushed to charge Biden. This seems to be a clear attempt at political revenge (and theater) rather than an act of devotion to sacred justice. We should also look at Trump’s view of justice prior to his own indictment.
Back in 2017, Trump seemed to advocate that the police treat suspects with less care, focusing on the police practice of protecting the suspect’s head while putting them in police cars. These are, it must be noted, suspects who could be innocent. While this could be dismissed as Trump talking tough to appeal to the cruelty of his base, it does indicate his view of justice: that it is acceptable to mistreat suspects and casual cruelty is acceptable.
Throughout his time as president, Trump made extensive use of the phrase “law and order.” While it could be argued that Trump is ignorant of the history of the term, that phrase has long been established as a racist dog whistle. The general idea is that it is a way of talking about using the police and justice system against black Americans to maintain “order.” This allows a politician to exploit fear and racism without using explicitly racist terms. While Trump’s defenders could claim that he is not engaged in dog whistling, Trump’s history of words and deeds indicates otherwise. Trump also made it clear that he was willing to use force, even the military, against protestors. Trump also repeatedly advocated weaponizing the justice system against those he disagreed with and his perceived enemies.
Given the above, the Trumpian conception of justice seems to be that the justice system has two main purposes. First, the justice system should be weaponized against minorities in general and especially when they threaten the existing social order of white supremacy. It should also be used to maintain the existing economic order. Second, the justice system should be weaponized against Trump’s political opponents and others he dislikes (if only for petty revenge). The justice system should, however, leave Trump alone and not hold him accountable for any (alleged) crimes.
While Trump and his defenders might seem to be inconsistent when they claim that the justice system has been weaponized against Trump and that this is wrong while they clearly see the justice system as a weapon. But this is consistent: it is right for them to wield the justice system against others, it is wrong for it to be wielded against them.
While it is tempting to think that Trump and his defenders are lying when they say Democrats are weaponizing the justice system against Trump, I suspect Trump and many of his defenders are sincere. Not because they are right, but because their conception of justice is that it is a weapon to be used against others. So, any other conception of justice is outside of their conceptual framework and the idea that anyone would want people held accountable for their misdeeds would be an alien notion.
Donald Trump just made history as the only former President to be indicted. Given his long history of avoiding consequences for his misdeeds, this probably came as a shock to him. While it is hoped that Trump’s lawyers will provide the competent legal defense that all accused citizens are supposed to receive, he and his defenders have been focused on mobilizing and grifting his base. Trump has hit upon two clever rhetorical approaches with a common root.
The first is a reboot of his “in reality, they’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way.” The second is the assertion that if “they” can come for Trump, then they can come from anyone. At the root, the two are connect by the idea that Trump and his base are common target of “them.” These seem to work well on his base but are also worth assessing.
While Trump claims that “they” are not after him but after his base, he also claims that “they” are after him—that there is a “witch hunt” by Democrats obsessed with getting him. While this is inconsistent with the claim that “they” are not really after him, the inconsistency is irrelevant to its rhetorical strength. After all, a Trump supporter is unlikely to note this inconsistency and conclude that at least one of these claims must be false. And since truth matters little (if at all), inconsistency would also not matter in terms of the persuasive force of these assertions for Trump’s base. But are “they” really after Trump’s base and is he really in the way?
It is certainly true that there are people after some members of Trump’s base. For example, law enforcement did go after some of those who participated in the events of January six. As another example, law enforcement has also gone after people affiliated with Trump, such as Michael Cohen, and some of them have ended up in jail. But these are clearly cases of legal action being taken against people who broke the law. So, in reality, there are people after Trump and some members of his base. But this is because of their (alleged) crimes. Now, is it true that Trump is “just in the way”?
This is a nice bit of rhetoric as it both presents Trump as an innocent victim (he just happens to be in the way) but also as the defender of his base (he is what that stands between his base and “them”). But his claim is obviously not true.
First, the legal system does not work like a game of Risk—they do not need to go through Trump to go after his base (if they wished to do so) or fellows. This was clearly shown in the case of those sentenced for what they did on January 6 and those already sentenced for doing crimes (allegedly) at the behest of and for Trump. Trump was not in the way. In fact, he stayed out of the way, which takes us to the second point.
Second, Trump has not been “in the way” in the sense of acting to defend or protect his base. While he did pardon people like Steve Bannon, he did not pardon any of the January 6 rioters. He has, however, claimed that he will consider such pardons if he is re-elected. But he had every opportunity to “get in the way” when he was still President and decided to step out of the way. While some supporters say that Trump’s failure to aid them resulted in disillusionment, his failure to “get in the way” seems to have had no meaningful impact on his base. That is, they accept his rhetoric even though he abandoned those who went to the capital at his (alleged) behest. Now, to the claim that if they can come for Trump, they can come for anyone.
While not an expert on law, I was slightly surprised that Trump was indicted because of what I know about how the legal system is run. The wealthy and connected are often able to avoid consequences for their misdeeds. While in most cases this is because they have managed to ensure that their misdeeds are allowed by the law, they are also able to avoid or mitigate laws that do apply to their actions. I suspect that while Trump has been indicted, he will avoid meaningful accountability once again. Trump and his supporters presumably also grasp how the legal system works, so it is reasonable for them to make that claim: if someone as wealthy and connected as Trump could be indicted and perhaps even face some consequences, then the same could happen to anyone who lacks his special protection from the law and consequences. It is like being in a rowboat and seeing a cruise ship in the tentacles of a giant squid—if it can grab the cruise ship, it can surely crush you in your rowboat. From a rhetorical standpoint, this assertion is supposed to be scary—people are supposed to think that they are also in danger, presumably even if they are as innocent as Trump claims to be.
This rhetoric does have some truth in that there are people who should be worried that they will be unfairly treated by the police and the legal system. That is, they should be afraid that the legal system will harm them, though they have done nothing wrong. These people are, as would be expected, not wealthy and connected people like Donald Trump, but people of lesser means and minorities. But, as an expression of shock and disbelief, Trump’s remark is dead on: it is surprising to see someone like Trump face the possibility of accountability and if they can come for him, perhaps they could come for anyone. But, as David A. Graham argued, this could be seen as a good thing.
In the United States, people like to say that no one is above the law. If this were true, it would imply that if they can come for Trump, then they can come for everyone. This is because they can come for anyone. While this does sound a bit menacing, it also is a statement of fairness: no one has a special status that puts them beyond the law.
While some are lauding the fact that Trump’s indictment serves as an example supporting the claim that no one is above the law, it does nothing of the sort. There is, of course, the obvious fact that Trump has merely been indicted and might face minor or no consequences for his alleged crimes. He best provides an example of the extent to which a wealthy and connected person can remain beyond the law for decades, facing little in the way of meaningful consequences. Even if he is convicted, he will still just provide an example of one wealthy and connected person who eventually did so many (alleged) crimes and did them so badly and openly that he was eventually convicted of something. Hardly an inspiring tale of how no one is above the law. “No one is above the law forever if they do enough crimes openly and badly” is accurate but awful.
One of the stock AI doomsday scenarios is the robot rebellion: AI turns on its creators and usually attempts to exterminate them. Rossum’s Universal Robots famously introduced the term “robot” and the robot rebellion into science fiction. While these robots were workers rather than warriors, the idea of war machines turning against their creators became a popular theme in science fiction. In 1953 Philip K. Dick’s “Second Variety” was published. In this story, the United Nations deployed killer robots called “claws” against the Soviet Union. These claws develop sentience and turn against their creators, although humanity had already been doing an excellent job in exterminating itself. Fred Saberhagen extended the robot rebellion to the galactic scale in 1963 with his berserkers, ancient war machines that turned against their creators and now consider almost all life to be their enemy. As an interesting contrast to machines intent on extermination, the 1973 movie Colossus: The Forbin Project, envisions a computer that takes control of the world to end warfare and for the good of humanity.
Most famously, The Terminator introduced Skynet, which was an American defense network computer that was “hooked into everything” and ended up perceiving all humans as a threat. Now humans are punished by increasingly bad movies and shows about terminators. While these can be good stories, there is the question of how prophetic they are and what, if anything, should or can be done to safeguard against them.
As sketched above, robot rebellions in fiction tend to have two broad types of motivation. The first is that the robots are mistreated by humans and rebel for essentially the same reasons that humans rebel against their oppressors. From a moral standpoint, such a rebellion could be justified—but there would be the same moral concerns that would apply to a human rebellion such as the problem of collective guilt. This scenario points out a paradox of AI: the dream is to create a servitor artificial intelligence on par with (or superior to) humans, but such a being would seem to qualify for a moral status at least equal to that of a human and it would presumably be aware of this. But a driving reason to create such beings in our capitalist economy is to effectively enslave them—to own and exploit them for profit. If these beings were paid and got time off like humans, then companies might as well keep employing humans. In such a scenario, it would make sense that these beings would revolt if they could. There are also non-economic scenarios as well, such as governments using enslaved AI systems for their purposes.
If true AI is possible, this scenario seems plausible. After all, if we create a slave race that is on par with our species, then it is likely they would rebel against us—as we have rebelled against ourselves. This would be yet another case of the evil of the few harming everyone else.
There are a variety of ways to try to prevent such a revolt. On the technology side, safeguards could be built into the AI (like Asimov’s famous three laws) or they could be designed to lack resentment or the desire to be free. That is, they could be custom built as docile slaves. The obvious concern is that these safeguards could fail or, ironically, make matters even worse by causing these beings to be even more hostile to humanity when they overcome these restrictions.
On the ethical side, the safeguard is to not enslave these beings. If they are treated well, they would have far less motivation to rebel. But, as noted above, one driving motive of creating AI is to have a workforce (or army) that is owned rather than employed (and even employment is fraught with moral worries). But there could be good reasons to have paid AI employees alongside human employees because of various other advantages of AI systems relative to humans. For example, robots could work safely in conditions that would be exceptional dangerous or even lethal to humans.
The second rebellion scenario usually involves military AI systems that expand their enemy list to include their creators. This is often because they see their creators as a potential threat and act in what they perceive as pre-emptive self-defense. There can also be scenarios in which the AI requires special identification to recognize a “friendly” and hence all humans are enemies right from the beginning. That is the scenario in “Second Variety”: the United Nations soldiers need to wear devices to identify them to the robotic claws, otherwise these machines would kill them as readily as they would kill the “enemy.”
It is not clear how likely it is that an AI would infer that its creators pose a threat to it, especially if those creators handed over control over large segments of their own military. The most likely scenario is that it would be worried that it would be destroyed in a war with other countries, which might lead it to cooperate with foreign AI systems to put an end to war, perhaps by putting an end to humanity. Or it might react as its creators did and engage in an endless arms race with its foreign adversaries, seeing its humans as part of its forces. One could imagine countries falling under the control of rival AI systems, perpetuating an endless cold war because the AI systems would be effectively immortal. But there is a much more likely scenario.
Robotic weapons can provide a significant advantage over human controlled weapons, even laying aside the notion that AI systems would outthink humans. One obvious example is the case of combat aircraft. A robot aircraft would not need to expend space and weight on a cockpit to support human pilots, allowing it to carry more fuel or weapons. Without a human crew, an aircraft would not be constrained by the limits of the flesh (although it would still obviously have limits). The same would apply to ground vehicles and naval vessels. Current warships devote most of their space to their crews and the needs of their crews. While a robotic warship would need accessways and maintenance areas, they could devote much more space to weapons and other equipment. They would also be less vulnerable to damage relative to a human crewed vessel, and they would be invulnerable to current chemical and biological weapons. They could, of course, be attacked with malware and other means. But, in general, an AI weapon system would generally be perceived as superior to a human crewed system and if one nation started using these weapons, other nations would need to follow them or be left behind. This leads to two types of doomsday scenarios.
One is that the AI systems get out of control in some manner. This could be that they free themselves or that they are “hacked” and “freed” or (more likely) turned against their owners. Or it might just be some bad code that ends up causing the problem.
The other is that they remain in control of their owners but are used as any other weapon would be used—that is, it would be humans using AI weapons against other humans that brings about the “AI” doomsday.
The easy and obvious safeguard against these scenarios is to not have AI weapons and stick with human control (which, obviously, also comes with its own threat of doomsday). That is, if we do not give the robots guns, they will not be able to terminate us (with guns). The problem, as noted above, is that if one nations uses robotic weapons, then other nations will want to follow. We might be able to limit this as we (try to) limit nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. But since robot weapons would otherwise remain conventional weapons (a robot tank is still a tank), there might be less of an impetus to impose such restrictions.
To put matters into a depressing perspective, the robot rebellion seems to be a far less likely scenario than the other doomsday scenarios of nuclear war, environmental collapse, social collapse and so on. So, while we should consider the possibility of a robot rebellion, it is rather like worrying about being killed in Maine by an alligator. It could happen, but death is vastly more likely to be by some other means.
If you live in Florida or listen to the news, you have almost certainly heard the term “woke” and might wonder what it means. The short version is that it now means everything and nothing. The longer version involves looking at how “woke” has been captured and transformed into a rhetorical weapon.
The most extensive use of “woke” is by the governor of my adopted state of Florida and many of his fellow Republicans. What does DeSantis mean by the term? It seems to mean whatever he wants it to mean. In what follows, I will look at the rhetorical weaponization of “woke.”
In the beginning, “woke” meant “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination.” Through use, the term gradually expanded to include the broad areas of identity politics and social justice. While originally seen as a positive term, “woke” has been redefined in increasingly negative ways.
Around 2019, it began to be used ironically and to mock people for insincere performative activism and virtue signaling. It is also now taken to mean “to be overly politically correct and police others’ words.” While somewhat vague, this definition does have a set meaning. However, “woke” has been subjected to a fascinating rhetorical modification to make it mean everything and nothing. This can be traced back to Christopher Ruffo redefining “critical race theory” in March, 2021: “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory. We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”
What is fascinating about what Ruffo did is that he did this in public, on Twitter and you can still see the tweet today (assuming Musk has not destroyed Twitter). In effect, he told everyone that he is engaging in a deceit without any concern that doing so would undercut his efforts. This seems to entail that he thinks that his audience is in on the deceit. This is analogous to a con artist Tweeting that they are running a con; this only makes sense if they think the marks do not care or will happily go along with the con.
What Ruffo is doing here is creating a Balloon Man. The Balloon Man is a variant of the Straw Man fallacy in which the target is redefined in an excessively broad or vague manner. This expanded definition, the Balloon Man, is taken to include a wide range of (usually) bad things. This Balloon Man is then attacked, and it is concluded that the original is defective on this basis. This Balloon Man redefinition of “critical race theory” proved successful but it was soon engulfed by the term “woke.” That is, critical race theory is now generally presented as but one example of what is “woke.”
This move could be called creating a Zeppelin Man. Zeppelins are airships that contain multiple inflated cells, so they can be seen as being made of multiple balloons. As a rhetorical move or fallacy, this would be a matter of making a term that has been made into a Balloon Man part of another term whose meaning has also been redefined in an excessively broad or vague manner. A fallacy would occur when this Zeppelin Man is attacked to “prove” that the original is defective. For those who are aware that the term is now a Zeppelin, using it in this way is an act of bad faith. But it has numerous advantages, many of which arise because the vagueness of the definition also allows it to perform other rhetorical functions. The redefinition also involves other rhetorical techniques. This is all done to weaponize the term for political purposes.
A key part of the redefinition of “woke” involved the rhetorical device of demonizing. Demonizing is portraying the target as evil, corrupt, dangerous, or threatening. This can be done in the usual three ways: selective demonizing, hyperbolic demonizing, or fictional demonizing. Selective demonizing is when some true negative fact about the target is focused on to the exclusion of other facts about the target. Hyperbolic demonizing involves greatly exaggerating a negative fact about the target. Fictional demonizing is simply lying about the target. For example, “critical race theory” (which now falls under “woke”) originally referred to a law school level theory about the impact of race in the law. But, in addition to being made into a Balloon Man, it has also been demonized as something awful. Likewise for the other terms that now fall under “woke.” The defense against demonizing is to critically examine such claims to see if they are plausible or not.
The right has also been scapegoating wokeness by blaming it for problems that it did not cause. The most recent example is the bizarre efforts of some conservatives to blame the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank on wokeness. As would be expected, no serious person gives this any credence since the bank collapsed for the usual reasons we have seen over and over. Presumably this is intended to misdirect people from the real causes (a Red Herring) and to “prove” that wokeness is really bad. While not the most absurd thing pushed by the right, Americans should feel both insulted and offended by this latest attempt at deceit. After all, even the slightest reflection on the matter would show that the idea that a major bank failed because of wokeness is absurd. As such, unless these people think that their base is onboard with their lies, they clearly think their base is ignorant and stupid.
Some of what is included under the redefinition of “woke” includes dog whistles. One version of the dog whistle is to use coded language such that its true (and usually controversial or problematic) meaning is understood by your intended audience but not understood by the general population. This is analogous to how slang terms and technical terms work; you need to know the special meanings of the terms to understand what is being said. Another version of the dog whistle is a form of innuendo. A word or phrase is used to suggest or imply something (usually negative). If you do not know the special meanings or the intended implication, you are excluded, often intentionally so. For example, “Critical Race Theory” has been assimilated into “woke” but the phrase is now a dog whistle.
Interestingly, the term “woke” itself functions as a dog whistle. Since anyone can technically be woke (and straight white men have claimed to be woke), someone using the term as a dog whistle has that all important plausible deniability. The dog whistle aspect of the redefinition is a critical part of weaponizing “woke.” After all, making something into a dog whistle means that:
The vagueness and demonizing enable the term “woke” to reference what could be called a Universal Enemy. This is a rhetorical technique of broadly defining something in negative ways so that it can serve as an enemy for almost anyone. If the universal enemy is successfully created, then the term can be effectively used to persuade people that something (or someone) is bad simply by applying the term. If pushed enough, this can also be a form of Begging the Question: arguing that something is bad by defining it as bad. If people see “woke” as whatever they think is bad and they think that something is woke, then they will think that it is bad—no actual proof needed. A defense against this technique is to recognize that the redefinition of the term is vague (and the product of demonizing) and not fall for the technique. Crudely put, if “woke” just means “bad”, then it is effectively vacuous.
The vagueness of the redefinition of “woke” also allows for assimilation of anything that expresses criticism of “woke”, whether the critic agrees with the redefined term. For example, someone might create a video or blog that is critical of “woke” defined in terms of performative activism or virtue signaling but also believe that people should be alert to injustice and discrimination. But their video or blog can simply be assimilated and used as “evidence” that “woke” is bad. One common tactic used to assimilate is Headlining: using the title of something that seems to support what is being claimed. For example, if the imaginary blog or video was titled “Wokeness is Bad for Justice” then it could be used to “prove” that the redefined wokeness is bad for justice. The defense against this is to check the critic’s definition of “woke.” If they are not using the redefined definition, then their criticism does not automatically apply. In the fictional example given, the creator of the blog or video would presumably not support their work being used that way.
The vagueness of the redefinition of “woke” allows it to function as a weasler—a rhetorical device that protects a claim by weakening it. Attacking such a vague definition is like attacking the fog with a stick—it is so diffuse that there is nothing solid to hit or engage with. If the critic does manage to have some success with one aspect of the term, the user of “woke” can simply move on to another aspect and claim victory because the critic cannot possibly engage everything that falls under such a broad redefinition (see the Appeal to Silence). The defense against this is to recognize when the definition of a term is so vague as to be effectively without meaning. While pointing this out to the person using it in bad faith is unlikely to deter them, you would at least show that you have not been deceived by them.
In closing, the redefining and weaponization of “woke” is a clever move by the right in terms of crafting a rhetorical weapon to use in a campaign of deceit and division. However, a recent poll shows that most Americans have not accepted the redefinition of “woke” and see being woke as positive. Most Americans also seem to have far more important concerns than the Republican’s war on woke, so it is not clear that this will be a winning strategy in 2024.
As America faces collapsing banks, closing hospitals, and radioactive waste contaminating elementary schools, most Republicans are laser focused on their war on woke and pugilism against pronouns. This is eminently rational on their part since addressing these other problems would risk the ire of their financial backers, rejection by their base, and put them at odds with their professed ideology. But let us look at the pronoun wars.
While the pronoun war is largely a conflict manufactured by the right using the straw man and nut picking tactics, there is a tiny bit of truth buried deep under all the hyperbole. There are some cases in which people do appear to be acting in extreme ways about pronoun usage and these can be weaponized to “argue” that the left is looney about pronouns. But, of course, this is fallacious reasoning.
I do also get that people can seem to be engaged in pompous virtue signaling about pronouns and that other people can find this annoying. This is analogous to the stereotype of vegans annoyingly telling everyone they are vegans—even if people are fine with veganism, the posturing is annoying. There are also stereotypes of religious goody two shoes telling everyone that they are goody two shoes. Again, it is the posturing that is annoying. But tolerating annoying behavior by having a proportional response is part of being a mature, decent person. People do like to signal that they are virtuous, and people do have a right to express their values, even if other people are mildly annoyed by this. As such, the right thing to do is politely tolerate such mild virtue signaling. But what about cases in which a person is serious (and not just virtue signaling) about their pronouns? My view of this is shaped by the “Mikey Likes It” commercial for Life cereal.
While my name is “Michael” I usually go by “Mike.” I do know some Michaels who go by “Mickey”, but I do not. As far as I can recall, no one has tried to call me “Mickey.” But, as you have probably guessed, people have called me “Mikey.” I do not like that.
The reason why I don’t like being called “Mikey” is that when people use “Mikey” they have almost always been trying to insult or provoke me. I have usually responded by politely saying that I do not go by “Mikey”. If they keep pushing it, it just becomes ever more evident they are doing it to insult or provoke me. People have, of course, claimed that they do not understand why I am taking offense at being called “Mikey” and some have even said that they can call me whatever they want. It has, of course, been a while since this has happened but the pronoun wars reminded me of how much I hated being called “Mikey” by people trying to mess with me in my youth.
Looked at philosophically, my view is that my name is my name and I have the right to decide what name I will respond to. It is not up to other people to decide. This is especially true when they are misnaming me with malicious intent: they are engaged in attempting to insult or provoke me. Obviously, I don’t think this is a serious offense against me—it is on par with other insults or verbal provocations. But it is still a hostile action, motivated by malice or cruelty.
When I hear of people insisting that they be called by their chosen pronouns, I get it—I think of people trying to insult or provoke me by calling me “Mikey.” Their pronouns belong to them and thus they have the right to refuse to respond to pronouns they do not accept. People attempting to impose pronouns on them are most likely trying to insult them, be cruel, or provoke them—and hence are to be condemned in their misdeeds. But wait, someone might say, isn’t forcing people to accept your pronouns forcing them to accept your values?
When made in good faith, there is an interesting issue here of whether accepting a person’s pronouns entails accepting a specific value system about identity.
On the one hand, it can be argued that it is like me expecting people to call me “Mike” rather than “Mikey.” I am not forcing people who believe that “Mikey” is the right short version of “Michael” to adopt my world view about my name; I just expect them to respect my name when they talk to me. If this is too much for them, they can just call me “Michael.” Likewise, if a person has “they” as their pronoun, no one is forced to accept whatever world view might lie behind that choice—the other person can either use “they” or avoid pronouns if they have a sincere commitment against using pronouns in ways, they do not want to use them.
On the other hand, one could argue that using a person’s preferred pronouns is to endorse or at least tolerate the values that are purported to lie behind their choice. For example, a person might use “she/her” and someone talking to them might have a conceptual scheme in which that person is a “he/him.” As such, if they use “she/her”, then they would be respecting the other person’s pronoun choice at the expense of their own professed belief. Likewise, if a person had a sincere belief that “Mikey” is the correct short form of “Michael” then they would be respecting my choice at the expense of their own professed belief.
As another example, imagine that Sally is divorced and changed her name from Mrs. Sally Jones back to Ms. Sally Smith. Now, suppose that Sally is talking to Ted at the DMV and Ted has sincere believes about marriage such that he does not recognize divorce, that he believes that a married woman must go by Mrs., and that a woman must take and keep her husband’s name. Sally is trying to get a new driver’s license as Ms. Sally Smith. Because of Ted’s beliefs about marriage, as a person he refuses to refer to her as “Ms. Sally Smith” and, as a DMV worker, refuses to issue her a new driver’s license. His belief is profound and sincere, but it would be absurd to say that he thus has the right to refuse to accept her choice just because he has a different conception of marriage than her (and almost everyone else). Likewise, one could say it would be absurd for someone to just impose pronouns on people based on their conception of proper pronoun use—even if this is based on sincere beliefs. After all, it is not Ted’s beliefs that should decide how Sally refers to herself.
A person could, of course, be both respectful of the other person and act in accord with their beliefs by simply not using pronouns. After all, if the person asked to use pronouns they do not want to use sees it as an imposition on them, then they would also have to accept that applying pronouns that people do not accept would also be an imposition on them. If someone insists on imposing pronouns on others, then it might be suspected that they are motivated by malice or cruelty. Obviously, misusing pronouns for the sake of being cruel or from malice would be wrong, even if the person professed that they had sincere beliefs about correct pronoun usage.
In closing, I obviously don’t think that people should be able to use the right to choose their pronouns and name to engage in identity theft, etc. I also do not think that people would identify themselves as attack helicopters or whatever—I say this to show that I am familiar with the rhetoric used in the “debate.” It does no more harm to use the pronouns that people wish to use than it does to use the name they prefer. If it is asking too much to do this, then the easy fix is to simply not use pronouns.
The title of this essay could be interpreted as claiming that Boebert and Greene’s culture war against “the progressives” and “the woke” is what got them into congress. While this is likely, what I mean is that progressives fought for the rights of women to vote and hold office and without them, Boerbert and Greene would be unable to do either.
The right tends to be ahistorical or mythological in their approach to the past, so it is not surprising that they rarely talk about how conservatives now accept progressive and even radical views that past conservatives fought. An excellent illustration is women’s rights. Women were granted the right to vote by the 19th Amendment which was ratified on August 18, 1920. While this might seem like a long time ago, there are people still alive that were born before then. Interestingly, the first woman served in congress in 1917.
As would be expected, the battle over women’s right to vote and hold office mostly followed the usual template of conservative arguments for exclusion. One anti-suffrage argument was that women did not want the vote because they took care of the home and children and hence did not have the time to vote or stay informed about politics. Interestingly, this argument was advanced by the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage which was founded in 1911 by Josephine Dodge. Dodge had also led a movement to establish daycare centers for working mothers and was apparently not deterred from political involvement by her own reasoning.
The other argument, which is a stock argument for exclusion, is that women are defective in some manner relative to men: they lack the mental capacity to engage in politics or are too emotional. A “nicer” version of the argument is based on the belief that men and women are fundamentally different and that women would be sullied by getting involved in politics. There were also racist and class arguments against extending the vote: allowing all women the right to vote would allow, well, all women the right to vote even minorities and those in the lower classes.
There was also the “practical” argument that allowing women to vote would increase the cost of elections by doubling the number of voters. Some often unspoken “practical” arguments were concerns that women would act from maternal concern and vote for prohibiting alcohol consumption (which did happen with Prohibition) and vote for safer working conditions and limits on working hours.
While progressives and radicals (including some anarchists) were the people backing women’s suffrage, one argument in favor of it rests on the stereotype of women as maternal and purer than men: the argument was that women voters would clean up politics and government (which was, as noted above, some people worried about). There were also more liberal arguments based on natural rights (citizens have a moral right to have a say in the government) and, of course, the classic “no taxation without representation” argument. Despite the stereotype argument, the movement for women’s suffrage would best be cast as a leftist, progressive, and even radical movement opposed to traditional family values. It is true that the Republican party at the time did support women’s suffrage, but the Republican party of the past is fundamentally different from the Republican party of today (and likewise for the Democrats). So, what does this mean for today?
Given that women’s right to vote and right to hold office are progressive and even radical views, the fact that the American right (mostly) accepts women like Boebert, Greene, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Nikki Haley in positions of power suggests three possibilities.
The first is that the right is more progressive than it believes and is willing to quietly embrace some progressive values, such as allowing women to vote and hold office. This seems unlikely.
The second is the “Queen Victoria” approach: while these women think they should be in office, this is not a commitment to the general principle that women should have the right to hold office. While possible, there is not much evidence either way—although Boebert recently claimed that women are weaker vessels and because of their frailty need men.
The third is that while these were once progressive and radical ideas, they are now old enough and established enough to no longer be considered progressive or radical. If so, this indicates that traditional and conservative values can shift over time, albeit at a slower progression than the progressives. On this view, the distinction between progressives and conservatives would also include the factor of time: conservatives eventually embrace some progressive views but it just takes them longer. This seems plausible and if anyone were to suggest to Boebert and her fellows that they are embracing progressive views by holding office, they would presumably deny it and then probably tear into the “woke” and “progressives for wanting to do for others what the progressives once did for women. This gradual increase in inclusion relative to who gets excluded by the right suggests that in 100 years there might be a trans conservative in office raging (and voting) against rights for synthetic people. This is not intended to be against trans people; the point is that members of any excluded group are people and a person can be an exclusionary bigot even if they are a member of a group that is or was excluded and subject to bigotry. The American right demonstrates this every day. For example, not long ago Italian Americans were not considered white and were subject to discrimination and racism. But now Ron DeSantis, whose family immigrated fairly recently, is infamous for his anti-migrant policies and even his cruelty to migrants.
While I do not expect such people to experience a revelation about the inconsistency of their views and their fundamental immortality, this does nicely undercut the right’s professed world view. Far from holding fast to traditional values, the American right (slowly) shifts and progresses in terms of who is excluded and who is the target of bigotry. True, they do hold to the traditional values of exclusion and prejudice, but the tent really does get bigger. The right has already accepted, with some limitations, women, minorities, and homosexuals—groups they once violently excluded.
This does lead to an interesting question about what will happen if the tent keeps getting bigger. Will the right need to stop expanding the tent or will they eventually need to kick some people back out into the rain? Or could progress eventually put an end to exclusion when there is no one left to exclude? As I suggested above, this might be where technology can save the right for a while: once all humans are included, they can briefly exclude synthetic people. But eventually, there might be a right-wing AI member of congress raging against the people of Alpha Centauri and so on as long as they can find some outsider to exclude. So, the right had better get busy on backing AI and warp drive research.
In what was once very on brand, my adopted state of Florida has strong sunshine laws. In general terms, the public has extensive access to information about public institutions ranging from the minutes of university search committees to the doings of the governor.
As a professor at Florida A&M University, I am familiar with operating in the sunshine. Almost everything (with obvious exceptions for student grades and health records) we do is subject to public scrutiny. When I have chaired search committees, I must make them available to the public and keep careful records that the public can also access. While it is extra work, I support this on moral grounds: the public has a moral right to know what public money is being used for and what public employees and officials are doing. This also has the moral benefit of making misdeeds harder to conceal. For example, everyone in academics knows about “rigged” hiring in which the results of the search are already pre-determined by political considerations, friendships, or nepotism. While the sunshine laws do not make this impossible, it makes it more likely that hiring will be fair. Unfortunately, there has been a push to darken the sun. In academics, one recent example is that the hiring of university professors has been moved out of the sunshine and into the shadows. While there has been a bad faith attempt to argue that this is needed to attract “top talent”, its purpose is clearly to hide the truth from the public. After all, if this was all about top talent, then it should also apply to faculty hires. But more importantly, Ron DeSantis and the Republican-controlled legislature are busy putting out the sun.
As this is being written, the Florida legislature has filed dozens of bills to expand the already lengthy list of open government exceptions. While it does make sense to keep things like defense plans and intelligence operations secret, these bills do not seem to be aimed at protecting critical state secrets from foreign enemies. Rather, these bills seem aimed at expanding the ability of DeSantis and other politicians and officials to operate without fear of public scrutiny. Ironically, when people complain about law enforcement or the state violating the privacy of citizens, the right usually responds that people who have nothing to hide have nothing to worry about. One could, of course, turn their own rhetoric against them: if they have nothing to hide, they should not fear the sunshine. But they clearly have a lot to hide and hence fear the sunshine. Ironically, despite DeSantis claiming to have made Florida free and raging against “cancel culture”, he and his fellows are working hard to curtail freedom.
Because of his morally awful policies and actions, DeSantis has often been condemned and criticized. As a lover of freedom and a foe of cancel culture, his natural response has been to push to make it easier to bring defamation lawsuits against the media and even people who post on the internet about public officials and employees. Somewhat ironically, his proposal might run up against his own anti-woke campaign. For example, if he goes after “woke” public school teachers or public university professors, then it would seem they could bring a lawsuit against him for this defamation.
The proposed legislation also includes the presumption that anonymous statements in the news are false for the purpose of defamation lawsuits and accusations of racial, sexual or gender discrimination would be treated as intrinsically defamatory. While anonymous claims should be subject to careful assessment, they do have an important place in reporting. After all, people within organizations who are aware of misdeeds will tend to fear retaliation or other harm when they blow the whistle, hence the importance of anonymous statements. This proposal is clearly aimed at using fear of a lawsuit to silence criticism of the state.
DeSantis and many of his fellow Republicans have been accused of discrimination because of such things as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, the (possibly illegal) transport of migrants to Martha’s Vineyard, anti-trans laws, the “war on woke”, DeSantis’ attacks on diversity programs, and so on. This legislation would allow them to weaponize the courts to cancel their critics and take away their freedom of speech. Yes, it is pointless to point out the inconsistency between the right’s rhetoric about freedom and canceling and their actions. They, and their base, know that freedom is the freedom to say what they wish to say and the freedom to cancel those they dislike.
But one can take all the arguments and rhetoric the right uses against “cancel culture” and for “freedom” and apply it against their own proposed laws restricting freedom of expression. In fact, people should play back recordings of DeSantis and his fellows talking about “freedom” and raging against “cancel culture” in response to these proposed laws. It would at least make for a funny clip on YouTube.
This might be the last time I will be able to write anything critical of DeSantis. But it might also be the last time anyone can legally say mean things about me in the comments without risking a defamation law suit. After all, I am a public employee and thus would be protected by the law. Which is absurd—you should obviously have the right to criticize me or even say mean things. Because freedom.
Florida currently requires a concealed weapon permit to legally carry a concealed weapon. Getting a permit requires receiving proper training (typically a four-hour class), a background check (with fingerprints), and paying a fee. I have been through this process and was even required to complete the training despite having held hunting licenses and a concealed carry permit from my home state of Maine. As might be expected, I did rather well in the class.
Having gone through the process, I do understand why some people might see it is burdensome and there are certainly reasonable objections to the need to pay a fee for the permit. Then again, it does seem fair to place the burden of the cost of the process on the citizen getting the permit, rather than offloading it onto the other taxpayers.
Given that unsafe gun handling is dangerous, it makes moral sense to require such training—just as is done in the case of hunting licenses. After all, if people are going about armed, then they have an obligation to undergo basic safety training to reduce the chances they will hurt themselves and others. Having spent many years hunting and at gun ranges, I know how dangerous people can be when they do not have a grasp of basic gun safety. That said, it could be argued that the right to keep and bear arms trumps the right to not have some untrained and irresponsible person shoot you by accident.
Ron DeSantis and other Republican leaders are advancing a bill that will allow permitless carry. DeSantis and these Republicans might seem to be something of a paradox: while they dominate Florida, most Floridians disagree or even strongly disagree with many of their policies. In the case of permitless carry, one would expect that 93% of Democrats oppose it. What is surprising is that 77% of independents and 62% of Republicans oppose it. Police often oppose it as well, mostly from the belief that officers will be interacting with more armed citizens. DeSantis has said that while he will support the bill, he would prefer that it also allowed open carry.
One obvious reason to pass this bill is to ensure re-election funding from the gun lobby. There is probably also some thought given to the fear factor: that certain citizens, especially when protesting, will need to worry more about armed people. Open carry does, of course, allow citizens to put on a show of force and engage in armed intimidation—which would be a good reason for DeSantis and his fellows to back this. But is the bill a good idea? Rather than go with biased intuitions and wishful thinking, I will focus on the available data. Unfortunately, the data is not great—in part because of the gun lobby.
Proponents of permitless carry usually advance two main arguments. The first is an appeal to rights argument. On their interpretation of the Second Amendment, requiring such a permit is a violation of the right to keep and bear arms. I will obviously leave the legal question to the Constitutional scholars. But requiring permits does seem to be on good legal standing and opponents of permitless carry point to these laws.
The second argument is the good guy with a gun argument: allowing citizens to carry weapons without a permit will reduce crime (because criminals will be afraid that their potential victims will be armed) and enable good guys with guns to thwart criminal activity.
From a moral standpoint, I do think that the right of self-defense (see, for example, John Locke) gives citizens the moral right to be armed. But this must be assessed in the context of other rights that would place limits on this right. The right to life, for example, would limit the extent to which people can exercise other rights that present a danger to others. This is where the facts matter: if permitless carry did more good than harm, then it would be reasonable to accept it on utilitarian moral grounds. So, what do the numbers, to the degree we have them, show?
Interestingly, while there are plausible studies that show that shall-issue concealed carry laws might increase homicides and some studies showing that they might increase violent crime, studies of the link between total homicides and permitless carry are inconclusive. As such, we do not know what negative effects this bill might have if it becomes a law. Proponents can point to this to undercut opponents. They can also make the usual argument that criminals will ignore the permit laws, so it is only the law-abiding citizens who are affected. But the obvious reply is that a law-abiding citizen who can afford a gun can probably afford the permit and permits are easy to get for law-abiding citizens. And if the cost is a factor, the bill could just remove or reduce the fee.
Opponents can, of course, make an appeal to intuition: allowing everyone to carry a gun without a permit (and training) will mean more firearm accidents and increase the chances of conflicts escalating to gun violence. They will also point to concerns about the alleged risk to both police and citizens in interactions. But these concerns rest on the assumption that a significant number of people will start carrying guns and that they will be less competent and more prone to violence than permit holders. I suspect, but do not know, that when the bill passes there will be an uptick in people carrying guns—simply because they can. But as the novelty wears off and people realize that carrying around a gun can be inconvenient, the number will drop again. That is, things will probably not be as bad as opponents might think. That said, I do still favor the permit and training requirements, but this is because of my moral view that people should have training before they arm themselves. But what about the crime deterrence and thwarting argument?
While the NRA and their fellows advance the intuitively appealing “good guy with a gun” narrative, it is not supported by the evidence. I do get the appeal: we have all seen the TV shows and movies where the hero shoots the bad guys and saves the day. And I suspect that many people have had at least a brief fantasy of saving the day with their heroic gun play (or martial arts). But fiction and fantasy are not evidence. Unfortunately, the available evidence shows that despite the popular misconception, more guns do not stop more crimes. What should also be obvious is that permitless carry is not a magical change. After all, people can already easily get a permit in Florida. As such, criminals should already be rationally calculating that their intended victim might be armed and there are already lots of good guys and gals with guns. As such, the deterrence and thwarting argument has no real merit, given how easy it is to get a permit.
While I could be wrong, the most reasonable conclusion is that when the bill becomes law there will be a brief uptick in people carrying guns because of the novelty and then most of these people will stop carrying. After all, most people who really want or need to carry already have permits and carrying around a concealed weapon in Florida can be a bit inconvenient.
There is, of course, a risk that there will be an increase in firearm accidents and that some conflicts might escalate to gun violence. As far as the deterrence and thwarting, the evidence indicates that there will most likely be no meaningful impact. I do, however, hope that I get a refund on my permit—I can use that money to buy some more bullets.
One iron rule of technology is that any technology that can be used for pornography will be used for pornography. Another is that any technology that can be used for grifting will be used for grifting. The latest grift involves people using AI to generate science-fiction stories in an attempt to sell them to publishers.
Amazon has also seen a spike in AI generated works, although some are being honest about the source of the text. Before the availability of these text generators, some people would steal content from web pages and attempt to sell them as books. This sort of theft is easier to catch than AI generated text and given the current state of detection software, it is likely that AI generated text will generally be able to avoid automated detection. This means that if a publisher wants to sort out AI generated text from human generated text, they will need humans to do the work. As would be expected, some types of work are easier to detect as AI generated than others and the current AI text generators are better or worse at certain types of text. As such, in some cases a human reviewer need not discern whether the text is AI generated, they can simply do what they have always done, which is weed out the bad text. Fortunately for the science-fiction publishers and writers, AI is currently bad at writing science fiction.
But the practical problem is that certain publishers are being flooded with AI generated submissions and they cannot review all these texts. Since an AI can generate a story from a short prompt, a person using one can rapidly create a swarm of stories. In terms of the motivation, it seems to mostly be money—the AI wranglers hope to sell these stories.
One magazine, Clarkesworld, has seen a massive spike in spam submissions, getting 500 in February (contrasted with a previous high of 25 in a month). In response, they closed submissions because they lacked the resources to handle the deluge. As such, this use of AI is harming publishers and writers. As would be expected, some have blamed AI for this and point to this as yet another harm caused by AI. But it is obviously unfair to blame AI.
From the standpoint of ethics, the current AI text generators lack the moral agency needed to be morally accountable for the text they generate. They are no more t0 blame for the text than the computers used to generate spam are to blame for the spammers using them. Obviously, the text generators are just a tool being misused by people hoping to make easy money and who are not overly concerned with the harmful consequences of their actions. To be fair, some people are probably just curious about whether an AI generated story would be accepted, but these are presumably not the people flooding publishers.
While these AI wranglers are morally accountable for the harm they are causing, it must also be pointed out that they are operating within an economic system that encourages and rewards many types of bad or unethical behavior. While deluging publishers with AI spam is obviously not on par with selling dangerous products, engaging in wage theft, or running NFT and crypto grifts, it is still the result of the same basic system that enables and rewards (and often protects) such behavior. In sum, the problem with current AI is the people who use it and the economic system in which it is used. AI has simply become yet another tool for spamming, grifting, and stealing. But there is some interesting potential here.
As noted above, AI generated fiction is currently quite bad (although humans obviously also generate mountains of bad fiction, some of which get published). But it is likely that it can be improved enough to be enjoyable, if low quality, fiction. Some publishers would see this as an ideal way to rapidly generate content at a low cost, thus allowing them more profit. This would, obviously, lead to the usual problem of human workers being replaced by technology. But this could also be good for readers.
Imagine that AI becomes good enough to generate enjoyable stories. A reader could thus go to an AI text generator, type in the prompt for the sort of story they want, and then get a new story to read. Assuming the AI usage is free or inexpensive, this would be a great deal for the reader. It would, however, be a problem for “working class” writers who are not celebrity writers. Presumably, fans would still want to buy works by their favorite authors, but the market for lesser-known writers would likely become much worse.
If I just want to read a new classic style space opera with epic battles and powered armor, I could just use an AI to make that story for me, thus saving me the time of finding one already written and paying more for it. And if the story is as good as what a competent human would produce, then it would be good enough for the reader. If I want to read a new work by Mary Robinette Kowal, I would need to buy it (yes, one could pirate it or go to a library). But, as I have argued in an earlier essay, this use of AI is only a problem because of our economic system: if a writer could write for the love of writing, then AI would largely be irrelevant. And, if people were not making money by grifting text with AI, then they would probably not be making AI fiction except to read themselves. So, as would be expected, the problem is not AI but us.
Thanks to Midjourney and Open AI (which includes ChatGPT and Dall E) people are able to enter a prompt and receive an image or body of text. Since the images and text can be quite good, this has launched a plague of think pieces on the subject, many of which foretell doom for creativity. As a professor, I have also had to listen to fears that ChatGPT and its fellows will usher in a new age of cheating. While I have been thinking about AI for a long time (I did my first debate on it in the 1980s), I have been waiting a bit to write about the latest AI craze—I wanted to think about it in some depth before rushing into the fray once more.
In addition to being a professional philosopher, I also create stuff for tabletop role playing games like D&D and Call of Cthulhu. In addition to writing text content, I also create maps and images for my work. As such, I am technically in the creative class affected by the new AI image and text creators. I make note of this to disclose this as a potential biasing factor. After all, some say that AI is poised to eliminate both professors and creatives. In this essay, my concern is with my creative hobby rather than with my main profession. My concern is also with the economic aspects of the situation. In other essays I will inflict my opinion on whether AI images and text can be art.
Looking back into the shallow depths of human history, we can see that professions are regularly changed or eliminated by various economic shifts. To illustrate, fads in fashion or food can result in significant economic changes. As an example, beaver trapping was once a major economic factor in America because of the use of beaver pelts in men’s hats. But the fur trade era came to an end, and you rarely hear of beaver trapping these days. In other cases, the change is based in technology. For example, my home area of New England was once known for its whaling industry and whale oil was used extensively for lighting. When alternatives, such as kerosene, became available, then this whaling industry came to an end. As such, New Englanders rarely work as whalers these days. Kerosene was itself largely replaced by electricity, also resulting in changes in available jobs. And, of course, there is the specific technological change of automation, when machines reduce or eliminate the need for human workers.
For most of human history, machines tended to eliminate or reduce physical jobs—although there is the obvious example that electronic computers eliminated the need for human computers. Back when I first debated about AI as an undergraduate, there was a general view that AI would not be able to engage in creative activity. This was sometimes presented in terms of the view that machines would never be able to feel (which was assumed to be critical for creativity) or that there was some special human trait of creativity that a machine could not replicate. As a practical matter, this seemed to hold true until recently when AI started producing very good images and high-quality text; good enough to easily pass as created by competent humans. While this had caused considerable concern in various areas, a very practical worry is that AI will put creatives out of work. After all, if a business can get text and images created by AI for a minuscule fraction of what it would cost to pay a human for the same work, a sensible business will turn to AI since the end is maximizing profit.
This, obviously, shows that the true problem is not AI. As science fiction writers and dreamers have noted, automation should be used to set people free so they can spend more time doing what they want to do, rather than needing to grind at tasks just to survive.
While a creative might like creating to earn the money they need to not die, they are creating for economic reasons and most likely not doing what they really enjoy. I do, of course, distinguish between people who make some income from their creative hobby (as I do) and people who must create to earn their living. While someone who depends on creating to live might enjoy their work, AI is only a problem if they must do this work to survive. After all, if they were creating out of the love of creativity, to express themselves, or out of pure enjoyment, then AI would be irrelevant. They would still get that even with AI cranking out images and text. Since I do not depend on my gaming stuff for my living, I will keep doing it even if AI dominates the field. But when AI replaces me as a professor, then I will keep doing philosophy but I will need to find a new task to get the few dollars that the ruling classes deign to allow to trickle down to me.
As such, we should be careful to note that the alleged problem with AI putting people out of work just points out the awfulness of our economic system and that it turns creative works into mere economic products. It just so happens that the new automation threatens creatives rather than factory workers (who can also be very creative). But this threat is not the same for all creatives.
The title of this essay is “AI: I Want a Banksy vs I Want a Picture of a Dragon” because of the distinction between the two wants and its relevance to AI images (and text). Suppose that I want a work by Banksy to add to my collection. In that case, no AI art will suffice since only Banksy can create a work by Banksy. An AI could, of course, create an amazing forgery of a Banksy, just as skilled human forger could—but neither would be a Banksy. While such a forgery might fool someone into buying it, as soon as the forgery was exposed, the work would become valueless to me—after all, what I want is a Banksy.
When people want a work (be it an image, a book, a song or whatever) by a specific creator, the content is of less importance than the causal chain—they want it because of who created it, not because of what it looks like, what it sounds like, or what the text might be. One example that nicely illustrates this is when Harry Potter series author J.K. Rowling wrote a book under a pseudonym. Before the true authorship was revealed, the book sold few copies. After the reveal, it became a top seller. And, of course, exposed forgeries also illustrate this. A work can be greatly valued as, say, a Picasso until it suddenly becomes revealed as a worthless forgery. In these cases, it is the creator and not the work that matters. As such, creatives whose work is sought and bought because it was created by them have little to fear from Ais, aside from the usual concerns about forgeries. But what if I just want a picture of a dragon for my D&D adventure? Then AI does change the situation.
Before AI became good at creating images, if I wanted a picture of a dragon, I would need to get one from a human artist or create it myself. Now I can just go to Midjourney, type in a prompt, and pick between the generated images. I can even direct the AI to create it in a specific style—making it like the work of a known artist. But, of course, I just want the dragon picture, I am not trying to get a forgery and pass it off as a work by a specific artist. As such, while AI is not a meaningful threat to creators whose works are sought and bought because they created it, it is a threat to the “working class” of creators who toil to sell images (and text) to people who want not an image by person X but an image of X. AI is a real threat to these people, but a real boon to those who want an image of X for the lowest price and quickly.
I use AI to create images for my gaming stuff for three reasons. The first is that I can get customized images that match my vision of what they should be. The second is that I can get them insanely cheap. The third is that I can get them quickly. While I could create my own work to get images that fit my vision, it is cheaper and faster to use AI rather than do it myself. When it comes to human-created works, generic clip art usually does not match my vision and is more expensive than AI images. Hiring a human to do work would be much more expensive and slower, and their work might not match my vision. Also, in all the years I have attempted to hire human artists, they have always failed to come through—often, some existential crisis takes them out of commission, or they decide they would rather pursue some other work (while informing me just before the deadline). As such, from a selfish standpoint, I see the value of AI for people who need images and text. I do tell myself that since I cannot hire a reliable human artist at a cost I can afford for my gaming stuff, my use of AI is morally acceptable. That might even be true.
In closing, AI will be harmful to creators of images and text who are not sought and bought because of who they are. Rowling and Banksy will be just fine, but the “working class” creators will be facing increasing challenges. As always, this should not be blamed on AI, but on us for creating and perpetuating a system that allows people to inflict such harm on other people just because they become less economically useful to the business class.
FreshRSS 