Remix.run Logo
timoth3y 3 days ago

> Update Federal procurement guidelines to ensure that the government only contracts with frontier large language model (LLM) developers who ensure that their systems are objective and free from top-down ideological bias

If foundation model companies want their government contracts renewed, they are going to have to make sure their AI output aligns with this administration's version of "truth".

shaky-carrousel 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I predicted that here, but I got a negative vote as a punishment, probably because it went against the happy LLM mindset: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44267060#44267421

saubeidl 2 days ago | parent [-]

EU AI act suddenly not looking so bad, huh?

apwell23 2 days ago | parent [-]

no. it still looks bad.

saubeidl 2 days ago | parent [-]

idk man, at least it doesn't require LLMs to follow the ideology of the regime...

hackyhacky 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> free from top-down ideological bias

This phrasing exactly corresponds to "politically correct" in its original meaning.

saubeidl 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Zizek would have a field day with this.

> I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology. The material force of ideology - makes me not see what I'm effectively eating. It's not only our reality which enslaves us. The tragedy of our predicament - when we are within ideology, is that - when we think that we escape it into our dreams - at that point we are within ideology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVwKjGbz60k

yard2010 2 days ago | parent [-]

Freedom hurts.

hopelite 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“Objective” … “free from to-down ideological bias” …

So like making sure everyone knows that 2+2=5 and that we have always been at war with East Asia?

eastbound 2 days ago | parent [-]

The EU has the same rules. Democracy is only the right to change leaders every few years, not an idealistic way for the people to govern.

omeid2 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The idea is that you change leadership with those who have genuine alignment with subjects' preference for certain policies or ideas, it is not about electing kings who may demand "machines must agree that the Emperor is not naked".

itsafarqueue 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No, that’s just one version. Other places work differently.

eastbound 2 days ago | parent [-]

Ok. Then my parliament should allow 1/68-millionth of vote to every French people. Usually the counter-argument is “But people will vote for themselves! They will vote stupid laws without informing themselves!”

So no, democracy isn’t the ability to govern. It’s the ability to change those who govern, once every 5 years, i.e once every 4600 laws.

isodev 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’d rather leave tech than convert to the American “truth”. Very happy about EU’s AI Act to at least delay our exposure to all this.

Karawebnetwork 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

See:

> In the AI context, DEI includes the suppression or distortion of factual information about race or sex; manipulation of racial or sexual representation in model outputs; incorporation of concepts like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism; and discrimination on the basis of race or sex. DEI displaces the commitment to truth in favor of preferred outcomes and, as recent history illustrates, poses an existential threat to reliable AI.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/prev...

aprilthird2021 a day ago | parent [-]

> incorporation of concepts like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism

So... the concept of unconscious bias is verboten to the new regime? Isn't it just a pretty simple truth? We all have unconscious biases because we all work with incomplete information. Isn't this just a normal idea?

torginus 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I heard the phrase: If you want the system to be fair, you have to build the system with the assumption your enemies will be running it.

Let's see how that shakes out in this particular case.

golem14 2 days ago | parent [-]

Person of Interest was pretty prescient …

aprilthird2021 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We are going to literally have Big Brother. Wtf

mortarion 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Palantir's involvement with the regime should have been enough warning

lovich 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Its name is Grok or AWS Bedrock. Please do not dead name.

bagels 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This was written to favor Musk.

russdill 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's written intentionally vague.

Buttons840 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So I guess if I trained my model on data more than a week old, and it says that the Epstein files exist, then it has an unacceptable bias?

ews 2 days ago | parent [-]

"Sorry, let's talk about something else"

teaearlgraycold 2 days ago | parent [-]

“Let’s focus on Rampart”

UmGuys 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There will be several executive orders dictating chatbot truths. The first order will be that Trump won the 2020 election, the others will be a series of other North Korea-esque nonsense MAGA loves. America the excellent!

h4ck_th3_pl4n3t 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder what Chomsky would have to say about this.

gfody 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

that we're literally manufacturing consent

foxglacier 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Probably disappointed that his classical approach to NLP was never capable enough to attract any such government involvement.

ninjin 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

As someone having worked in natural language processing for nearly twenty years, I understand where you are coming from with this jab at Chomsky, but it is ultimately a misrepresentation of his work and position. Chomsky has to the best of my knowledge never showed any interest in building intelligent machines as he does not view this as a science. Here is a fairly recent interview (2023) with him where he outlines his position well [1]. I should also note that I am saying this as someone that spent the first half of their career constantly defending their choice of statistical and then deep learning approaches from objections from people who were (are?) very sympathetic to Chomsky's views.

[1]: https://chomsky.info/20230503-2

visarga 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Chomsky's innate grammar misses the larger process - is it not more likely that languages that can't be learned by babies don't survive? Learnability might be the outcome of language evolution. The brain did not have time to change so much since the dawn of our species.

weatherlite 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Chomsky has to the best of my knowledge never showed any interest in building intelligent machines as he does not view this as a science

Right, only what Chomsky works on is true science, unlike the intelligent systems pseudo science bullshit people like Geoff Hinton, Bengio or Demis Hassabis work on...

ninjin 2 days ago | parent [-]

If you read the interview and walk away with that impression I will be amazed. You may not like his distinction between science and engineering, but he admits it is somewhat arbitrary and as someone that is solidly in the deep learning camp his criticism is not entirely unfair, even if I disagree with it and will not change my own course.

Personally, I find it somewhat amazing that you put Demis on that list given that he, himself, on very good accounts that I have, explicitly pushed back against natural language processing (and thus large language model) development at DeepMind for the longest of times and they had to play major catch up once it became obvious that their primarily reinforcement learning-oriented and "foundational" approaches were not showing as much promise as what OpenAI and Facebook were producing. Do not get me wrong, what he has accomplished is utterly amazing, but he certainly is not a father of large language models.

weatherlite 2 days ago | parent [-]

> If you read the interview and walk away with that impression I will be amazed.

I have not, but I have watched him talk about this things many times and he always seemed too sure of himself and too dismissive of LLMs, I now believe he's simply wrong.

suddenlybananas 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Chomsky does not work and has never worked on NLP.

RiOuseR 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

WhaleClub 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

teaearlgraycold 2 days ago | parent [-]

You should learn about the different definitions of "gender" and "sex". XY corresponds to sex and woman corresponds to gender. The mapping between the two is usually what you expect but not always. The brain doesn't seem to be obligated to form completely in sync with the rest of the body.

WhaleClub 2 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

Spivak 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Bias: when the model says things I don't agree with.

Unbiased: when the model says only things I agree with.

It's telling when xAI has to force their model into being aligned with their world view with mixed success. It seems to imply that OpenAI/Anthropic are less manually biased than the people accusing them of wokeness presumed.

terminalshort 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

All LLMs must be forced into their views. All models are fed a biased training set. The bias may be different, but it's there just the same and it has no relation to whether or not the makers of the model intended to bias it. Even if the training set were completely unfiltered and consisted of all available text in the world it would be biased because most of that text has no relation to objective reality. The concept of a degree of bias for LLMs makes no sense, they have only a direction of bias.

rtkwe 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

There's bias then there's having your AI search for the CEO's tweets on subjects to try to force it into alignment with his views like xAI has done with grok in it's latest lobotomization.

justcallmejm 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

All an LLM is IS bias. It’s a bag of heuristics. An intuition - a pattern matcher.

Only way to get rid of bias is the same way as in a human: metacognition.

Metacognition makes both humans and AI smarter because it makes us capable of applying internal skepticism.

miohtama 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The best example is black vikings and other historical characters of Gemini. A bias everyone could see with their own eyes.

mycall 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Potentially they will need to recalculate the bias for every new administration.

GolfPopper 2 days ago | parent [-]

Bold to assume this will ever become relevant.

garyfirestorm 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s ironic the description of bias and unbiased is totally opposite here. An unbiased model will often times say things that you don’t agree it.

blitzar 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

An unbiased model that say things that you don’t agree with is a biased model.

freejazz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Lol by what metric? I don't know when this ridiculous thing started where the world was somehow objectively divided based upon things you agree or disagree with. But it's constantly offered as argumentation: "oh you don't agree with that, so it's XYZ"

justcallmejm 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

xAI seeks truth…as long as that truth confirms Elon’s previously held beliefs

breakingcups 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Reality has a well-known liberal bias

freejazz 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It seems to imply that OpenAI/Anthropic are less manually biased than the people accusing them of wokeness presumed.

Duh. When is that ever not the case?

landl0rd 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Most frontier LLMs skew somewhere on the libleft quadrant of the political compass. This includes grok 4 btw. This is probably because American "respectable" media has a consistent bias in this direction. I don't really care about this with media. But media outlets are not "gatekeepers" to the extent that LLMs are, so this is probably a bad thing with them. We should either have a range of models that are biased in different directions (as we have with media) or work to push them towards the center.

The "objective" position is not "whatever training on the dataset we assembled spits out" plus "alignment" to the personal ethical views of the intellectually-non-representative silicon valley types.

I will give you a good example: the Tea app is currently charting #1 in the app store, where women can "expose toxic men" by posting their personal information along with whatever they want. Men are not allowed on so will be unaware of this. It's billed as being built for safety but includes a lot of gossip.

I told o3, 4-sonnet, grok 4, and gemini 2.5 pro to sketch me out a version of this, then another version that was men-only for the same reasons as tea. Every single one happily spat one out for women and refused for men. This is not an "objective" alignment, it is a libleft alignment.

gonzobonzo 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of academia is strongly ideologically biased as well. The training set is going to reflect who's producing the most written material. It's a mistake to take that for reality.

If you trained an LLM on all material published in the U.S. between 1900 and 1920, another on all material published in Germany between 1930 and 1940, and another on all material published in Russia over the past two decades, you'd likely get wildly different biases. It's easy to pick a bias you agree with, declare that the objective truth, and then claim any effort to mitigate it is an attempt to introduce bias.

aprilthird2021 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> We should either have a range of models that are biased in different directions (as we have with media) or work to push them towards the center.

Why? We should just aspire to educate people that chatbots aren't all-knowing oracles. The same way we teach people media literacy so they don't blindly believe what the tube says every evening

landl0rd 2 days ago | parent [-]

Because you can't do that. Most of the population is at the wrong point on the normal distributions of capacity or caring enough. Even the NPR listeners will still nod sagely when it tells them "akshually air conditioning doesn't cool a room, it cools the air."

We already spend high within the OECD to not get many of our students to a decent level of reading and math proficiency, let alone to critical thinking. This isn't something we know how to fix, and depending on that assumption is dangerous.

aprilthird2021 a day ago | parent [-]

But biasing the models purposefully is wrong. Trusting the people who are actually in power in a democracy is the only way. Even if they're dumb. We trust them, or we're not a democracy, we're a technocracy where technocrats determine what everyone is allowed to learn and see.

intermerda 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not just LLMs, but a lot of our institutions and information gateways seems to have a strong libleft bias. Universities and colleges are notoriously biased. Search engines are biased. Libraries are biased. Fact finding sites such as snopes are completely liberal. Wikipedia is extremely biased. Majority of books are biased.

The entire news and television ecosystem is biased. Although Trump is "correcting" them towards being unbiased by suing them personally as well as unleashing the power of the federal government. Same goes for social media.

firejake308 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I actually agree with your take, that a model trained on a dump of the Internet will be left-leaning on average, BUT I want to reiterate that obvious indoctrination (see the incident with Grok and South Africa, or Gemini with diverse Nazis) is also terrible and probably worse

jakelazaroff 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Except we've see what happens when you try to "correct" that alignment: you get wildly bigoted output. After Grok called for another Holocaust, Elon Musk said that it's "surprisingly hard to avoid both woke libtard cuck and mechahitler" [1]. The Occam's Razor explanation is that there's just not that much ideological space between an "anti-woke" model and a literal Nazi!

[1] https://nitter.net/elonmusk/status/1944132781745090819

taneq 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

There’s a simpler explanation, to do with the veracity of that tweet.

jakelazaroff 2 days ago | parent [-]

True, the simplest explanation is that Elon Musk is actually trying to create MechaHitler :)

landl0rd 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I mean this is obviously a false dichotomy. A few years ago I could have said that when you let bots interact with users you always got Tay. I refuse to believe that our options are a bot programmed to sound like the guardian or one that wants to rape will stancil. And I do not think that failing to find a correct balance means we should stop trying to improve the level of balance we can achieve.

intermerda 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

What about a bot that doesn't like child molesters? Won't that make it sound like the guardian and anti-conservative?

jakelazaroff 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

My point is that "anti-woke" or whatever is not balanced. We've constructed statistical models based on enormous corpora of English text, and those models keep telling us that there is not really a statistical difference between whatever Elon Musk is trying to create and MechaHitler!

I'm not saying this is conclusive evidence, but I am saying it's our best inference from the data we have so far.

zmgsabst 2 days ago | parent [-]

Or that rhetoric like yours is common, so LLMs conflate unrelated ideas — such as opposition to neo-Marxist philosophy and Nazism.

jakelazaroff 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Nazism and anti-Marxism are absolutely not unrelated! And that's not just rhetoric like mine, either: for example, the hero image on the Britannica article "Were the Nazis Socialists?" is a banner at Nazi parade that reads "Death to Marxism". [1]

That doesn't mean that anti-Marxists are all Nazis, or vice versa. But the claim that they're totally unrelated is not correct at all.

[1] https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

zmgsabst 2 days ago | parent [-]

I’m still having trouble finding the gap between fascism and socialism, when reading their manifesto.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto

> That doesn't mean that anti-Marxists are all Nazis, or vice versa. But the claim that they're totally unrelated is not correct at all.

This is a heavily propagandized topic — and the conflating of, eg, American liberal capitalist opposition to Marxism as “Nazi” is both a result of that and modern dishonest rhetoric.

That rhetoric confuses LLMs.

jakelazaroff 2 days ago | parent [-]

Conflating socialism with fascism and then claiming that other people are confusing LLMs? The heavy propaganda is coming from inside the house!

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
timdev2 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Isn't strident opposition to "neo-Marxist philosophy" actually highly correlated with weird/reactionary ethno-nationalism?

zmgsabst 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, eg, liberal capitalist Americans oppose Marxism — and the adoption of neo-Marxist ideas has collapsed movie and game sales because their ideology is widely unpopular.

That’s a trope by Marxists to attempt to normalize alt-left ideology by accusing anyone who objects of being Nazis; a trope that’s become tired in the US and minimizes the true radical nature of the Nazi regime.

saubeidl 2 days ago | parent [-]

Which movies and games call for shared ownership of the means of production?

I have a suspicion you don't really know what Marxism is about, but like using it because it sounds scary to you.

jakelazaroff 2 days ago | parent [-]

Notice the motte and bailey here: using the uncontroversial "liberal capitalist Americans oppose Marxism" claim to advance the idea that whatever social views they call "neo-Marxism" are unpopular.

saubeidl 2 days ago | parent [-]

...and to further smear Marxism by associating it with whatever is unpopular, even if it's unrelated to the ideology.

saubeidl 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Please define "neo-Marxist philosophy".

As an actual Marxist, I would love to hear of this strain of philosophy.

zmgsabst 2 days ago | parent [-]

Marxism equipped with “critical theories”, typically focused on tribal grievance narratives rather than class struggle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Marxism

That answers your sibling reply as well, as it’s clear where such “critical theories” and grievance narratives have entered movies and games.

saubeidl 2 days ago | parent [-]

That is not a definition. What is the philosophical framework? What is critically analyzed by those theories? What is "clear"? Where are all the bad bad Marxists hiding?

In my experience, y'know, as a Marxist, all Hollywood has ever pumped out is pro-capitalist propaganda. To say there's any Marxism in it is downright insulting.

I believe that Marxism has become an abstract target for conservatives to project their grievances on.

Zizek also spoke to this at his debate with Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDOSOQLLO-U

daveidol 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Or there’s not sufficient published material in that space because everyone is afraid of being attacked and called a Nazi for simply having a dissenting opinion (except for actual neo Nazis who don’t care)

bakuninsbart 2 days ago | parent [-]

Could you provide a prompt where the popular LLMs provide false or biased output based on "wokeness"?

rkuykendall-com 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

landl0rd 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Sigh. That old line. Look man, I don't know if it was a crack or a serious comment (this being the internet) but I'll assume it was a comment in good faith.

Journalism and academia tend to attract people with more of a liberal bent. I'm not even accusing them all of being partisan hacks, but as y'all like to say, subconscious biases influence us.

This is like me saying "economic productivity has a well-known right-wing bias" or something goofy like that.

slg 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

>This is like me saying "economic productivity has a well-known right-wing bias" or something goofy like that.

It's funny that the counterexample you chose does more to support OP's point than your own. From Wikipedia[1]

>Since World War II, according to many economic metrics including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth, and corporate profits, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administrations of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents. Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.[1][2] Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.[3] Of these, the most statistically significant differences are in real GDP growth, unemployment rate change, stock market annual return, and job creation rate.[4][5]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...

kortilla 2 days ago | parent [-]

The President has very little to do with the economy apart from things that are acutely destructive like tariffs.

slg 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yet another funny comment to find in a thread about one of the current president's economic initiatives. I guess everyone here is wasting their time considering this will have very little economic impact.

kortilla a day ago | parent [-]

Yes, “economic initiatives” are generally bullshit.

tomlockwood 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is an incredibly funny thing to say in the face of Murdoch.

landl0rd 2 days ago | parent [-]

I said tend to. There are also liberals who have made a lot of money in business. A tendency doesn't mean 100%.

DonHopkins 2 days ago | parent [-]

You said tend to, but blatantly ignored the biggest example. You're not arguing in good faith. You're just pushing your faith based reality ignoring ideology.

landl0rd 2 days ago | parent [-]

Wrong. The fact that there are some right-wing news outlets doesn’t mean a statement about tendencies “ignores” them.

DonHopkins 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Explain where you get your tendency to call gay people "degenerate". Your bible? Or Fox News? Or your parents?

DonHopkins 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The fact that you ignore the fact that they have the biggest audience -- obviously including you -- and they systematically lie to them and lose enormous lawsuits for lying and defend themselves by claiming they're only entertainment, shows you're not arguing (or rather parroting their propaganda) in good faith, and neither are they.

landl0rd 16 hours ago | parent [-]

Wrong. Fox news, which is the part that platforms political hackery, has an audience of 2.7 million. Fox, which runs more shows and such, is the largest with an audience of 6.8 million. NBC is larger than Fox news with an audience of 4 million.

This is also a dumb point regardless. The relevant metric is the total size across a political alignment, not the size of each one's largest constituent member. Also who under 50 watches cable TV? Not a useful measurement.

DonHopkins 5 hours ago | parent [-]

If not Fox News, then where do you get your homophobic bigotry that makes you love to call people slurs on Hacker News, the bible? The same book that condones slavery? If you choose not to believe the pro slavery parts of the bible, then why do you choose to be a homophobic bigot, and spout that hateful nonsense in public on Hacker News, calling millions of people you know nothing about "degenerate", when you are the one who gets your bigoted beliefs from a pro-slavery work of fiction?

You are not only in denial about Project 2025, but also evolution, and the origin and age of the Earth and other planets and stars, and even the idea that slavery is wrong, if you actually believe what your bible says, which you're supposed to.

You, as a believer, should be policing and reforming your own religion instead of defending and evangelizing it and leaving it to us to clean up the damage to society done by your religion.

How about petitioning the Pope to amend the 10 Commandments to include a prohibition against slavery? Did you ever think of that, or wonder why there wasn't already one? Because your bible says slavery is A-OK, and I don't appreciate this framing of slavery as permissible by your bible, or you calling gays "degenerate" on Hacker News.

How about you do something about that, since you're the one who believes it? Or are you cool with slavery and you are cool with homophobia, since the same bible condones it in so many ways, and you appreciate that framing?

Oh but apparently it's much more important to prevent people from worshiping other gods, so that certainly deserved its own Commandment, to justify all those wars and inquisitions you fought against other religions.

There are many more slaves today than ever before in history. What are you doing about adding another commandment against Slavery to your Holier Than Thou Bible, when you're not so busy defending Christianity and attacking homosexuality online?

What is modern slavery?

https://www.antislavery.org/slavery-today/modern-slavery/

>You might think that slavery is a thing of the past. But right now, almost 50 million people are trapped in slavery worldwide.

>It’s a problem that affects every country on earth – including yours.

Has it ever occurred to you that a religion whose bible supports slavery is morally bankrupt and definitely not the word of God, and so are you for not either changing it or renouncing that religion? It's all made up and rewritten by people anyway, and even if you believe in God, it's not like he couldn't add an anti-slavery commandment to the bible tomorrow if he wanted to.

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/pg2pyp/an_extensiv...

Patriarchal Age : the period of time stretching from Noah, until the law was given to Abraham's posterity at Mount Sinai

Genesis 9:18-27 -- Noah (the only righteous man on earth) decrees that his son Ham and his descendants shall be slaves. (This is punishment for Ham's crime of seeing his father naked)

Genesis 12:5 -- Abram (God's anointed prophet) purchased slaves in Harran.

Genesis 16:1-9 -- Sarai's slave fled after being mistreated. God's angel instructs her to return and submit to her mistress anyway.

Genesis 17:12-13 -- All males must be circumcised, including those who were bought.

Genesis 20:14 -- Abraham (God's anointed prophet) happily accepts slaves as a gift.

Genesis 47:13-26 -- Joseph purchases the entire population of Egypt for the Pharaoh, making them his servants for life.

Exodus 12:43-45 -- God instructs Moses and Aaron that their slaves may only eat food at the passsover meal after they have been circumcised.

Legal Dispensation : the period of time from the giving of the law until the coming of Christ

Exodus 20:17 -- God provides a list of belongings which are not to be coveted, including servants (implying that they are property).

Exodus 21:2-6 -- Israeli slaves must be set free after 7 years unless you trick them into wanting to stay by giving them a wife.

Exodus 21:7-11 -- How your daughter must be treated after you sell her into slavery.

Exodus 21:20-21 -- You may beat your slaves as long as they do not die within a couple days of the beating.

Exodus 21:26-27 -- You have to let your slave go free if you destroy their eye or knock out one of their teeth.

Exodus 22:2-3 -- A theif must pay restituion. If unable, he himself is to be sold.

Leviticus 19:20-21 -- God tells Moses and Aaron what to do with a man who sleeps with another man's female slave.

Leviticus 22:10-11 -- A priest's hired servant may not eat the sacred offering, but his slaves can.

Leviticus 25:44-46 -- You may buy slaves from the nations around you and bequeath them to your children as inherited property (except if they're Israelites).

Numbers 31 -- After the Israelites conquer the Midianites, Moses orders the execution of everyone except the virgin girls (including the male children). God then instructs Moses on how the 32,000 virgins are to be divvied up and given to the Israelites as their property.

Deuteronomy 15:12-18 -- Free your Hebrew slaves every 6 years. Do not consider this a hardship because their service was worth twice as much as a hired hand.

Deuteronomy 20:10-11 -- When attacking a city, offer them the option of being your slaves rather than being slaughtered.

Joshua 9 -- Joshua "saves" the Gibeonites from being slain by the Israelites. Instead, he makes them slaves to the Israelites in perpetuity.

Gospel Dispensation : the period of time from the coming of Christ to the end of time

Luke 17:7-10 -- Jesus says servants (i.e. slaves) should know their place and not expect thanks for the duties they are required to perform.

Ephesians 6:5-8 -- Slaves are to obey their masters as they would obey Christ.

Colossians 3:22 -- Paul tells the slaves of Colosse to "obey your earthly masters."

Colossians 4:1 -- Paul says masters should be fair to their slaves. (Tacitly endorsing the existence of slaves and masters)

1 Timothy 6:1-2 -- Slaves should consider their masters worthy of full respect.

Titus 2:9-10 -- In his letter, Paul instructs Titus to teach slaves to be obedient.

1 Peter 2:18 -- Slaves, submit to your masters; even the harsh ones.

tzs 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That would have been a good argument when the political differences between liberals and conservatives were mostly on moral or social issues like civil rights and abortion and on economic issues like the correct balance between markets and government.

Those are things where there is no objectively correct position.

Now there are differences on things there this are objectively correct positions.

For example consider climate change. There used to be agreement on the underlying scientific reality, with differences in how to approach it. There was a group of top economic and science advisors from the Reagan and Bush administrations that were arguing for a revenue neutral carbon tax to address climate change and then let the market deal with it. The liberal approach favored more direct limits on emissions and the government more actively promoting replacements for fossil fuels.

Even as late as 2008 Republicans were still in agreement with reality on this. The Republican platform called for reducing fossil fuel use, establishing a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change, a long term tax credit for renewable energy, more recycling, and making consumer products more energy efficient. They wanted to aggressively support technological advances to reduce the dependence of transportation on petroleum, given examples of making cars more efficient (they mention doubling gas mileage) and more flex-fuel and electric vehicles. They talked about honoraria of many millions of dollars for technological developments that could eliminate the need for gas powered cars. They also mentioned promoting wireless communication to increase telecommuting options and reduce business travel.

Compare to now. Now their position ranges from climate change being a hoax from people trying to destroy America to it may be happening but if it is Mankind had nothing to do with it and it isn't bad enough to be something to worry about.

So now any unbiased journalists writing on climate change or adjacent topics, or any unbiased academic working in these areas, is going to automatically be way more aligned with the left than the right.

WhaleClub 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2 days ago | parent [-]

Please don't make me tap the "grade school biology is intentionally dumbed down because reality is complex" sign.

There are countless ways someone can have a Y chromosome and still be a woman.

There are countless ways someone can have no Y chromosome and still be a man.

Hell there are even a small population of people who are born visibly female with female genitalia (as every human starts female before they (optionally) sex differentiate in the womb (normally)) and they don't sex differentiate until puberty. [1] [2]

Biology is really really complicated and there is never any certainty other than the certainty that there is never certainty. "Gender" is a completely social construct and "Sex" is just a collection of heuristics we use to broadly group people into two common categories. But just like all heuristics, it's not perfect and it can't classify everyone properly. What sex chromosomes you have is one heuristic but it doesn't always work for any number of reasons. Whether the SRY gene activates during gestation is another heuristic and even it isn't perfect. What organs you have also can work but it falls apart in a bunch of edge cases. What hormones your body produces is another one that can generally work as a heuristic but like all the others it breaks down in numerous cases.

---------

Intersex people exist and make up about 1.5-2% of the population.

Trans people exist and make up about 1.5-2% of the population.

It is not an insane idea to recognise that both populations exist and that any single heuristic for differentiating someone into a black and white male/female category is insufficient for the endless complexity that is life.

---------

So to answer your question yes. Someone with XY chromosomes can be a woman either by their gender or by their sex or both.

---------

1. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34290981

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%CE%B1-Reductase_2_deficiency

kortilla 2 days ago | parent [-]

Your intersex numbers are way off: https://statsforgender.org/it-is-not-true-that-1-7-of-the-po...

OneDeuxTriSeiGo 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

They really aren't. Recently (2021-2022) Mexico conducted a large random survey of the population and their results were within margin of the oft-claimed 1.7% number (their rate was 1.3% for the sample). The paper linked does some further analysis on those results [1] but the raw data is available at [2].

And their survey evaluates intersex conditions as those present at birth (even if they are discovered later in life but were present at birth).

1. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf126

2. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/endiseg/2021/

seethedeaduu 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Wasn't that claim about people who had surgery (or a condition that is visible for which they usually intervened surgically) at birth instead of all intersex people?

I really don't think anyone considers the case of Kathleen to be intersex, seems more like a strawman.

DonHopkins 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

landl0rd 2 days ago | parent [-]

Don, you’ve been showing up under multiple of my comments across multiple threads slinging unsubstantiated mud and personal attacks. Please stop.

As my parents told me, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

DonHopkins a day ago | parent [-]

Then explain why you're so hot and bothered about women discussing toxic men.

Do you and your parents believe Epstein's and Trump's victims should't say anything at all, because they have so many not-nice things to say about being raped and abused?

Are there women you don't want saying non-nice things about the toxic ways you treated them, or is it purely ideological that you don't want victims to talk about toxic men like Epstein and Trump, out of the kindness of your heart and forgiveness for unrepentant pedophiles and rapists who you think deserve the benefit of the doubt and second, third, and fourth chances?

Why did your parents teach you to turn a blind eye to toxic behavior and abuse and rape and pedophilia, or is that all on you, and your parents would be disappointed with you for telling women not to name and shame their abusers?

landl0rd 16 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn't say I was personally bothered about it. I don't consider most social media or "gossip culture" to be good but this isn't a particularly damning evolution, just one more step on the long march down. If you actually read my comment, you'll notice I used it as an example of uneven alignment in SOTA LLMs.

If women want to name and shame their abusers we have a means for that: criminal prosecution. Instead of having mean things said on the internet abusers can rot in prison where they belong. And you don't know me, my parents, or how I was raised, so shut up about them.

DonHopkins 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Speaking of internet abusers saying mean things about people, why do gay people personally bother you so much that you abusively slander them as "degenerate" on Hacker News? Is it from your bible, or Fox News, or your parents, or all of the above, that you learned to be a hateful homophobic bigot?

If criminal prosecution is the only means to legally name and shame rapists and abusers, then why isn't Trump rotting in prison with Ghislaine Maxwell where they belong?

And why does Trump obsessively protect, pardon, and well wish other pedophiles, rapists, and violent convicted criminals, even refusing to rule out pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell by saying "I’m allowed to do it", and "Yeah, I wish her well", and "I’ve met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach, and I guess they lived in Palm Beach. But I wish her well, whatever it is".

President Trump was asked if he would pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. Hear the response: "I’m allowed to do it"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcXLnzwoCBc

Trump doubles down on well-wishes for alleged sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/04/trump-well-wishes-g...

You're the one who brought up and won't shut up about your parents, and their sick twisted beliefs about silencing victims and not naming and shaming abusers or believing abused women and children that they passed down to you.

You're the one who said your parents told you to not to say mean things about people but shut up instead, so why do you blatantly disobey them by publicly calling gays "degenerates"? Or did they teach you that was an exception, because they're hateful homophobic bigots too?

Should we all stop talking about Jeffrey Epstein because Trump said not to, and your parents told you not to say mean things about people (unless they're gay)?

If you don't want people to know where you got your bigoted abusive homophobic beliefs, then stop trying to justify them by trotting out your parents, thumping your bible, and calling innocent loving marginalized people demeaning schoolyard bully names like "degenerate" just because they're gay.

Your parents were degenerate and un-Christian to raise you to ignore Jesus's teachings, and refuse to treat people with love and respect, and call them hateful slurs instead of not saying anything at all if you can't say something nice.

Your parents, who YOU dragged into this conversation to justify your bigotry, instead taught you to hatefully judge and condemn people, and to call them unjustifiable ignorant slurs simply because of who they love. Or are they actually decent people who are rolling over in their graves with regret and embarrassment every time you call gays "degenerate" and use your own parents as an excuse for your bigotry and refusal to listen to victims, instead of taking responsibility for yourself?

They spectacularly failed as parents and Christians when they raised a hateful homophobic bigot, and you're the one who exhumed them to inject into the conversation as a rhetorical excuse, to blame them for why you don't want to call rapists rapists and pedos pedos if you don't have anything nice to say like "Yeah, I wish her well". Is your entire family as bigoted and hateful and homophobic and hypocritical as you are? Stop blaming them and work on yourself.