Essentially trying to make a “nice” AI will skew left due to the political positions of the right on topics like immigration or gender identity.
Policy aside, at an individual level, people on both sides are equally nice in my experience.
Here’s Pew Research’s voter demographics breakdown, because it’s freely available where the book mentioned is not: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/demographic-...
> Seven-in-ten Republican voters were 50 and older in the most recent election, compared with 62% of Republican voters in 2020 and 68% in 2018. (My note: this is from the 2022 elections, and 1.8M voters over the age of 55 age out each year)
This is all to say, I’m unsure where these people and similar with conservative ideologies who aren’t a majority would post that would make its way into language models. Facebook perhaps? Therefore, liberal bias is simply a majority perspective.
[1] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/734507/white-rural-...
[2] https://massie.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=Z5MPA3CVK5F... (7th paragraph)
Is that interesting? It seems akin to saying "no super bowl winners have won a soccer championship". Well duh, that's not the game they're playing. And some of those football players could probably be pretty damn competitive in soccer if they trained for it as long as they trained for football.
But before then it was mostly meritocracy, individualism, you get what you work for, drugs is the individuals responsibility, criminals deserves to be punished etc everywhere. There was always a smaller number of voices against that in discussions, but the liberal atheist right wing dominated every forum I saw.
And then, years later, there was the mod cabal hijacking of all the large subreddits and admins shutting down all subs they could not control.
I think one of the key reasons subreddits lean left is the very active use of banning. Despite having a doctorate in political science, I was banned from /r/scotus because at least one mod didn't like my politics. During one discussion in /r/AskSocialScience, I had my flair stripped from me by the mods because they didn't like my answers, even though I was the only person in the conversation citing sources.
I moderate a large subreddit myself (300k+ subs) and I am well aware of how important the banhammer is to keep discussions civil, trolls out, and brigading held at bay. But for most subreddits that even remotely touch politics, bans really only seem to skew one way, ensuring that non-liberal viewpoints are scarce at best.
https://nypost.com/2024/01/08/news/google-co-founder-sergey-...
You're not wrong exactly, but you just described human nature. All of our brains work that way by default. It's much harder to see for your own side, of course.
How come that LGBTQ people are concerned about their rights and then support most intolerant Islamist regimes, who would slaughter them on spot?
Hard to pretend that's not operative.
Republican politicians do not attempt to justify their positions, or have honest intellectual debate. Individual conservatives may have reasonable issues or a coherent belief system, but Republican politicians are not trying to solve any pressing problems of our era, including things like immigration. They would rather have it as a wedge issue.
what does right wing mean? can you give a couple big US policy differences with the left?
( I ask as a european )
Proverbs 22:9 The generous will themselves be blessed, for they share their food with the poor.
People have the choice to share their blessings: Choosing to not share food is evil, Choosing to not share food and your home with a child with no parents is evil, Choosing to not protect children (by banning guns) is evil.
Save the children, at any cost! Unless they're still in the womb, then feel free to murder them.
Whats the point of saving them in the womb if they will just get murdered in daycare?
Pro-life people do this literally all the time. Consider how many Christian adoption services are out there, for example.
> gun control
Most people who oppose gun control would argue that it costs more lives than it saves.
---
Please don't straw-man your political opponents like this. At least get to know what they actually believe, before arguing against it.
[0] - https://adoption.org/who-adopts-the-most [1] - https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2023/may/adoption-fos...
> Most people who oppose gun control would argue that it costs more lives than it saves.
In countries that have banned guns, how many children die from school shootings each year?
---
> At least get to know what they actually believe, before arguing against it.
I was raised in Catholic family and switched to protestantism from age 15 - 21. My Catholic Grandmother has 20 children + grandchildren. Not a single family has chosen adoption in 3 generations. My Protestant Grandmother has 2 children, neither chose adoption.
Can you please help me understand my knowledge gaps? I have provided what data I could find and shared my personal experiences on this topic.
> [0] - https://adoption.org/who-adopts-the-most
The article you linked says that "5 percent of practicing Christians in the United States have adopted, which is more than twice the number of all adults who have adopted."
So Christians are more than twice as likely to adopt as anyone else, is that correct? I'm not even Christian but the data does not appear to align with the sentiment you're presenting.
The fact the religious adopt at such a comparatively high rate is actually admirable; that requires a much more significant sacrifice compared to just aborting the baby.
The 5% might not be equally distributed by geography or race. Adoption "supply" might not match Adoption "demand".
They'd be wrong.
There's been no significant gun incidents | mass shootings, et al. of any real note in Australia since uniform gun regulation was introduced (matching the unregulated states and territories to those with regulation) following a world record breaking (at the time) mass shooting.
I'm in Australia, I have licenced weapons, my neighbour shoots ULR targets at 5,000 yards.
Gun regulation is great when properly implemented and it has demonstrably saved lives in this context.
You'd be correct to argue that uniform USofA wide simple clear evenly applied gun regulation would very likely be impossible due to the extreme difficulty of getting all states aligned and pulling in the same direction.
That's a different argument about a different challenge though.
That may be so, but either way they are sincere.
>I think he’s being honest here.
I doubt it. <https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/video-g...>
I think he’s being honest here. At least at the executive level of having no clue how any of this works or why it leans the way it does.