4 ms·

And by “issues” they mean Gemini was blatantly racist, but nobody will use that word in the mainstream media because apparently it’s impossible to be racist aga

And by “issues” they mean Gemini was blatantly racist, but nobody will use that word in the mainstream media because apparently it’s impossible to be racist against white people.

fhd2 3y ago
When you try very hard not to go in one direction, you usually end up going too far in the other direction. I'm as white as they come, but I personally don't get upset about this. Racism is discrimination, discrimination implies a power imbalance. Do people of all races have equal power nowadays? Can't answer that one. I couldn't even tell you what race is, since it's an inaccurate categorisation humans came up with that doesn't really exist in nature (as opposed to, say, species). Maybe a good term for this could be "colour washing". The opposite, "white washing" that defies what we know about history, is (or was) definitely a thing. I find it both weird and entertaining to be on the other side of this for a change.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > Racism is discrimination, discrimination implies a power imbalance Google has more power than these users, that is enough power to discriminate and thus be racist.
  - fhd2 3y ago
    Or "monopolist"? :D The thing is, I honestly don't know if that is or isn't the correct word for this. My point is, to me (as a European less exposed to all this culture war stuff), it doesn't seem that important. Weird and hilarious is what it is to me.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      If you discriminate based on race it is "racist", not "monopolist". > it doesn't seem that important You might not think this is important, but it is still textbook definition of racism. Racism doesn't have to be important, so it is fine thinking it is not important even though it is racism.
- typeofhuman 3y ago
  > When you try very hard not to go in one direction, you usually end up going too far in the other direction. Which direction were they going, actively ignoring a specific minority group?
  - fhd2 3y ago
    It looks to me as if they were trying to be "inclusive". So hard, that it ended up being rather exclusive in a probably unexpected way.
    - flippinfloppin 3y ago
      There is no way that this was unexpected. That is almost as funny a take as the results their "AI" is producing.

And by “issues” they mean Gemini was blatantly racist, but nobody will use that word in the mainstream media because apparently it’s impossible to be racist against white people.

fhd2 3y ago

When you try very hard not to go in one direction, you usually end up going too far in the other direction. I'm as white as they come, but I personally don't get upset about this. Racism is discrimination, discrimination implies a power imbalance. Do people of all races have equal power nowadays? Can't answer that one. I couldn't even tell you what race is, since it's an inaccurate categorisation humans came up with that doesn't really exist in nature (as opposed to, say, species). Maybe a good term for this could be "colour washing". The opposite, "white washing" that defies what we know about history, is (or was) definitely a thing. I find it both weird and entertaining to be on the other side of this for a change.

Jensson 3y ago
> Racism is discrimination, discrimination implies a power imbalance Google has more power than these users, that is enough power to discriminate and thus be racist.
- fhd2 3y ago
  Or "monopolist"? :D The thing is, I honestly don't know if that is or isn't the correct word for this. My point is, to me (as a European less exposed to all this culture war stuff), it doesn't seem that important. Weird and hilarious is what it is to me.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    If you discriminate based on race it is "racist", not "monopolist". > it doesn't seem that important You might not think this is important, but it is still textbook definition of racism. Racism doesn't have to be important, so it is fine thinking it is not important even though it is racism.
typeofhuman 3y ago
> When you try very hard not to go in one direction, you usually end up going too far in the other direction. Which direction were they going, actively ignoring a specific minority group?
- fhd2 3y ago
  It looks to me as if they were trying to be "inclusive". So hard, that it ended up being rather exclusive in a probably unexpected way.
  - flippinfloppin 3y ago
    There is no way that this was unexpected. That is almost as funny a take as the results their "AI" is producing.