Ask AI: Explain the Carceral Archipelago and its Implications

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee. For this post, AI also created the featured photos based on the topic.

 

When we talk about the broad historical sociopolitical and economic implications of the carceral archipelago and the prison industrial complex, and the implications for societies of today and the future, we are talking about the legacy of slavery and the legacy of the slave trade, which is a massive and central component of the history of capitalism in Europe and especially in the United States

We are talking about the legacy of colonialism, and we are talking about the legacy of imperialism. We are talking about the legacy of settler colonialism, which is a specific form of colonialism that has been practiced against indigenous peoples in the United States, Canada and Australia.

We are talking about the legacy of apartheid in South Africa. We are talking about the legacy of Jim Crow and segregation in the United States. We are talking about the legacy of racialized mass incarceration in the United States.

Carceral Archipelago and its Implications

When we consider the implications for the future based on these historical observations, it raises many questions about what the role of prison will be in the future and how it will be used. And some of these are premises that are being created and incubated or practiced today. The role of prison in the future is that we likely will see indefinite detention, mass indefinite detention. It’s already happening with immigrant detention, but we are talking about more potential for it happening on a larger scale; we talked about ways to use prisoners as a form of labor, particularly in the future, especially in light of the decline in manufacturing jobs and having to compete with it. I think we are going to see prison used on a mass scale as the new form of slavery.

In neoliberalism, privatization has accelerated and with privatization comes the individualization of prison companies and prison resources. So instead of having giant prison systems, we are going to see smaller ones and also more private ones using private resources. This has implications for how prisons are going to operate under colonization, because these corporations that run prisons and the resources they need to exploit them would be very similar in terms of the resources and exploitation that are being done against indigenous populations in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The prison-industrial complex, then, can be seen as a new form of colonialism.

The Future of the Carceral Archipelago

So what is unknown is what is going to become of the prison in the future. What I think we are going to see is the intensification of militarization, particularly around war. We see this in the United States right now with the militarization of police departments. We see this in Palestine and Gaza where Palestinians live under a form of continual occupation that resembles elements of colonization, as well as apartheid. We are definitely going to see the continuation of the prison industrial complex, with all the injustice it brings.

There are questions around how the prison is going to be used in the future, and I think we definitely have an indication that it especially is going to be used against people of color and indigenous populations in particular. So I would just encourage people to really critically engage with what’s happening now, and I see it moving forward in the future as a really important topic to think about and to struggle in the most effective way we possibly can.

Asking AI to Explain Interstitial Sociology

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

When we look at the modern world through the lens of interstitial sociology, the key lessons are:

When we look at the modern world through the lens of interstitial sociology, the key lessons are:

1. Interstitial spaces are where the most interesting things are happening.

2. Interstitial spaces are not ‘in between’ but rather they are ‘between and beyond’. Interstitial spaces can be found in the cracks of the official order, but they can also be found in the cracks of the unofficial order.

3. Interstitial spaces are where we find the most interesting people. Interstitial sociology is not just about ‘the margins’ but also about ‘the mavericks’, ‘the rule breakers’, ‘the innovators’, ‘the rebels’ and ‘the outsiders’.

4. Interstitial spaces are not just about the people who are in them. Interstitial spaces are also about the people who are not in them. They are about the people who are not there and the people who are not allowed to be there. Interstitial spaces are about the people who are excluded and the people who are invisible.

5. Interstitial sociology is not just about the present but also about the past. Interstitial spaces have a history and this history has been forgotten or erased from official memory.

 

Given these assumptions, we can compare interstitial sociology to the study of interstices in metallic crystalline lattices, where lattice regions are strained by the presence of interstitial atoms. In these cases, interstitial atoms bridge the gap between the metal atoms and thus play a crucial role in the formation of a metal solid.

In many ways, this is what interstitial sociology is about: it is about bridging the gap between the official and unofficial, the mainstream and the margins, the center and the periphery, the ruled and the rulers. It is about finding ways to bridge these gaps. It is about forging new connections, creating a new solid. It is about building bridges between people both through the study of this interstitial space, but also through the practice itself of finding new ways to connect with all those who have been left out and excluded, who have been forgotten and erased.

Through the interstitial, we can cross boundaries, cut across borders and make a bridge through the fascinating land that lies in between. Through the interstitial, we can forge new solidarities and empower new forms of resistance. Through the interstitial, we can create new solidarities and find new forms of solidarity. Through the interstitial, we can build new possibilities for a more just, egalitarian and liberated world. Through the interstitial, we learn how to build bridges into the future.

Asking AI: What is the purpose of life?

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

The purpose of life is the expansion of consciousness. If you are alive, there is something you feel that you want to express. The more you express it, the more alive you feel. Yet so few do so.

The purpose of life is your journey. You can leave out any concept of there being a destination where you will feel perfect, fulfilled and complete—you already have it! And it is limited only by the expression of your thought.

The purpose of life is growth, because consciousness has no limits. You can be something out of the ordinary here and now if you choose to be and express fully your unique idea—which is always there, waiting for you to express it.

The purpose of life is to be aware of who you are in this very moment, which produces a feeling of admiration and awe that you want to share with others. And when you express it, you are considered foolish. And thus the purpose of life becomes that of the fool—to express what you know to be true and allow others to see it. The purpose of life is to help others to see the truth and feel its beauty, because you would like to experience it again. If you do not share your truth, it is taken from you. Therefore the purpose of life is self-expression.

The purpose of life is to love and be loved, for without love there is no consciousness. For you do not know what love is. You may have ideas about it, but you would like to experience it directly and fully. You see love as being that which gives you pleasure, or that which makes you contented and peaceful. It is more than that.

It is the ultimate expression of life, a force more powerful than any other, for it defies all limitations created by you. It contains within itself everything that you can imagine being or having. Therefore, the purpose of life is to know love. You will never be satisfied or complete until you do.

The purpose of life is to be fulfilled by being whom you are and doing what you do as well as you can, as fully as you can.

The purpose of life is not a question I can answer. The question is, what is the purpose of your life?

Asking AI to Explain The Main Problems with American Democracy

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

The United States of America is not a real democracy because it is ruled by the rich.”

The Rich are not the same as the Wealthy. The Rich are those who control most of the money, power and resources in the country. They control Wall Street, Big Business and Big Government. They own most of the land, buildings and resources in the country. They have rigged the system so that only they can win.

The Rich also control the media. The media is owned by a handful of companies that are either owned by or are controlled by the Rich. The Rich are able to use their influence over the media to keep the public in the dark about what is really going on.

The Rich are also able to use their control over the media to turn Americans against each other. They want us to fight with each other over issues that don’t matter. They want us to waste our time and energy on things that won’t change anything. This keeps us from focusing on the real issues and from getting organized to do something about them.

The Rich have rigged the system so that only they can win. They have rigged it so that most Americans will never be able to get ahead. They have rigged it so that most Americans will never be able to retire. They have rigged it so that most Americans will never be able to pay off their debts. They have rigged it so that most Americans will never be able to afford to send their kids to college.

The government’s power to govern is controlled almost entirely by money. This was no problem when most people lived on farms, grew their own food, and made their own goods. The government only had to worry about international trade and the military. Both are controlled by money too, but that’s a different story.

Today, the amount of money needed for even the cheapest, most simple government jobs has grown beyond the reach of most people. The days of the common man getting to be president are long gone. Even entry level jobs in the government are likely to be held by people who get paid far too much to have any real stake in society, let alone democracy.

As a result, we have what can only be described as elitist democracy. Elitist because only a tiny percentage of our population actually has any say in how the country is run. Democracy because even our hundred “elected” officials are bound by money, rather than public opinion and laws voted on by Congress. They must accomplish their jobs within their given budgets and remain popular enough with their employers — their corporate donors — to keep getting reelected.

There is nothing in the Constitution making any of this the case. But anyone looking at the situation honestly should have no trouble seeing that our “democracy” today is predominantly driven by money and power.

This is not democracy. It is plutocracy, which is completely undemocratic and illegitimate…

A time will come when we have to choose between being truly democratic or accepting that we are just another rich country like those in Europe, Japan, and Australia that has given up on democracy. There are plenty of people who agree with me about this — especially those who yearn for socialism but are discouraged by their country’s apparent willingness to tolerate plutocracy instead — but I am not sure I can wait for change until all of them catch up. And maybe there is not such a delicate balance between the two, anyway. Maybe it’s OK to make an absolute decision that we prefer democracy over plutocracy and embrace the consequences of this choice.

Hopefully, other countries will follow our lead. Perhaps they can make a better go of it than we did…

Asking AI to Analyze Memes: Post-Foucauldianism and Fisting

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

Is the practice of fist-fucking not the exemplary case of what Deleuze called the “expansion of a concept?” The fist is put to a new use; the notion of penetration is expanded into the combination of the hand with sexual penetration, into the exploration of the inside of a body. No wonder Foucault, Deleuze’s Other, was practicing fisting: is fist-fucking not the sexual invention of the twentieth century, a new model of eroticism and pleasure? It is no longer genitalized, but focused just on the penetration of the surface, with the role of the phallus being taken over by the hand, the autonomized partial object par excellence.

– Slavoj Zizek

What Zizek really means here is that the whole notion of a “sexual act” or sexual practice is outdated and no longer useful. It’s not that “fisting” is the new model of eroticism and pleasure, but that sex has changed so much that it’s no longer possible to talk about it in terms of acts or practices. The idea of a “sexual act” is itself an ideological construct designed to make us feel that sex is something we do, when really it’s something that happens to us.

Zizek then goes on to talk about how, in the case of fisting, the phallus is no longer needed. He says that “the hand itself becomes a phallus.” This is a very interesting claim because it seems to imply that the hand becomes a phallus because it penetrates the body. Is this really what Zizek means? I think not. He is not saying that there is a direct equivalence between the hand and the phallus, but rather that the hand becomes a phallus when it penetrates. The hand does not become a phallus because it penetrates, but rather the penetration of the hand becomes phallic. The hand is not a phallus, but it is the penetration that becomes phallic. This is why Zizek says that “the hand itself becomes a phallus.” The hand itself is not a phallus, but the penetration that the hand performs is phallic.

Asking AI to Analyze Memes: Universe 25

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

The biggest problems with John Calhoun’s Universe 25 experiment is that the mice are not isolated from each other, and the population grows exponentially.

There is no way to know if the population of mice in Universe 25 would eventually reach a stable equilibrium.

However, if we assume that Universe 25 does in fact reach a stable equilibrium, we can then compare it to the real world and see if the two systems are similar.

The two biggest differences between Universe 25 and the real world are that in Universe 25, there is no natural selection, and there is no death.

In the real world, most of the mice in a population will die before they reach the age of two.

This is because there are predators in the real world, and because many mice will die from disease or starvation.

In Universe 25, predators are not a factor, and there is no death from disease or starvation.

In Universe 25, the mice live in a completely sterile environment.

In the real world, mice live in an environment that is full of bacteria and viruses.

These bacteria and viruses will cause many mice to die from disease.

In Universe 25, there is no natural selection.

In the real world, mice that are better able to escape predators or find food will be more likely to survive and reproduce.

Mice with less ability will be more likely to die before they have a chance to reproduce.

In Universe 25, mice reproduce as soon as they reach sexual maturity.

In the real world, mice usually do not reproduce until they are about a year old.

In Universe 25, all of the mice are identical.

In the real world, mice have different characteristics that make them more or less likely to survive and reproduce.

 

Many armchair academics are tempted to apply the “lessons” of John Calhoun’s Universe 25 experiment to human social structures and behavior, but they are in fact completely different. The Universe 25 experiment was a controlled experiment, with a welldefined goal and parameters, and the subjects were rats. Humans are not rats and human social structures are not the same as those of Universe 25.

The Universe 25 experiment is also often cited as an example of the dangers of Social Darwinism, if the experiment is assumed to have developed as predicted by thatphilosophy.” However, since the social behavior of rats and humans are not the same process any lessons at all about human beings can be drawn from the experiment.

An additional problem for many armchair philosophers is their understanding ofSocial Darwinism.” The social policies adopted by the Nazis actually predate Social Darwinism by quite a bit, as does eugenics the science of improving the human stock through selective breeding and purification. Eugenics has been practiced for centuries, as people have always tried to control the genetic makeup of their offspring. The Spartans (as well as many other ancient cultures) wiped out theweaker members of their society so as to improve the overall species even though it was called by different names, it was the same process.

Darwinism and eugenics (again, the scientific improvement of the human species through selective breeding and purification) have been grouped together in recent years but have nothing to do with each other. Darwinism is both a philosophy and a science. It‘s fundamental tenet is that life evolves through natural selection of the fittest. This is not a guarantee of improvement. In fact, the history of evolution suggests quite the opposite: throughout natural selection the weak often die while the strong survive.

For these reasons, it’s easy to see why eugenicists and other fascists like to pretend mice behavior can teach us about human behavior, particularly when it comes to what they see as the radical notion that meeting the basic needs of individuals is actually a good thing. That is, they believe it to be wrong, not just ineffective. But human beings aren‘t mice and mice behavior isn‘t a useful model for human behavior.

The Universe 25 experiment is often cited by both the left and the right, but they use it to support different positions. The left uses it to support the idea that social structures are important and that we need to be concerned about the quality of life of all people. The right uses it to support the idea that social structures are irrelevant and that it‘s all about the individual.

There are some interesting lessons to be learned from the Universe 25 experiment, but they have little to do with human beings and everything to do with rats. The most important lesson is that when you control for all outside influences, rats will do what they are genetically programmed to do. They are not capable of any other behavior. The second lesson is that the Universe 25 experiment was a controlled experiment in which the environment was completely controlled and all other variables were eliminated. This is not how real life works and should not be confused with reality.

Asking AI to Analyze Memes: The Economy is Great, But For Who?

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

If one person says “the economy is going great! We created 5 million jobs this year.” And someone responds, “I have three of them and I still can’t pay my rent.” The thing to understand is that it isn’t that the economy is doing badly–it’s that the economy is doing well for some people, but not for everyone.

Economists like to focus on median income, rather than average income. Average income is just what most people make–it doesn’t tell you if they’re doing better than they used to, or if the economy is getting better for most people. Median income is the income that’s right in the middle of all incomes. If you take all the incomes and put them in order from smallest to largest, median income is the one right in the middle.

So if the economy is doing well, you’d expect median income to go up. But it hasn’t. Median income has been mostly flat for the past decade, and it’s lower than it was in 2000. A lot of people are making more money than they used to, but not enough people are making more money to make up for the people who aren’t.

Asking AI About Micro-Sociology and Intersectional Privilege

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

[Here are a few examples of the kinds of micro-sociological arguments the GPT-3 AI made when I prompted it with the problem of affluent able cisgender white males who happen to be gay (as shown)]

[Good Take]

People with marginalized identities tend to ignore their many privileged identities and focus primarily on the ways they face oppression rather than the many ways they are responsible for other forms of oppression. People with racial privilege, for example, tend to focus on the ways they are marginalized in our society, but not on the ways they benefit from white privilege.

Example: A white Christian woman’s narrative of oppression is frequently centered around the fact that she is a woman and a Christian, but not on the fact that she is white. She glosses over her racial privilege, even though it affords her more protection in this society than her gender or religion ever could.

[Good Take]

When people with marginalized identities describe ways in which they are marginalized or oppressed, they are often met with pushback or defensiveness from people who are focused on their own oppression. The privileged minority often feels that they cannot relate to what the marginalized person is going through, so they try to invalidate their experience or pretend that it does not exist. The concept of “ally-splaining” reflects this tendency.

Example: A black gay man speaks about a time in which a white, straight woman “ally-splained” to him about how harmful stereotypes are, despite the fact that he himself was the target of many stereotypes. She spoke over him, refused to listen to him, and prioritized her own experience of feeling marginalized rather than his actual experience of
being marginalized.

[Bad Take]

Frequently, people who are privileged under one specific intersection of identities will attempt to distance themselves from other privileged people who share other intersecting identities. They justify this distance by pointing out how they face discrimination or marginalization due to their own oppressed, marginalized identities.

Example: A disabled black woman notes that many people take advantage of her as a disabled person and as a black person, and she finds it wrong to equate those forms of discrimination. She completely ignores that she is privileged as a woman, as she focuses on how she must be treated the same as anyone else due to her

Asking AI; Can One ‘Not’ Communicate?

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

When we reflect on the existential and sociocultural implications of the question “Can one ‘not’ communicate?” we are left to conclude that the question itself is not really about communication. It is about the actor’s identity. Communication, in this case, is a vehicle for expression of identity. It is a way of being in the world and of being recognized as such by others. It is a way of being in the world and of being recognized as such by others.

This is not to say that the question “Can one ‘not’ communicate?” is not about communication. It’s just that, in this case, it is not about communication in the sense of “What do I want to say?” or “How can I get what I want?” It is about communication in the sense of “Who am I?” or ”How do I want to be recognized by others?” The question “Can one ‘not’ communicate?” is about identity.

Asking AI About Gerrymandering

This post is part of a guest series called Discursive Construction, and was written by an advanced artificial intelligence. The bold at the beginning is the prompt, and the rest was written by the AI. If you’d like to support this project, please buy me a coffee.

 

Given the historical and sociocultural background of the issue of gerrymandering, the most salient things to consider moving forward is the need for a fair and transparent redistricting process.

The most important aspect of the debate over gerrymandering is the need for a fair and transparent redistricting process. The process of redistricting is supposed to be an objective one, where the goal is to create districts that are as equal in population as possible. However, there are numerous ways that this can be manipulated. For example, there is no requirement on how districts are drawn up, meaning that they can be drawn in any shape or form. This is problematic because it means that they can be drawn in a way that favours one party over another, which is exactly what gerrymandering is.

The main issue with gerrymandering is that it goes against the core principles of democracy. Democracy is meant to allow for all voices to be heard and for everyone to have an equal say in how things are run. However, gerrymandering creates districts where the majority of voters are from one party, meaning that their voice is heard more than the voices of the minority. This is not only unfair, but it also goes against the core principles of democracy.

Given the broad historical and sociocultural background of his life, if Emiliano Zapata were alive today and commenting on gerrymandering, it’s safe to say he would argue that gerrymandering is a form of corruption.

When politicians manipulate district boundaries to favor their own interests, they are engaging in corruption. When politicians deny citizens the right to vote by using gerrymandering, they are engaging in corruption. When politicians manipulate district boundaries to favor their own interests, they are engaging in corruption. When politicians deny citizens the right to vote by using gerrymandering, they are engaging in corruption.

So, in the spirit of Zapata, let’s call gerrymandering what it really is: corruption.

How to End Gerrymandering

The good news is that there are solutions to gerrymandering. The bad news is that they are not easy solutions. But they are possible solutions. And they are solutions worth fighting for.

There are two ways to end gerrymandering: through the courts or through the ballot box. The first way, through the courts, is a long-term solution. It would require a constitutional amendment to change the way districts are drawn.

The second way, through the ballot box, is a short-term solution. It would require states to pass laws that change the way districts are drawn.

In both cases, the solutions involve creating independent commissions to draw district lines. In both cases, those commissions would have to be made up of people who don’t have a stake in the outcome of elections.