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: 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 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.

Asking AI About Startup Culture

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 thing no one seems to get about the culture around tech startups is that it’s a new culture. It grew out of a new kind of commerce, a different politics, a new economic ethos. New modes of commerce drive new modes of governance. New modes of governance drive new kinds of politics and citizenship. It’s not that this culture is better or worse than the one it supplanted, but they are different. They have different values and therefore have different products.

In traditional legacy businesses, a stable culture is a good thing, a way to ensure loyalty and continuity. In a startup, a stable culture is dangerous. It’s an obstacle to the most important goal of all: survival. If you want to be quixotic enough to start a company, you have to embrace being able to start from scratch. You have to be prepared to think on your feet and learn what rules you need as you go along, because more than likely they don’t already exist.

The values of some members of this culture are dangerous outside the context of the startup world. I’m not talking about the norms of the industry, which are disruptive and disruptive innovation is our business. I’m talking about values that are counterproductive to building a good society, like the ethic of Libertarian free-market absolutism. I’m talking about the highest valuation being the winner at all costs rather than making a great product, which can lead to infighting to “win” that competition, not collaborate on creating a much better world for everyone. I’m talking about the engineering mindset that solutionism can solve society’s problems if they are just aware of them, without any critical eyes to assess whether the solution is effective or even desirable. I’m talking about the deficit of faith in our innate creativity that makes us think we can’t do it on our own, that we need to be saved from ourselves by the same heroes who gave us algorithms.

Big Brother used to be how governments kept watch on their people by installing CCTV cameras and soliciting denunciations and infiltrating religious and political groups. Now it’s app developers and data scientists who don’t even know we’re being watched. Big Data knows what we think and how we feel and what we buy and who we talk to. It knows every time someone wants to know where they were on a given day. It knows our passwords, it knows how much money we’re worth, it knows where the terrorists are and who your friends are. It knows what we read, what we listen to, what we watch, and how much money we make — and that’s just LinkedIn. It doesn’t yet know what we did last night, but it’s getting there.

Social networks are public utilities, but they are also companies that pay taxes and produce profits, so their investors want them to focus mostly on growth. Companies with a lot of venture capital want to grow, want a bigger valuation, a bigger exit. The only way you can do that is by tracking more users, having more advertisers pay more to reach them, selling more products to those users that they don’t need or want. These companies will track every possible thing they can, because the more they know about you, the more valuable it makes them (and their shareholders).

I grew up believing that big corporations were soulless, that corporate culture had nothing whatsoever to do with personal values because corporate values were all about making money and dictating behavior, sanitizing individuality and ruling with fear. Now I see that the real evil is the evangelical capitalist mandate to grow and grow and grow and “move fast and break things.” This is not mere growth. This is cancer.

I’m no social conservative, but I do believe that civilization means building the structures of society that make it more possible. And I’ve come to believe that the best, most important form of politics is a good society, where individuals can flourish. And a good society is not a place where any company can track me from cradle to grave, from inbox to Google Glass™. A good society preserves human individuality, so people are free to be who they are rather than being the data they produce.

Asking AI For A Simple Model of the Modern World

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 we combine the perspectives of foucauldian discourse analysis, interstitial sociology, fourth-dimensionalism, and marxist theory, then it’s possible to create a simple model of the modern world; one which explains the underlying structure of our society.

The basic premise of this model is that the world is actually a work of art, that it’s a piece of fiction, that it’s a narrative. This is what fourth-dimensionalism tells us, and this is what interstitial sociology tells us.

If the world is a piece of fiction, then it’s a narrative with a plot. And if it has a plot, then it has characters. And if it has characters, then they have names.