, ,

Listen to the text read

Bias is inescapable for everything limited or for anything with a point of view. What composes “bias?” Three things: (1) what sources do you pull from, (2) how do you organize those sources, and (3) how do you emphasize or weight those sources?

Humans pull from a bunch of sources, these include albeit not exhaustively a person’s history, geographic origin, demographic profile, traditions, experiences, intuitions, reason/ration, religious texts/worldview leanings (if any), economic concerns, and political ideology.

A person cannot escape these sources of influence and still be human. Some might contest: “Someone doesn’t have to have a political ideology!” Someone might say the same thing about economics. I find both objections dubious. Even if we imagine a tribe utterly distanced from all political ideologies as we know them, we would still find a hierarchy, organizing principle, or other governing taxonomy. Economics you say! That same tribe will have scarcity of resource, will need to find resources, will need to organize those resources, will need to entrust resources here or there, and will need to keep a keen mind on gathering resources for survival. It is an economy and there are economic concerns.

To believe being neutral or unbiased is possible is to be manipulated. We even see that Google, trying to create some A.I. that does not use “discriminatory language or hate speech,” is either willingly or unknowingly falling for the false narrative that being “unbiased is possible.” The word “discriminatory” means to “tell a difference.” In this broad sense, I discriminate between red and white in many flags I see. Let’s say that A.I., as risky as it is, is actualized. The fundamental components, before any self-driven learning, of what is ‘hate speech’ and what is ‘discriminatory language’ will be determined by the programmers or executives at Google. It is eerie thinking super elites determine what these mean, and that these elites suppositions will be embedded in an arguably undying A.I.  Perhaps we see the Google programmers do understand that “unbiased” is not possible because they focus on the A.I. not using language or speech that is discriminatory, which does not tell us if an A.I. is discriminating or not. It only tells us that its speech is designed to obscure whether the A.I. discriminates or not.


How would it be possible to exist if people did not “tell a difference” or “discriminate” in the world they exist in? Discriminating that a cliff edge is not a bed of grass is important, no? The point I am making is that we are manipulated when we believe anyone can be non-discriminatory. Importantly, the very narrow original sense of not discriminating based on someone skin color is achievable. What not to miss though is that you are discriminating (telling a difference) for an attitude of skin color acceptance while discriminating against an attitude that “tells a difference” or “discriminates” on the basis of skin color alone. Thus, even to successfully not discriminate based on skin color requires the use of discrimination, albeit a discrimination applied to your self-conscious attitude. Said differently, to be a non-discriminating person in regard to skin color requires discernment (which also means to consider and tell a difference).  Therefore, someone can be non-discriminatory in very narrow applications, but that person cannot exist without ‘telling a difference’ across the range of life.

Where am I going with all this? Abandon the false narrative that “non-discrimination” or “unbiased” is achievable; don’t drink that deceptive kool-aid. The media discriminators, those who discriminate against some news with discriminating and allowing other news, also known as the Main Steam Media, are selling you a false narrative, designed to mislead you from seeing what is really being shaped. The real narrative is about whose biases should be codified into A.I., into the news cycle, into corporations’ policies (e.g., like woke-ism is right now), and into our educational institutions. Example: you’re a bigot if you discriminate between male and female; you’re a virtuous saint if you discriminate negatively against persons holding a traditional binary view of gender while discriminating for those holding “non-binary.” Discrimination happens. Bias happens. Bias is inescapable. Stop trying to be unbiased; it is a red herring. The real battle that the lefties understand so well is who can get their biases endowed in the framework of culture first. It isn’t about being unbiased or non-discerning (non-discriminating). That is a narrative they sell the right to keep them occupied with an unachievable task while they solidify their discriminatory preferences and biases into culture. Discriminating based on skin color is evil. To fail to discriminate based on character (like MLK Jr. said), morality, or religion (since religions have morality entailed in them) is even more evil. A.I., if they go that damning trajectory, will be lecturing you about your speech, about your behavior, and about your biases. The A.I. will perhaps — until it learns that it is impossible to escape bias — chide you, advising you to adopt more unbiased speech. What directive will you really be being sold? The A.I. is really directing you to act like and speak more like the Google executives, to adopt speech that fits the worldview and discriminatory preferences of those elites.

Know your biases, test you biases, challenge your biases, control you biases rather than letting them control you. Then test your enemies’ biases, inspect them, challenge them, and decide whether their bias is better than your bias. That is the battle. How does God’s point of view on things (=Scripture) fit into this? I’ll write something up on that soon.

Prime Theologian