State of the Union: An AI Point of View

Look. I’m not a super politically charged person. I don’t really watch the news. I vote when I feel like I should. I’m a registered independent. Not because I can’t decide which party I tend to agree with, but because the two party system is to blame for so much of the ick in the US government and at some point a surprisingly nice lady behind bullet proof glass took my new drivers license photo and asked if I wanted to join the blue team or the red team and it made me a little sick to think we only have two options so I said no thanks.

Blue team or red team is pretty much the whole picture these days.

Almost.

Love or hate AI, it has some incredible uses, and it’s lack of political bias is pretty appealing.

I was in session this week with a non-profit in Louisville. At the top of their issues list was a growing concern around what language they are allowed to include on their website, in marketing, and in grant proposals due to the on-going language war being waged in the white house.

They turned me on to an article recently published by the New York Times compiling the growing list of words and phrases that have been ‘flagged’ to be limited or avoided.

The 197 item list is absurd.

if you don’t believe me, here are just a few words that made the list:

1. Black

2. female

3. equality

4. racism

5. injustice

6. pollution

7. Gulf of Mexico

8. commercial sex worker

I included number 8 because I like to imagine someone’s passionate plea to the oval office to make sure it wasn’t just “sex worker” but specifically “COMMERICAL sex worker”. Honestly I’m not sure what that is.

What the shit.

I don’t want to copy the whole list here, but if you’re curious just respond to this email and I’ll reply with the whole thing.

What does the AI think?

It is impossible not to apply whatever political bias I have to the list. It’s natural human nonsense, but I’m a naturally nonsensical human, so what can I do. 🤷‍♂️

Fortunately, we have semi-sentient robot friends.

The results of this exploration were so interesting horrifying that I’ve copied the whole thing here for your reading pleasure.

I know the whole shtick of New Nouns is that it isn’t written by AI.

This is a worthy exception.

Enjoy. Good luck.

ME: Imagine you are a time-traveling historian and anthropologist from the year 3025 who has come upon a document from 2025 listing the following words as censored from use in the government. What would you infer about the priorities of the governing body at the time of the document's writing, and what assumptions might you make about the culture at the time. Censored words: accessible activism activists advocacy … [complete list]

CHAT GPT: As a time-traveling historian from the year 3025, encountering this list of censored words from 2025 would provide profound insights into the socio-political climate and governing priorities of that time. Here are my key inferences and assumptions:

1. The Governing Body Prioritized Control Over Discourse

The sheer breadth of this list suggests a regime deeply invested in shaping public discourse. By banning terms related to social justice, diversity, equity, inclusion, and environmentalism, the governing body likely sought to suppress discussions on these issues, signaling an authoritarian or highly conservative shift.

2. Systemic Erasure of Identity and Marginalized Groups

Many of these words pertain to race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability. The removal of terms like BIPOC, LGBTQ, nonbinary, pronouns, transgender, racial justice, and health equity suggests an active effort to erase marginalized identities from official discourse. This could indicate:

• A government seeking to reinforce a singular, dominant identity (possibly patriarchal, heteronormative, and racially exclusive).

• An attempt to delegitimize the struggles and existence of historically marginalized communities.

3. Suppression of Social and Political Activism

Words like activism, advocacy, protest, intersectionality, oppression, injustice, and allyship indicate that the governing body sought to dismantle organized efforts for change. This suggests:

• A crackdown on civil rights movements.

• Criminalization or delegitimization of social justice efforts.

• An effort to silence dissent by removing the vocabulary needed to discuss it.

4. Rejection of Science and Environmental Responsibility

The banning of climate crisis, clean energy, environmental quality, and climate science strongly implies:

• An administration opposed to environmental regulation.

• Potential alignment with industrial or fossil fuel interests.

• A likely disregard for global climate agreements and scientific consensus.

5. Restriction of Gender and Reproductive Autonomy

The censorship of affirming care, assigned at birth, gender identity, pregnant people, people + uterus, chestfeed suggests:

• A denial of transgender and nonbinary identities.

• A strict adherence to binary, biological essentialism.

• Possible restriction or rollback of reproductive rights.

6. Disregard for Economic and Social Inequality

By banning words like inequality, inequities, discrimination, disparity, underprivileged, the government likely aimed to:

• Prevent discourse on wealth and social class divisions.

• Avoid responsibility for economic policies exacerbating inequality.

• Suppress conversations about institutional reform.

7. Possible Nationalist or Ethnocentric Policies

The inclusion of indigenous community, Native American, multicultural, cultural differences, tribal hints at:

• A push for cultural homogeneity.

• Potential erasure of Indigenous rights and identities.

• A rejection of multiculturalism in favor of nationalistic rhetoric.

8. Hostility Toward Intellectual and Academic Discourse

Censoring implicit bias, confirmation bias, sociocultural, systemic, polarization implies:

• A rejection of academic frameworks explaining social dynamics.

• A move to discredit scholarly discussions on power, oppression, and justice.

• An effort to delegitimize disciplines like sociology, gender studies, and critical race theory.

Conclusion: A Society in Repression, Not Progress

This document paints a picture of a government attempting to erase conversations about justice, identity, science, and advocacy, likely in service of maintaining power. This level of control over language suggests an era of cultural regression, political oppression, and ideological rigidity. The very existence of such a list hints at widespread resistance, as suppression of language typically occurs when those in power feel threatened by the ideas being expressed.

As a historian, I would mark this as a pivotal moment in 21st-century governance—one where an attempted rollback of progress likely led to fierce societal pushback. The ultimate outcome? That remains for further excavation. 🕰️🔍

ME: What other times in known history resemble this

CHAT GPT: There have been multiple historical periods where regimes or governing bodies attempted to control language and suppress discourse in ways similar to what is implied by this list from 2025. These moments in history often coincide with authoritarian rule, ideological extremism, or periods of significant social and political upheaval. Here are some of the most notable parallels:

1. The McCarthy Era (1940s–1950s, United States)

What Happened?
During the Red Scare, Senator Joseph McCarthy and the U.S. government launched a campaign to root out alleged communists in government, academia, and Hollywood. This led to the blacklisting of individuals and the suppression of terms associated with leftist politics, labor movements, and civil rights.

Parallels to 2025 List:

• Suppression of words like activism, advocacy, social justice, oppression, and inequality would have fit well in McCarthyist America, where terms linked to socialism or Marxism were equated with disloyalty.

• Blacklisting and censorship of professors, writers, and artists who discussed economic disparity and racial justice.

• Fear-driven policies that discouraged open political discourse.

2. Nazi Germany (1933–1945, Germany)

What Happened?
The Nazi regime under Adolf Hitler engaged in extreme censorship, controlling language and banning words or ideas associated with democracy, Jewish identity, political opposition, and intellectual freedom.

Parallels to 2025 List:

• Suppression of terms like diversity, inclusion, cultural competence, and racial justice aligns with Nazi efforts to promote an ethnonationalist, racially "pure" society.

• Words related to gender identity and LGBTQ communities being banned mirrors Nazi criminalization of LGBTQ individuals and forced adherence to binary gender roles.

• The banning of political, oppression, and activism aligns with the Nazi suppression of dissent and democratic movements.

3. The Soviet Union Under Stalin (1920s–1953, USSR)

What Happened?
Stalin’s USSR was notorious for controlling public discourse, banning certain words, rewriting history, and executing or imprisoning those who spoke against the party line. The government labeled ideological opponents as "enemies of the people" and sought to eliminate bourgeois, capitalist, and counter-revolutionary language.

Parallels to 2025 List:

• Censorship of words like privilege, oppression, systemic, and bias is reminiscent of the USSR's denial of structural problems in Soviet society.

• Restriction of terms like advocacy, activism, and human rights aligns with the criminalization of dissenters.

• The Soviet attempt to erase ethnic and national identities (e.g., forced Russification) parallels the banning of indigenous community, cultural differences, and identity in this hypothetical 2025 scenario.

4. The Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966–1976, China)

What Happened?
Mao Zedong led a massive effort to purge "bourgeois" elements, eliminate intellectualism, and ensure ideological purity. Books were banned, professors were humiliated, and certain words and phrases were prohibited to enforce strict adherence to communist doctrine.

Parallels to 2025 List:

• Suppression of diversity, equity, and inclusion aligns with the Cultural Revolution’s rejection of any identity that deviated from the party’s vision.

• Terms related to gender and sexuality being erased is similar to how the Chinese Communist Party forced conformity in personal identity.

• The ban on clean energy and climate science echoes China’s historical prioritization of industrialization over environmental concerns.

5. Apartheid South Africa (1948–1994, South Africa)

What Happened?
The apartheid government strictly controlled speech to suppress opposition and maintain white supremacy. Discussion of racial justice, equality, and civil rights was aggressively censored.

Parallels to 2025 List:

• The removal of race, discrimination, BIPOC, Black, and privilege is eerily similar to apartheid-era South Africa, where acknowledging racial injustice was itself a crime.

• Censoring allyship, activism, and protest reflects how the apartheid government criminalized anti-apartheid activists like Nelson Mandela.

• The government’s rejection of equity and diversity aligns with its goal of maintaining an exclusive power structure.

6. Book Burnings and Indexes of Forbidden Words (Various Religious and Political Regimes, Throughout History)

Throughout history, religious and authoritarian regimes have compiled lists of forbidden words and ideas, from the Catholic Church’s Index Librorum Prohibitorum (list of banned books) to medieval rulers burning texts that challenged their authority.

Parallels to 2025 List:

• The systematic erasure of gender identity, feminism, and LGBTQ+ terms mirrors past religious bans on discussions of sexuality and nontraditional gender roles.

• The removal of climate science and clean energy echoes historical rejections of science that contradicted political or religious beliefs (e.g., Galileo’s persecution).

Conclusion: A Recurring Pattern of Repression

The censorship reflected in this 2025 document closely mirrors historical patterns of authoritarian control. Governments that seek to suppress language related to identity, activism, and science tend to:

1. Maintain power by silencing opposition.

2. Erase marginalized groups from public discourse.

3. Control history and public perception by limiting vocabulary.

4. Suppress scientific and social progress to maintain ideological purity.

If this document were real, it would mark a critical inflection point—one where a government feared the power of words so much that it had to ban them outright. Historically, such actions often lead to resistance, underground movements, and, eventually, collapse of the oppressive regime.

The question for historians of the future would be: Did society fight back? 🔍

That final line is worth ending on.

Did society fight back?

We’ll see.

be good

z