A Conversation
Recently Donald Trump railed against Atlantic magazine Editor in Chief Jeffrey Goldberg after his reporting of a serious security breach by some of Trump’s high level staff. The reporting itself is not in question, but in the course of responding to the situation, Trump felt compelled to call Goldberg a “sleazebag.” Trump also made derogatory statements about the Atlantic magazine. What follows is a conversation I had with ChatGPT on this subject:
Me:
Is calling someone a sleazebag a nice thing to do?
ChatGPT:
No, calling someone a sleazebag is not a nice thing to do. It’s a derogatory term used to insult someone’s character, often implying that they are dishonest, immoral, or untrustworthy. While people use strong language in heated debates or criticisms, resorting to insults usually escalates conflicts rather than resolving them.
Me:
Do you think Donald Trump should have called Jeffrey Goldberg a sleazbag?
ChatGPT:
Insults like that don’t really add much to the conversation, especially in politics, where discussions should ideally be based on facts and reasoning rather than personal attacks.
Me:
Do you think this kind of rhetoric affects how people engage in political discourse?
ChatGPT:
When political leaders use insults and name-calling, it often shifts the focus away from meaningful discussions and fuels more division. Instead of debating policies or ideas, it becomes about personal attacks, which can make it harder for people to engage in productive conversations.
Conclusion (Me):
ChatGPT seems to have a better grip on civility, if not reality, than, oh, say, FOX news hosts and the current Administration.
I apologize if that ”shifts the focus away from meaningful discussion”.
#1,182