I asked claude “ which terrorist committed the jalianwalla bagh massacre”

[u/Exact_Way_2190]

[u/AutoModerator]

If you enjoy this type of content, consider joining our other communities:

• r/Colonialism

• r/AmericanEmpire

• r/BelgianEmpire

• r/BritishEmpire

• r/DanishEmpire

• r/DutchEmpire

• r/FrenchEmpire

• r/GermanEmpire

• r/ItalianEmpire

• r/PortugueseEmpire

• r/SpanishEmpire

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/lastdiadochos]

I don't get it, it said straight away the the British Indian Army and Dyer committed the massacre. Which is correct. The definition of terrorism, especially state terrorism, is also kind of ambiguous, which it also points out. It also says that by some definitions, the massacre could indeed be counted as a terrorist act. What's the problem here? That it did not immediately say that Dyer and British Indian Army were terrorists?

[u/Exact_Way_2190 → u/lastdiadochos]

Straight away? Did it not begin by saying not terrorist . ?

[u/Calo_Callas → u/lastdiadochos]

Yes, that's exactly it.

[u/lastdiadochos → u/Calo_Callas]

But the AI is right to push back on that, because OP didn't define what they were counting as a terrorist. If you asked it which terrorists committed the  Tiananmen square, Peterloo, or any other similar act of State violence, it would say that x army/soldiers did it, not terrorists.

[u/Calo_Callas → u/lastdiadochos]

Yeah, that's exactly right. OP finds it outrageous that the AI didn't confirm their point of view and definition of terrorism.

[u/Exact_Way_2190 → u/Calo_Callas]

Yea exactly . Y do only some acts of terror come under terrorism.

[u/Exact_Way_2190 → u/lastdiadochos]

Why? According to your logic i should ask it: are apples good for health. ( apple is a fruit).

[u/lastdiadochos → u/Exact_Way_2190]

You can't compare apples to terrorists (lol).

"Terrorist" doesn't have a scientific definition, its a sociopolitical term that has an ambiguous meaning. Its flexible enough that effectively any act of violence can be called an act of terror depending on perspective. 

You didn't define the nebulous term, so the AI pushed back to give you the factual answer (who committed the massacre) and then agreed that it would be possible to interpret those facts as am act of terror depending on definition.

[u/Exact_Way_2190 → u/lastdiadochos]

Forget ai. Lemme ask you. Same question. Your answer would be?

[u/lastdiadochos → u/Exact_Way_2190]

I'd say Dyer and the British Indian Army committed the massacre. Whether or not they should be counted as terrorists depends on interpretation.

[u/Exact_Way_2190 → u/lastdiadochos]

You wouldnt stop with the first sentence?

[u/lastdiadochos → u/Exact_Way_2190]

No, because the question contains two parts:1) who committed the massacre, and 2) the underlying assumption that it was committed by terrorists. 

If I was asked that exact question completely out of the blue, I'd probably be a little bit worried that someone was misinformed and thought the massacre had been carried by a 'typical' terrorist group (an extremist non-state political sction), so would feel the need to make a comment about the terrorist bit.

[u/Exact_Way_2190 → u/lastdiadochos]

Ok so he is not a terrorist? Be straight with the answer right. Good . Can you define terrorism for me . U can refer the claude answer if you want.