This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I (non-native English speaker) found ChatGPT's critique helpful with a recent application letter. I will grant you that it was a bit more formal than your choice of text, though -- I did not talk about drinking anyone's bathwater, time will tell if that was the correct choice or not.
Most of its suggestions were minor stylistic things (using a gerund instead of an infinitive in certain phrases, avoiding repetition of word constructs) which seemed to me to be improvements.
I will grant you that an application letter is probably a more central example of most of its training data than that perv diary entry -- it is a continuous text, for one thing. Also, unlike that diary entry, I did not start out with a (presumably well-formulated) draft in a foreign language which I translated to English and then asked GPT to correct my English without access to the original (which from what I can tell is what happened with the diary). Instead, I wrote me thoughts down in English, sometimes awkwardly, and relied on it to put them into a smoother form.
I guess I haven't seen the letter itself, but I think this is solidly covered by my point: By critiquing things that aren’t wrong, learners who follow blindly will lose their voice.
The final edited work may or may not be "objectively better" but it will certainly be more "chatgpt-ish."
I think that ChatGPT will suggest edits which will make a draft by a non-native speaker sound both more smooth and more ChatGPTish, in pretty much the same way as an American/British editor will suggest edits that will make the text sound more natural but also more American/British English.
Of course, if I were to prompt "please restate the content in the following paragraph in your own words", then I would get something which sounds a lot like ChatGPT.
While my active English is a bit limited, I think my passive English is rather good. I have read a lot of stuff written by native speakers and trust myself to generally pick between two proposed phrasings.
For what it is worth, ChatGPT did not try to introduce a single em dash for me. I took most of its stylistic suggestions (often along the lines of "use gerund here" or "you just used that phrase two sentences ago" or "oops, you forgot to finish this sentence") and rejected most suggestions around tone appropriateness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link