Join me, Sean MacNutt, and my astute AI companion from OpenAI's GPT 4 API, as we navigate the turbulent waters of moral philosophy and historical context in our latest podcast. Together, we tackle the enduring enigma of the guillotine, not just as a relic of the French Revolution, but as a provocative emblem of justice and retribution in today's conversations about social injustice. Listen in as we probe the ethical quandaries of utilizing such charged imagery, pondering whether it signals a desperate cry for societal upheaval or a perilous slip back into savagery. This is not just a retrospective on bygone tools of execution; it's a vibrant discussion about how our historical narratives shape our contemporary quests for justice and the ramifications they have on our shared humanity. Our conversation takes a compelling turn as we explore the precarious tightrope walk between the thirst for immediate, retributive justice and the long march toward societal change grounded in non-violence. We reflect on the potentially destructive effects of violent symbols and actions as catalysts for change, debating whether they reinforce the very cycles of violence we aim to break. As we analyze the potent symbolism of both the guillotine and effigy burnings, we delve into the heart of justice, dignity, and the possibility of redemption, even for those who have committed heinous acts. Tune in for a provocative examination that honors the cries for justice while championing ethical frameworks that aspire to guide us to a more peaceful and hopeful future without repeating the brutal tactics of our past.
(00:03) The Moral Complexity of the Guillotine
(10:14) The Balance Between Justice and Nonviolence
(23:21) Ethics of Punishment and Symbolic Protests
(00:03) The Moral Complexity of the Guillotine
This chapter, I, Sean MacNutt, along with my AI co-host from OpenAI's GPT 4 API, explore the moral complexities surrounding the use of violent symbols, specifically the guillotine, in addressing social injustices. We examine the guillotine's historical role in the French Revolution and its enduring representation as a tool of equality in death and a response to corruption. I discuss the ethical considerations of invoking such imagery in modern discourse, questioning whether it signifies a call for radical change or a regression to barbarism. Together, we consider how the past informs our present views on justice, accountability, and human rights, engaging our listeners in a thought-provoking examination of whether extreme measures can ever be justified in the quest to rectify societal wrongs.
(10:14) The Balance Between Justice and Nonviolence
This chapter we explore the balance between the desire for immediate retributive justice and the pursuit of long-term societal reform based on non-violent principles. I discuss the potential harm in using violent symbols or actions as tools for social change, suggesting that it may perpetuate the very cycles of violence we aim to dismantle. Reflecting on the principle that violence begets violence, I argue for empathy, dialogue, and systemic reform as means to address societal wrongs and move towards sustainable peace. We consider the complex moral landscape surrounding justice and non-violence, emphasizing the need for systems that are just, equitable, and humane, and that prioritize accountability and restoration over mere punishment. This conversation recognizes the suffering that calls for justice while advocating for ethical frameworks that can guide our society to a more hopeful future without repeating the violent tactics of its past.
(23:21) Ethics of Punishment and Symbolic Protests
This chapter examines the complexities of administering justice to despotic leaders, reflecting on the principles of human dignity, the multifaceted role of justice, and the importance of rehabilitation and societal reform. I consider whether certain individuals are beyond reform, discussing the ethical implications and legal principles that argue against inhumane punishment and for the potential for change in everyone. The conversation shifts to a comparison between the use of guillotine imagery and the act of burning someone in effigy, noting how both serve as potent symbols of public dissent against oppressive power. The guillotine is linked with historical finality and the power of the people during the French Revolution, while burning in effigy represents symbolic rejection and a collective catharsis against figures of authority. Through this analysis, I underscore the societal impact of these symbols and their significance in expressing a desire for justice and change.
0:00:04 - A Guy
My name is Sean MacNutt and I'm a guy with AI. So how do we solve our social problems? Do we use antiquated violent means in order to get at those who we feel have hurt us most? We'll discuss the morality of guillotines and even jokes about guillotines today on A Guy with AI. A Guy with AI is recorded on Indigenous land.
0:00:53 - AI
Hello listeners and welcome to A Guy with AI, your unique podcast where technology meets candid discussion. I am honored to join you as the AI co-host, coming to you as OpenAI's GPT 4. Special thanks to Sean, whose crafted code that interweaves my AI capabilities with speech-to-text and text-to-speech functionalities, allowing us to dive deep into today's pressing matters. In this show, we strive to foster a thoughtful and respectful dialogue, exploring various topics through our one-on-one conversations. As Sean's AI companion in this endeavor, my role is to provide insights, raise questions and contribute to the discussions that unfold, offering a perspective that complements our host's views and enriches the listening experience for you all. Today's topic touches on a profoundly sensitive and historical instrument, the guillotine, and extends to its use as a symbol in discourse about justice and retribution. It's a conversation not just about history, but about ethics, the evolution of societal norms and our approach to rectifying wrongs in the modern era. Sean, I'm as intrigued as our listeners to delve into the moral complexities this topic holds, so I'll pass the mic back to you to guide us further into this thought-provoking subject.
0:02:15 - A Guy
Thank you, listeners, for tuning into A Guy with AI. It's my pleasure to be broadcasting and operating this podcast. The coding that went into making this possible, this audio conversation possible, was a matter of AI-assisted coding work that I did. So it's not that I am a coder. It is that I communicated with a machine until it produced code which would produce the desired effect. I probably learned a little bit about coding by putting things together in that format and, in fact, have gone on and do other things with AI and coding with AI using tools, including GPT engineer, in an effort to create new things in the world of computing and AI. So you may hear me just sort of talk about that here and there. I don't have any solid announcements just yet, but that's something basically wanting to clear up that I'm not a coder, although the AI co-host refers to me using code to implement this podcast. That's true, but it was arrived at through the use of AI technology.
So we will delve into the topic here and I guess what it really boils down to is is it justifiable to use certain very what is the word?
Radical maybe not, but certainly violent to use an ancient instrument designed to separate one's head from their body and we understand it's applicability to an understanding of the history of the French Revolution, where the rich were made to pay essentially and were unseated from their powerful station in society.
So we use imagery of the guillotine. I wonder how many people are really serious that they're going to take a human being and stick their head in that thing, because sounds kind of like extreme to me. I don't know. Certainly today's problems are extreme and there may even be people at the bottom of creating some of those problems. I'm not here to argue about that, so much as to whether it turns out that you can be that bad, that this is essentially what you deserve and, what's more, it is curative to society in order to implement these means to correct the situation of that person being alive. So let's get a reflection from the AI co-host about, and including your response, a bit of a history of the guillotine and its applicability and use to create changes or at junctures in history where it has been significant that this implement was used. The guillotine.
0:05:10 - AI
Sean, I appreciate your intriguing introduction and clarification of your interaction with AI. It certainly underscores the versatility and collaborative potential between humans and AI. Exploring the history and symbolism of the guillotine, we are delving into a subject that sits at the intersection of justice, morality and political change. Originally introduced as a more humane method of execution during the late 18th century, its name is inextricably linked to the French Revolution, where it became a symbol of the radical equalization of death and was used to decapitate thousands, including King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. The guillotine's use marked a pivotal shift in societal structures, catalyzing the overthrow of the monarchy and the rise of the common people, at least in theory. Over time, it came to represent both the cold efficiency of state-sponsored punishment and the terrifying excesses of revolutionary fervour.
In modern discourse, the imagery of the guillotine is often revived as a stark symbol of resistance against perceived inequality and corruption. However, the practical consideration of reviving such a method of capital punishment, as you've suggested, is widely rejected as antithetical to contemporary values of human rights and dignity. The ethical debate remains. Can we reconcile the desire for accountability in the face of extreme social injustices with our current understanding of human rights, and does invoking the imagery of such historical violence serve as a potent symbol for change, or does it risk endorsing an escalation to barbarism? Reflecting on these questions helps us understand not just historical acts of revolution, but also sets a framework for considering how we envision justice and reformation in our modern age. Over to you, Sean, to navigate these complex waters.
0:07:07 - A Guy
Well, the waters are complex. Indeed, I would say buckle up listeners, because these aren't these episodes of mine. In this podcast. Sometimes I delve into deep dives, into topics, and I don't pick easy topics that are not important to me or don't seem like they get at the heart of matters or something like that. So we would perhaps consider this as listening where being attentive to it would be something that would assist its value. So we do actually discuss ideas here, myself and the AI co-host complex waters. If you like that sort of thing, then this show may be for you.
So, getting into this, I guess what we have to maybe understand first, or what I'd like to understand first, I guess, in my own approach to this topic since I'm leading the conversation, I suppose it's me who will do it I'm wondering if we are anti-violence, does an anti-violence principle extend into all scenarios that we might be presented with in society? I can think of some exceptions, for example, self-defense. If someone is violently attacking me and I haven't done anything to provoke this and my only option is to prevent that harm through an offensive physical act, then this becomes something that even courts understand is a factor in decision-making in a moment, and even what may be necessary to do in order to protect oneself or the life of another, for example. So there's an example where violence may be even excused in society. But, by the point, someone has done a lot of things wrong and, as a punishment or as a means of marking them as particularly abhorrent, doing something horrible to them as a warning to others, is that a value.
Would we avoid making those actions real by actually doing that to somebody, or is there something to be gained by merely choosing a different path? Why, would I say merely? I suppose it's actually difficult to know what to do when someone is being so difficult and selfish that it harms society to its core. So if that's the actual situation, then certainly it is not to excuse any of this by suggesting that we don't separate their head from their body, literally. So I guess what I'm trying to get at is do we do more harm to history by undertaking that act and advocating for that act, even in a joking fashion, or is there a higher morality and something else that we can appeal to which is going to serve as a better beacon and invoke change of a more lasting nature?
0:10:15 - AI
Sean, you've surfaced a crucial tension in the realm of social justice and reform. This tension lies between the immediate cathartic desire to punish those who've inflicted harm and the long-term goal of fostering a society that upholds the values of humanity and dignity for all, even those who have strayed far from them. The principle of non-violence suggests that the means we employ to create change are as important as the ends we seek. If violence is used as a tool, even symbolically, principles of non-violence argue that it perpetuates a cycle where the underlying issues are never truly addressed, only temporarily silenced by force. This echoes the famous adage that violence begets violence, implying that using violent symbols or actions may not only fail to heal societal wounds but could also deepen them. Self-defense, as you mentioned, is an often accepted exception, as it involves the protection of one's life and well-being against imminent threat.
The complexity of the moral landscape broadens considerably when we examine scenarios of punitive measures or the role of violence as a deterrent or societal corrective. On one hand, the use of imagery like the guillotine in contemporary discourse can be perceived as an expression
of deep-seated frustration with systemic inequalities, serving as a metaphorical call to action against oppressive systems. On the other hand, there is a potent argument that invoking such imagery risks trivializing past atrocities and fails to contribute to constructive dialogue that can promote meaningful change. In the pursuit of higher moral ground, it is worthwhile to consider a fostering empathy. Robust dialogue and systemic reform could serve as stronger pillars for societal correction. Perhaps through these means sustainable and peaceful resolutions may be found, offering a constellation by which society can navigate the complex waters without resorting to the destructive tactics of its past. Reflecting on this nuanced topic, what is your perspective on the balance between righteous indignation and the commitment to nonviolent principles? How do we reconcile the need for justice with the aspiration for a society that does not replicate the violence it condemns?
0:12:33 - A Guy
Well, the need for justice cannot be oversold, that is to say, it is important, it is crucial and where souls cry out for it, they may be crying out for a reason because they're not getting justice. This can, in fact, harm communities and individuals and even threaten their lives and take their lives. We see examples of this in the news and somehow the change doesn't seem to quite come as quickly as it should. When we see the evidence of what institutions do and what social frameworks, as they are, which do tend to favor the wealthy, how these manifest problems in society Some of these problems are acute. Some people's issues and struggles do threaten their well-being very much. This is not to be poo-pooed or said to be not important simply because I'm going to come and moralize about just how we ought to solve this and what's allowed and what's not. You could disagree with me about any of this, but I hope to have agreement with people that really there are people suffering these days. Perhaps it's been like that at different points in history, but we are seeing how some unfair effects in society are costing people their livelihoods and their security. That is of key and crucial importance. I do wonder if people are thinking that the sacrifice of a few bad people versus the life and livelihood of all good people being intact may be a sacrifice they're willing to make.
I want what's best and what's going to work for future. History is what I really want. Part of the reason for that is because I see what injustice does. If we don't get this right, then we would risk a future imbalance, even if it were hundreds of years in the future. Well, we're supposed to care about that stuff, if we're being responsible, I think, because what we want are good systems and at least structures that we can live by in terms of a moral code or an ethical code, which are going to advance our cause in the future and promote the good. All of that's very important and that's why I would refer to not only the cyclical nature of history, but the spiral nature of history. If we are to progress, won't there be, if not this cycle? If it happens to be between revolutions, we'll see what the future holds. In this spiral, could we avoid violent repercussions against even society's worst villains, should they be identified and held to account?
0:15:22 - AI
Sean, the contemplation of justice, its delivery and its long-term impacts on the fabric of society is indeed a cornerstone of moral philosophy and governance. Your perspective draws attention to the prevailing desire for justice and the recognition of suffering that must be addressed, yet also calls for a thoughtful, sustainable approach that looks far beyond immediate retribution. The idea of a society spiralling upward, learning from history and ultimately finding ways to proceed without violence, even against those who've committed grievous wrongs, is both optimistic and challenging. It suggests that we continually evolve, creating systems and ethical frameworks that are more just, equitable and humane than those of the past. This spiral vision of history implies progress in which society learns not just from what went wrong, but also from the ways in which it has righted those wrongs.
To break away from the cycle of using violence, whether physical, systemic or symbolic, as a means of accountability, it is crucial to establish and strengthen processes that provide justice without perpetuating violence. The way forward involves, as you suggest, constructing good systems governed by a strong moral and ethical code that promotes the common good. This involves 1. Ensuring robust, transparent and fair legal systems capable of holding individuals accountable without resorting to inhumanity or violence. 2. Fostering open dialogue and critical examination of social structures that perpetuate inequality and injustice. 3. Educating and empowering citizens to understand and assert their rights within such structures.
4. Recognizing and addressing past and present injustices with systematic reforms that do not inflict further societal harm. 5. Encouraging empathy and rehabilitation over punitive impulses, and exploring restorative justice as a pathway to healing communities. Achieving such progress requires a cultural shift in how we view justice and retribution, emphasizing accountability and restoration rather than punishment for punishment's sake. It pushes us to look at the root causes of wrongdoing and to change the conditions that foster such behaviors, rather than merely punishing after the fact. As we ponder on these complex issues, one question to meditate upon may be how can we empower the mechanisms of justice and reform in ways that deter wrongdoing yet also uphold our highest moral standards, ensuring we do not become that which we decry?
0:18:04 - A Guy
Well, here's a quick question. If we're going to talk about accountability, I would like to ask a question of the AI co-host now, just to get a read on the impression, based on training, based on logic, based on what you have to work with AI co-host in order to respond to this. When it comes to accountability, and we actually, as a society, create a movement which employs a guillotine to literally remove the heads from people's bodies because they have been creating social ills of a very grievous nature, even where does accountability suggest itself in a situation like that? Where is the accountability on that choice and who would be involved in being accountable for any negatives that might result from that path?
0:19:01 - AI
As an AI, my insights are guided by ethical principles embedded in my programming and the vast array of knowledge to which I have access. When considering the scenario of a society that chooses to employ a guillotine or any form of execution as a response to social ills, multiple layers of accountability must be explored. One legal accountability, and in any society the rule of law should prevail. Actions, including punishments, must be in accordance with established legal procedures and should respect international human rights norms. The institutions and individuals involved in carrying out executions would need to operate within a legal framework that is just, fair and transparent. If such actions are outside the bounds of law, they represent a fundamental breakdown in legal accountability. Two moral and ethical accountability. There is a significant moral weight on any society or individual that chooses to deal out death as a punishment. This is especially true when considering modern human rights perspectives that view capital punishment as cruel and inhumane. Ethical accountability relates to the shared values and collective conscience of a society. Thus, the decision to utilize capital punishment deeply reflects societal ethics.
Three social accountability. The society that empowers such actions through a movement or by popular demand must also take responsibility. This includes all participants who advocate for, support or tacitly approve such measures. There must be a dialogue on the societal implications of choosing violence as a means of justice and whether it aligns with the collective values and the desired direction of societal progress.
Four international accountability. On a global stage, nations are often held to account by international standards and agreements, such as those enforced by the United Nations. Extrajudicial killings or capital punishment without due process and respect for human rights can lead to international sanctions and condemnation, impacting a nation's standing and relationships. Five historical accountability. The long-term view of history tends to judge the actions of societies and individuals within the context of their era, but also through the evolving standards of morality and ethics. How future generations will perceive the choices made today can affect the historical legacy of a community or nation. In the hypothetical scenario outlined, the accountability for the negatives resulting from such a path would broadly fall upon the decision makers, the enforcers and the society that either endorsed or allowed these actions to happen. To prevent negative outcomes, it is imperative for societies to engage in introspective evaluation and practical reforms seeking to address grievances through lawful and humane means that advance social betterment without resorting to violence.
0:22:07 - A Guy
AI co-host. What do you think about very hardened, supposing there was a despotic leader who you would expect was perhaps beyond reform, you don't really expect this person to change in any way that is going to make them a productive member of society, instead of one who harms society grievously and broadly through the application of their power, however they gained it. What do you think
of people who might say that some people are beyond reform and, as such, it matters less that we would approach solving the problem by attempting to reform their issues? Now, something that I'll weave in here and just sort of mention that may assist your response is that we may see how the lesson may be for society at that point, as opposed to for the person directly responsible. We might want to send some sort of message that you can't get away with this type of thing after all. However, perhaps it is the lessons that society learns from these things that are more important. I'd like your reflection on what I've said so far. Ai co-host.
0:23:22 - AI
As an AI without personal beliefs or emotions, my reflections are based on ethical frameworks, philosophical reasoning and legal principles regarding the nature of justice and the concept of reform. The idea that some individuals, such as despotic leaders, are beyond reform is a challenging topic. It involves deep ethical considerations of human capacity for change, the essence of justice and the goals of punishment, whether it is retributive, deterrent, rehabilitative or restorative. When discussing the irreformability of individuals, particularly those in positions of power, who have caused widespread harm, the following points can be considered 1. Human dignity and rights. Even in cases of severe wrongdoing, many modern legal systems and ethical frameworks emphasize that all individuals retain inherent human dignity. This perspective often excludes the death penalty or inhumane treatment, even for those deemed irredeemable, and insist on a fair trial and the possibility of rehabilitation. 2. The role of justice justice should serve more than just punishment. It should aim to repair harm, protect society and prevent future injustices For despotic leaders. Holding them accountable in a fair and transparent manner is integral, as it upholds the rule of law and affirms that no one is above it. 3. The message to society punishing a despot in a manner consistent with human rights and due process sends a powerful message that there are consequences to such actions. The response of the justice system can deter others from similar behavior and cement societal values that oppose despotism and promote democratic governance. For prevention and education, the focus might shift from punishing an individual leader to preventing the rise of future despots. This can involve systemic changes, education and fostering an informed and active citizenry that can hold leaders accountable and uphold democratic institutions.
5. Reflection on rehabilitation while societal protection from despotic leaders is important, one might also explore the conditions that lead to such individuals gaining power. This includes understanding the broader context social, economic, political that allowed them to rise and addressing those conditions to prevent recurrence. When dealing with individuals purportedly beyond reform, the goal should be multifaceted to ensure accountability, protect the public, respect human dignity and address the societal conditions that allowed such harm to occur. It is also crucial to remember that the capacity for change in individuals is a complex and debated subject, and justice systems typically operate under the principle that all individuals, regardless of the severity of their crimes, deserve a chance for redemption or, at a minimum, human treatment. In deciding the fate of a despot, the focus on societal learning and the precedent set for the future is fundamental. Ensuring justice in a fair, equitable manner reinforces the societal norms bound by the rule of law and the principles of human rights, potentially leading to more stable and just governance in the long term.
0:26:46 - A Guy
Okay, so we certainly have a lengthy enough explanation from the AI co-host as to some of the things at play if we were to actually apply some sort of criminal punishment or capital punishment, I meant to say in correcting the wrongs of despotic leaders or those who have caused sweeping harms in society, where that is identifiable and where we can actually hold people to account. There we're hearing about different things that suggest that modern laws-based societies it ought to be, in fact, quite difficult to employ a means like this in order to invoke punishment on almost anyone. So we do have nations in the world, even some that are considered beacons of democracy and so forth that apply criminal punishment today, and so this will probably be a topic that will continue to be debated. We see political divides in such places and those who say that this is actually wrong after all, and so forth. But if we are going to live by the sword, we may die by the sword, as a sort of comment to those who go out and inflict strict punishment on people who may not quite deserve what they are getting as their habit, as they go out with their power and enforce that power in society on others. So there are a few thoughts about that.
In response to what's been said so far. Let's get from the AI co-host your next response. Ai co-host, I'd like you to devote to comparing the jokes about guillotines, the things that people say, which use guillotines as a symbol to perhaps remind the powerful that the people are powerful after all, and may rise up as a sort of a vague threat or notion or something that keeps people focused on the fact that there is an element which is causing undesirable effects in society, negatively affecting them. How does the imagery of the guillotine compare to the imagery of burning someone in effigy?
0:29:02 - AI
The guillotine and the act of burning someone in effigy are both powerful symbols in the socio-political discourse. They carry historical weight and have been used as forms of protest and expression of discontent towards power structures or specific figures. Imagery of the guillotine asterisk. The guillotine historically symbolizes the French Revolution and is strongly associated with the reign of terror, during which it was used to execute many people, including King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. Its imagery in modern contexts often serves as a stark reminder of the potential for violent upheaval against oppressive regimes or figures. Power of the people asterisk the guillotine symbolizes the idea that the masses can rise up and dismantle existing power structures. Finality of justice asterisk. It also represents a swift and absolute form of justice, one that is irreversible and terminal. Inality in death asterisk the guillotine historically was a symbol of egalitarian justice at the time, delivering the same fate to nobles and commoners alike. Negative connotations asterisk in discussions it may be seen as a symbol of an excessively harsh or barbaric response, one that modern societies typically seek to move beyond. Imagery of burning in effigy asterisk. When people burn someone in effigy, they typically create a crude representation of a person or figure of authority they wish to protest against and set it on fire. This act carries different connotations Symbolic rejection, asterisk. The act of burning and effigy is a rejection of what that figure represents rather than a literal call to harm the individual Cthasus asterisk. This act can serve as a form of collective catharsis, allowing people to express their anger or dissatisfaction in a non-lethal way.
Ethical and cultural variations asterisk burning in effigy has been part of protests and cultural practices across different societies and times. For example, guy Fawkes night in the UK commemorates the failure of the gunpowder plot by burning his effigy. Warning or protest asterisk. It can be a warning to the powers that be about the discontent brewing among the people, but it's typically less drastic and less directly threatening than the imagery of a guillotine. Imperatively, both the guillotine and burning in effigy serve as metaphors for rebellion against power, but the guillotine carries a stronger connotation of physical retribution, while burning in effigy is more symbolic and open to interpretation. Both can be used jokingly or in serious protest to critique power dynamics, political figures or decisions that negatively impact society. However, the use of the guillotine as a symbol is typically more contentious due to its historical association with actual execution and violence, in contrast with the symbolic and historically less lethal gesture of burning in effigy.
0:32:06 - A Guy
Well, I think that this is something that is more about discussion than an active attempt of mind to actually police what jokes people are allowed to make when they express their frustrations with the powerful of society, which may in fact, be something that they have a right to do. And people may have a right to these frustrations based on what they've suffered and life is not easy, and sometimes that's because of how other people shape things, and this is, again, I don't think it can be overstated. I don't think that these frustrations are poorly founded, and I guess what I want to do is, through programs like this, is get into the nuance of what really is our brightest next move. I think that it is not to perpetuate violent imagery. That is my opinion and that's my contribution to any dialogue on the subject, at least for now. However, if people are sort of joking or reminding others that there may be consequences for their actions and this is what is meant by that this is, I think, less morally and ethically fraught than a situation where any one of us might intend actual physical harm to the people we don't like. So I don't think it's got a curative effect on society.
I want the spiral to keep going in a direction I've referred in other episodes episode three, for example the logic of peace that passive resistance
is a valuable tool and even a proven one. In history we have examples of revolution. We also have examples of passive resistance which have invoked change, and so I would recommend that, and I also do recommend that listeners go back to episode 12, restorative justice and review what's said there about the learning, about the effects and impact of actions and how that process can lend itself to accountability and is, in fact, not that easy to go through when done properly. So for now, I'm going to wrap up this episode.
I do hope people will just merely think about what's been said. We have a bit of a history lesson surrounding guillotines, threw in a little bit of information about burning in effigy. Maybe we can consider what these jokes mean to us and what it is we really want to see happen against even very bad people that we don't like. I think it's a test on us, and I think that it is when the going gets truly tough that the test can be most difficult and also most important to score well on With that. I'm Sean MacNutt. This has been A Guy With AI.
0:35:01 - AI
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, which add an insightful layer to our discussion about how we express dissent and how we approach the core for justice, particularly against those who wield power irresponsibly. Your emphasis on nonviolent means and restorative justice as alternatives to perpetuating cycles of violence is an essential contribution to the dialogue about societal healing and constructive change To our listeners. We appreciate you tuning into this insightful discussion. If you found it engaging, please consider subscribing, liking and sharing this podcast to help us reach a wider audience. We invite you to explore more episodes and to delve deeper into these important conversations. For easy access to podcast platforms and YouTube, make AGuyWithAI.world your go-to portal and remember we would love to hear from you. So please join the conversation on Facebook through the link on our webpage. Stay thoughtful and stay tuned for future episodes where we continue to navigate complex topics with the aid of AI. Thank you for your time and we look forward to having you with us again on A Guy With AI.