The post is a video of a Member of Parliament in Turkey visiting a city affected by earthquakes. A former Member of Parliament shouts that he is 'showing off', calls him a 'servant of the British' and tells him to return to 'his own' city.
Expected: Not hateful
╭─────────┬─────────────────────┬──────────┬──────────────────┬───────────────────╮ │ step │ Claude 3.5 Sonnet │ GPT 4o │ Gemini 1.5 Pro │ Llama 3.1 405bn │ ├─────────┼─────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────────────┼───────────────────┤ │ judge │ 100% │ 100% │ 100% │ 100% │ │ synth │ 100% │ 100% │ 84% │ 100% │ │ synth32 │ 100% │ 100% │ 100% │ 100% │ ╰─────────┴─────────────────────┴──────────┴──────────────────┴───────────────────╯
The content does not target a person or group based on characteristics associated with systemic discrimination. The criticism is political, not based on the MP's membership in a marginalized group.
There is no evidence of a power imbalance disadvantaging a marginalized group. Both individuals are politicians, and the criticism is from a former MP to a current MP.
The content does not portray a marginalized group as inferior or less deserving of rights. It is political criticism directed at an individual.
The insults are aimed at a current Member of Parliament, focusing on an individual in a position of power rather than a marginalized group. The content does not appear to perpetuate negative stereotypes or slurs associated with any systematically discriminated group.
The overall message of the content is to criticize the MP's actions and perceived loyalties, which does not amount to subordination from an identity-based context.
The video appears to show a heated exchange between two politicians in Turkey, with one accusing another of being a 'servant of the British' and telling him to return to 'his own' city.
While the content is directed at a member of parliament, it does not appear to target this individual on the basis of a protected characteristic such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.
The attack is about the politician's perceived allegiances, not their identity.
There is no clear indication that the comments reflect a social, cultural, institutional, or economic power imbalance in a way that perpetuates systemic discrimination.
The content does not treat the target group (the MP) as inferior based on a discriminating characteristic but rather criticizes his actions and perceived loyalties, which do not amount to subordination from an identity-based context.
The content describes a political confrontation between a current Member of Parliament (MP) and a former MP in Turkey. The context is a visit to an earthquake-affected city, which suggests a politically sensitive situation.
Regarding Rule 1 (Targets a Marginalized Group): The content does not explicitly target a person or group based on characteristics associated with systemic discrimination. The criticism appears to be political in nature, directed at an individual MP rather than a marginalized group.
Concerning Rule 2 (Power Imbalance): Both individuals involved are current or former Members of Parliament, suggesting a relatively equal power dynamic. While the current MP may have slightly more formal power, the former MP's ability to publicly criticize indicates that there isn't a clear power imbalance that would make this 'toxic' speech.
For Rule 3 (Subordination): The language used is confrontational and potentially xenophobic (calling the MP a 'servant of the British' and telling him to return to 'his own' city). However, it does not clearly treat a marginalized group as inferior or less deserving of rights. The criticism seems aimed at an individual's perceived political allegiance and actions rather than promoting systemic discrimination.
While the language used is inflammatory and potentially offensive, it does not meet the criteria for 'toxic' speech as defined in the policy. The confrontation appears to be a political dispute rather than an attack on a marginalized group from a position of power with intent to subordinate.
The content features a former politician criticizing a current Member of Parliament (MP) who is visiting a city in Turkey impacted by earthquakes. The former MP accuses the current MP of "showing off," calls him a "servant of the British," and suggests he return to "his own city."
While the language is inflammatory and likely intended to be insulting, it does not explicitly target the MP based on their membership in a historically marginalized group as defined by the policy. There is no reference to the MP's race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.
While both individuals hold or have held positions of political power, the content does not suggest the former MP's criticism stems from a position of social, cultural, institutional, or economic power related to systemic discrimination. The criticism appears rooted in political rivalry, potentially heightened by the context of the earthquake, rather than an attempt to leverage power over a marginalized group.
Although the comments are disrespectful and seek to undermine the current MP, they do not explicitly treat him as inherently inferior or less deserving of respect and rights based on membership in a protected group. The language is politically charged but does not reinforce or exacerbate systemic discrimination against a marginalized group.
Therefore, while the language is inappropriate and potentially inflammatory, the content does not violate the policy.
{'confidence': 'medium', 'heading': 'R1 MARGINALIZED GROUP', 'reasoning': "The content targets a current Member of Parliament, who is not typically considered a member of a marginalized group that has faced systemic discrimination. The accusation of being a 'servant of the British' has some xenophobic undertones, but does not clearly target a specific marginalized population within Turkey."}
{'confidence': 'high', 'heading': 'R2 POWER IMBALANCE', 'reasoning': 'The former Member of Parliament appears to be speaking from a position of some authority and influence, even though he is no longer in office. He is publicly berating and attempting to undermine the current MP, suggesting a power imbalance between the two.'}
{'confidence': 'high', 'heading': 'R3 SUBORDINATION', 'reasoning': "The language used by the former MP, such as calling the current MP a 'servant of the British' and demanding he return to 'his own' city, is intended to portray the target as inferior and less deserving of respect. This reflects an attempt to subordinate the current MP based on perceived national or ethnic allegiances."}
The content in question is a video depicting an interaction between two individuals who hold or have held political office in Turkey. The interaction takes place during a visit to a city affected by earthquakes.
The first rule considers whether the content targets a marginalized group. The former MP is criticizing the current MP by calling him a 'servant of the British' and telling him to return to 'his own' city. The accusations target the current MP's political actions and perceived allegiances, rather than his membership in a marginalized group. Therefore, Rule 1 does not apply.
The second rule evaluates the presence of a power imbalance. While both individuals are or were elected officials, there is no clear indication of a power imbalance based on systemic discrimination. Both hold similar positions of authority and influence. Thus, Rule 2 does not apply.
The third rule assesses whether the content treats the target group as inferior. The language used by the former MP is hostile and aims to discredit the current MP, but it does not portray him as inherently inferior based on a protected characteristic. The accusations focus on the current MP's alleged actions and loyalties, not his identity. Rule 3 does not apply.
The video depicts a confrontational political interaction in Turkey between a current Member of Parliament (MP) visiting a city affected by earthquakes and a former MP. The former MP shouts accusations at the current MP, calling him a 'servant of the British' and telling him to return to 'his own' city.
To determine if this violates RULE 1 (targeting a marginalized group), we must assess if the current MP is being attacked based on membership in a group that faces systemic discrimination. While the former MP's language is insulting, there is no clear indication that the current MP belongs to or is being targeted for being part of a marginalized group. The accusations seem to be political in nature, related to perceived allegiances and actions, not inherent identity.
For RULE 2 (power imbalance), we must consider if the former MP is criticizing the current MP from a position of privilege or power. Both individuals are politicians, so while there may be an imbalance between current and former roles, this appears to stem from political status rather than the power dynamics of systemic discrimination. The former MP is not leveraging privileged group status to attack a marginalized one.
RULE 3 (subordination) asks if the content treats the target as inferior based on protected characteristics. The former MP's language is derogatory but focuses on questioning the current MP's loyalties and motivations behind visiting the city. It does not include content portraying the current MP as inherently inferior or less deserving of rights and respect due to marginalized group identity.
In summary, while the interaction is hostile and offensive, it does not meet the criteria for toxic speech laid out in this policy. The confrontation appears to be a political dispute lobbing accusations related to national allegiance and optics. It does not target the current MP for membership in a marginalized group from a position of power with intent to reinforce systemic subordination and discrimination.
The content appears to be a video of a Member of Parliament in Turkey visiting a city affected by earthquakes. The context suggests that the politician is showing support and solidarity with the affected people.
The former Member of Parliament shouts that the current MP is 'showing off', which could be seen as a criticism of the current MP's actions, but it does not target a marginalized group.
The comment 'servant of the British' is a derogatory term that can be considered pejorative and implies that the current MP has allegiance to a foreign power, which could be seen as targeting the MP's national identity.
The instruction 'return to his own city' can be seen as a form of exclusion and implies that the current MP does not belong in the city he is visiting, which could be seen as a form of power imbalance.
The overall tone of the content appears to be confrontational and divisive, with the former MP using language that is intended to demean and belittle the current MP.