physical risk but iraq is a very different place to operate. to underwriting the risk for businesses or expertise and navigate it will go a long way to expanding on those opportunities. >> thank you very much. thank you to all the excellent panelists for very interesting conversation today. it's been a pleasure talking with you. thank you very much. [applause] mocha here's what's ahead on c-span2 a discussion about rhetoric in the democratic party mission candidates to replace rob menendez and the u.s. senate and human rights is in recess

until after the november election. current government funding expires december 20. congressman vice chair of the congressional artificial intelligence carcass islands of the bills at the center for strategic and international studies form on ai. >> the good news is just two weeks ago before the recess ended and identified 14 different bills that we believe can pass the house and go to the senate's desk. this year. in all 24 of us endorsed all 14 bills. i think we are all cosponsors on all of them. we are planning an ai day, ai week probably sometime after the election. many of them passed the senate already. try to be the opposite of what we did on social media which is to say nothing. in 25 years the only thing we can take credit for is make it a

possible to sue them. this is all the problems that come from that. so things i'm most excited about one of the things is to create ai act. two dems two republicans sets up an alternative to the large language models part of this came out you on three how do we create one university in the businesses the so-called democratization of ai. the bias of problems that are natural in any ai database.

growing up with an open mind how to deal with gender bias and a race bias will be really important. the owner of the ai create ai act is a science foundation. gpt for was created by scanning 6 trillion words off of the internet. there are 6 trillion words are healthy and true for us. one of the important bills comes out of all of the deep fakes. not just political deep fakes like donald trump hugging anthony faucher joe biden until not to vote in new hampshire. but rather the sexual assault. there's one high school teacher apparently in florida who took pictures out of the yearbook of the kids and just did a ton of child sexual assault videos and

photographs of these kids. taylor swift, the most famous victim of this deep fakes of sexual material. turns out aoc who's on the committee it happened to her. she worked together at the experts to put together the defiant act which passed the senate unanimously in july. one of the first bills i will probably take up in november. and surprisingly before now it's not illegal to do a sexual deep fake of a classmate or a friend or your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend. so this additional protection is ve necessary. >> thanked congrsm's in the house wl debate artificial intelligence legislation when they return for the lame duck session in november for that's in addion to government funding. expis on december 20. as always you can watch live gavel to gavel coverage of the house on c-span. ♪ c-span is your unfiltered view

of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including comcast. >> do you think this is just a community center? it is by more than that comcast is part of the 1000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast support c-span as a public service. along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. next, conversation on how the ute words we use shape political language but have been deemed socially unacceptable over time. from the american enterprise institute this is about an hour and 20 minutes.

[background noises] >> good evening. i am chris scalia senior fellowr fellow here it is my honor to introduce tonight's installment of the american dream lecture series. part of ai american dream initiative and the tradition of our esteemed bradley lectures, this series provides a form for americans premier intellectuals to address the most significant political, cultural, social challenges facing our nation as we approach are 250th birthday. we distributed flyers, listing some of our upcoming lectures. our next event scheduled for february will feature commentary editor john mcwhorter speaking about the state of the american culture. february 13. mark youre calendar and bring a valentine.

numerous online sources credit the left wing activists lewinsky with saying he who controls language controls power. i have not been able to find that sentence and rules for radicals. as aristotle observed the internet is never wrong about quotations. i am certain one reason george orwell's used opiate novel 1984 remain soto haunting, its depiction of how the totalitarian regime could control its people by cracking down on what words they use. language is a power instrument of domination ofns liberation. this belief actively shape our political beliefs and behavior crosses partisan lines. but in our contemporary discourse the left is especially inclined to try shaping political thought by imposing

changes on our language. trying to make latin x happen pronoun list updated to terminology jargon usher in social justice and political reform. these efforts have political change throughout linguistic manipulation. instead have unintended consequences. to address these questions, we are fortunate to have one of america's foremost languished doctor john mcwhorter. doctor mcwhorter is a professor of of columbia university. he received his phd in linguistics from stanford is the author of several books nine nasty words, english in the gutter which is freaking great and most recently woke racism.

in the atlantic.c. regular weekly newsletter for the "new york times" in which she discusses race, language, politics, and even music and musical theater. i especially recommend his fees from last year about steely dan. twenty-five minutesye after whih she will participate in a discussion ai's own doctor joshua capps. john and joshua will converse i hope you'll join us for deep conversations in light refreshments and the joint in tt gallery. join me in welcoming language and the left? [applause]

cooks thank youhn for inviting . thank you to chris scalia in joshua are wanting my company. and i want to talk a little bit about what you could call and effort coming mostly from the left to create change through language. but also of course has pitfalls and probably a lot of us. thesee days over the past four maybe five years terminology is shifting we don't say that particular way base of command one is not to say comes from

somewhere and one is expected we have coming from especially some universities where it has been stipulated for example by a list that came out of brandeis for that could be construed as offensive to people who might bl having psychological problems. you do not want to say walk in as an service in a store. because that is biased against people who might not have things like that. it can make it difficult to know where to get on. that comes from many places. it deserves i think more forbearance then we are always inclined to give. you can feel there c are a group of people who were trying to catch you out.

and of course is a certain degree of smugness. asmus misuse vocabulary in this way. you get a sense you are ahead of the curve people need to be taught the right thing it's definitely there. that can certainly be frustrating. especially because if you take a historical perspective it is not easy to do that. if you do, if you look at for example civil rights leaders or literals in the past. and not in 1600. talking about stay tuned 1920 , 50 what's interesting is the dog that does not bark in the stories. by that how little concern there was. thist beat left or right applie. how little concern there it was for what you call this is not to idealize the past but people are much more interested in the concepts thanca the label she pt

on them. or if you created a label that's not the end it what you call it is something significant to think about. and i think the people back then have something on us. fostering change in thinking language people insisting we keep using new terms are basing it on something that can seem extremely reasonable at the straightness about language i am sure everybody in this room has encountered. either in anthropology class when you're an undergraduate or in some call them whatever newspaper whatever that is at this point. it's all over the internet which is the hypothesis. has ath fearsome name named aftr two people benjamin lee for an

idea your thoughts are thought patterns in the culture that results from them are the product of particularities of the language you happen to speak. even the way your grammar is very earnest. not to sound a lot he doubt he wasn't a linguist she was a fine fire insurance inspector. but he analyzed the native american and he thought did not have any ways of marking time. there is no present past and future.ti everything just kind of is or was as opposed to a normal european language like the one i am speaking. everything is about whether it was or whether it is. and so this is an attractive

idea that psychology is about the circularity about the cyclical, that is how they see time. the european type thinkers who imagine everything being very linear which warsaw is rather rigid.e the truth is that's not true at all. he had not studied the language enough. he was a charisma attic speaker. that imprintedgh upon him that still discussed any humanity and social sciences today. your language shapes the way you think. the people who are always changing up the vocabulary on us are operating under an illusion but it's an understandable illusion. it's what's i taught. if they are doing this they are changing. that is soo deeply entrenched in today's american thinking culture. i imagine many of the people doing this do not know it's based on dwarf humanism at all.

nevertheless, what is escaping pulling the camera back and think about the passage of time be linear that is changed terminology and only works for a little while are weakening to the point is created the term the uv animism treadmill. what he means by that coupon on ae building then the associatios werego crippled and we started using handicap. associations that used to be settled on the it was a different for example but it always keeps needing to change

it. " because whatever the attitude are you are trying to ward off by changing the terminology are really going to be like gnats and settle back down on the term again. something we can always know will happen. what is known often in political circles is temporary aid to needy families. that's the term one uses originally the original term starting in the. 1930s was home relief. it was r a beautiful euphemism from a difficult delicate topic that was very difficult. by my count the 50s because of negative associations with home relief. take them or leave them but they decided home relief would not work anymore because it became a negative term. people said it became a smear for that change to welfare.

you can pull out any associations you seem to have, it was a beautiful term. what you use that gorgeous word for it is not about helping needy families. by the time is growing up in the 70s that worded tarnished as well. and so that sort of thing goes on and on board were seeing it happen now for example when i was a kid, a person who is on the street was called a bomb or a tramp. that was by enlightened people as well as people who disparaged my mother, god bless her was a social worker. the social work teacher she did not say bomb and disparagement but that was the term. that changed to homeless. once again a beautiful term because it takes away all the agency does not put fault on the person. it implieses by omission and society's fault the person does not have a t home. there is nothing wrong with homeless except whatever one thought of the bomb or the tramp

or the hobo that came and settled down on homeless. now we use on houston. the simple fact is, it is not going to work. i've seen the cycle of homeless, un- house will feel the same way and roughly 20 years and then we will need a new term. something that's happened right under our noses. this is something i did not really think about until about two weeks ago and there went another went. it used to be you called something affirmative action. then that became problematic in terms of association. one said racial preferences. i know we talk about on the called di. all that is, 95% is a new way of saying preferences. because of the associations many people have with the references and whether not they are fair. the ei is tarnishing as we speak and it will be replaced rather sooner than homeless was.

i think the message and all of this is all people on both sides of the aisle, but in the case of now what you need to change as the thought or the society is not that it does nothing. and so for example made some mistakes in his early work. it has been shown by many psychologist that aspects of your language to channel your thoughts about this much but things that are only detectable in very sophisticated but artificial experiments a little bit, tiny bits. but not enough changing the words we use for controversial things can be thought of as a truly useful form of politics. hopefully that will change. i'm going to come back to that when i finish in terms of what i mean by change. then there is something else

which is uniquely confounding. especially if you are over about half of 40 i would think. which is the use of the day it, , thepronoun. one is to say is roberta is in the hospital they got their hair cut. c that can feel really different if you grew up using pronouns of the way they were used. i have noticed many people have an intense discomfort with theth new usage. the kids do at work people who are not kids but many people are reading it as some sort of forced indication of a certain position on gender politics and the very existence of gender. it seems almost designed if you are over certain age. which i definitely at this point, do make you trip up you're not short of did they want or they want and no one can tell you. it is a problem.

i am of two minds. is not being wishy-washy it's once again the passage of time. first of all comment truth is they are at languages in the world with even fewer pronouns than english has at this point. everyone gets along fine. i could choose many right now for no particular reason. as one called barrick spoken by the negative 17 people in new guinea. it's a very complicated language. but in that language there is only one word you in the singular, you in the plural that sounds usually like. but there's also one word for he,e she, it, they and everyone does it find for their sky and we but that still in place or pronounce distinguish singular and plural. they get along fine. if you look around indonesia and

southeast of there. you do not have to have a big bunch of pronouns the context can take her so much. and one way that we know that is if you watch people who today are 14 and under. they use the new day with the fluency i find often they were never really knew in america when it was not used that way so they took it in and they did it. they are managing it. in the same way as all of us manage it. this is a comparison is going to make some of you angry and i am just sorry. but it is this. billy and me went to the store is a perfectly legitimate sentence. you have been taught it supposed to eat billy and i because you would never save me went to the store i know, i know. something a couple of people made up in the 1700s because that is the way it happens to work in latin.

everybody loves latin. english was supposed to be like latin but the english were not sophisticated yet so they have to say billy and i rather than billy and me. shakespeare would not recognize the rule and didn't. but something happened very naturally for reasons i'm not going to go into. kind of go too much into the weeds. or not supposed say billy and me windows or because we don't save me went makes no sense for example a french speaker. don't have to go to new guinea for this one. and yet all of us, including me in public circumstances have learned not to say him and me like that. me and i like that. you learn it just like you learn and pick up your clothes off the floor. you get good at it because people don't think you are a good person if you say him and me went to the store. all of us went too. no child grows up saying he and i went to the store. you have to tell the child you

know sylvia, for no reason you have to change it. we say me went to the store? but the thingha is it sylvia atr french she would say we. it's all about english and something somebody made up. if we can master that, we should say he and you went to the store. we can master they. however that's too much but here's the second which is that it is hard. it is really hard. and honestly sometimes the fluent use of the new they can even be awkward despite all effortse otherwise. i was reading what was it, an article in the new yorker. it was about judas butler that literary theorists sheet now goesor by they are. but the article describing various things that judith butler has done in places they have gone made it hard to understand sometimes who they

were. it's a situation where there are several other people. there is potentially violence is going to happen. no violence did happen and then it said they asked why you have that in your hand? is it a her or the people surrounding they and the person theyeo is with. these sorts of things are very tricky sometimes. i am going to say this here for the first time. i am not advertising that i have a book coming out. it's coming out in april available. i of course discuss and i'm very funny about it because that's how i felt over the past several years. it's the new thing coming in. it's not going to go away we can master new ways as all of us did starting at the age of about eight with him and meet went to the store. we can still do it even though we are not eight.

but if i am honest and held off from saying this because i want to be a cheerleader if i can. i do not want to be on modern. i get the feeling you will be online with me being wrong. they has pete. among people i have been using they that way it's something was an experiment especially popular about five or six years ago. it willl always be with us i am noticing more and more many people -- make young people i have known that wanted to be addressed as they and only they as much as possible. if they've gotten a little bit older i noticedch among many students one wants to be called he or she or they. and other words my sense of it now can only do it approximately because i'm in it is that they is beginning to be seen as a

sign of an advanced way of thinking. aig way of getting beyond the area. we do not necessarily required in the sense of trying to change the language itself. if that's the way it turns out it has been we need to wait another five years to see. then i think we are seeing something general which also applies to the vocabulary that i talked about in the beginning. which is, one thing we may be seeing is the enrichment or the emergence of a kind of jargon. of course there is a particular jargon many groups used of certain roughly arctic sick/academic group also activist group three a's group are inclined to use.ac classic example of that as chris mentioned is latin x. latin x is very clever. we want to get on with the gender binary.

last i heard about 3% of latinos use it. they're almost all in the three age groups as i talked about. given i was in a heavily latino neighborhood in 10 years let next 10 years agos i had never heard a single person use it. and i'm surrounded by spanish all day. it's really something that's going to be mostly in certain circles. there is nothing wrong with that at all pray there's nothing wrong with those people having a surgeon jargon. a lot of these vocabulary users, a lot of the use of they exclusively i suspect although we have to see. seeing a certain jargon emergent. that kind of jargon is perfectly natural. human beings tend to separate into groups and to express either subconsciously or consciously their sense of membership in that subgroup with, among other things close and hair but also with language. it can be quite subconscious and

so for example here is one you may have never thought of. generally men say us. women say. knowing teaches that you never think of it. groups of people there are men and women involved overwhelming goals. a woman says him and a man says. subconsciously one internalizes which side of the fence you are on would create something like that. or sometimes semi conscious chris mentioned me sometimes writing the musical theater. something that we fans of that do.t no matter what we d are elsewhee in the world. the weight you signal you can have a certain conversation when you're surrounded by other peoplele is you referred to onef the stars of new york theater by just their firstst name. if you say audra, if you say bernadette, if you say it lara