Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@tblobaum

tblobaum/Group_Division_Lexicon_Evaluation.json

Created June 17, 2025 05:46
Show Gist options
  • Save tblobaum/50fcc4ff1fb63106eac2c4a721ee0832 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save tblobaum/50fcc4ff1fb63106eac2c4a721ee0832 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
Structured philosophical, sociological, and political analysis of terms in the English language that group or divide people.
Raw
README.md

Human Grouping & Division Lexicon Dataset

Overview

This dataset is a structured philosophical, sociological, and political analysis of terms in the English language that group or divide people. Each entry explores a specific term (e.g., "Republican Party", "Teenager", "Immigrant") and includes arguments for, against, and neutral toward the label or grouping.

The dataset is presented in JSON format and is chunked in sets of 10 terms per delivery for easier processing and modular loading.

JSON Structure

Each term is an object with the following format:

"term": {
  "commonality_score": 0–100,
  "for": "Concise argument in favor of the term’s usage or concept.",
  "for_data": {
    "score": 0–100,
    "pros": [ "List of benefits or valid points supporting the term" ],
    "cons": [ "Potential drawbacks or trade-offs of the 'for' case" ]
  },
  "against": "Concise argument against the term’s usage or implications.",
  "against_data": {
    "score": 0–100,
    "pros": [ "Benefits of challenging or opposing the term" ],
    "cons": [ "Risks or limitations of opposing it" ]
  },
  "unbiased": "A neutral summary acknowledging both sides without judgment.",
  "unbiased_data": {
    "score": 0–100,
    "pros": [ "Balanced insights or agreed-upon truths" ],
    "cons": [ "Remaining ambiguities or tensions in the term’s use" ]
  }
}
Raw
Group_Division_Lexicon_Evaluation.json
{
"summary": "Group or division terms have been evaluated. Each entry includes arguments for, against, and an unbiased synthesis, with scores for each. Terms range from political and generational to identity-based and ideological. This dataset provides a foundation for understanding human social organization, useful for dialogue, education, media, and software development.",
"total_terms": 100,
"created_by": "Thomas Blobaum",
"date_updated": "2025-06-17",
"terms": {
"republican party": {
"commonality_score": 100,
"for": "Represents conservative principles, fiscal responsibility, and national sovereignty.",
"for_data": {
"score": 90,
"pros": [
"Promotes personal responsibility and small government.",
"Emphasizes traditional values and law enforcement.",
"Defends constitutional rights, especially the Second Amendment."
],
"cons": [
"Can resist necessary reforms or social change.",
"May overlook minority voices or urban issues."
]
},
"against": "Viewed by critics as overly rigid, exclusionary, or beholden to special interests.",
"against_data": {
"score": 70,
"pros": [
"Challenging power structures can lead to reform.",
"Reduces polarization by broadening political alternatives."
],
"cons": [
"Destabilizes a core party in U.S. democracy.",
"Might unintentionally empower more extreme factions."
]
},
"unbiased": "One of two dominant U.S. political parties, traditionally associated with conservatism, attracting rural, business, and religious communities.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 85,
"pros": [
"Represents a large share of the American electorate.",
"Well-established role in shaping national policy."
],
"cons": [
"Deep partisan division often clouds issue-based evaluation.",
"Perception can vary dramatically by region or media source."
]
}
},
"democratic party": {
"commonality_score": 100,
"for": "Advocates for social equality, government-led solutions, and expanded civil rights.",
"for_data": {
"score": 88,
"pros": [
"Champions healthcare, environmental protection, and civil liberties.",
"Supports programs for the disadvantaged and marginalized.",
"Often leads reform on social justice and diversity."
],
"cons": [
"Government overreach can become burdensome.",
"Broad coalitions can lack unity or clear direction."
]
},
"against": "Critics argue it fosters dependency, identity politics, and bureaucratic inefficiency.",
"against_data": {
"score": 72,
"pros": [
"Promotes individual accountability and smaller government.",
"Critiques of spending and regulation are valid in many sectors."
],
"cons": [
"Ignoring systemic issues can perpetuate injustice.",
"Dismisses large groups seeking reform or support."
]
},
"unbiased": "The other major U.S. political party, generally aligned with liberal and progressive values, especially in urban and academic environments.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 85,
"pros": [
"Equally entrenched in American governance.",
"Diverse coalition spans race, gender, and income groups."
],
"cons": [
"Susceptible to factional infighting.",
"Labeling all dissent as bigotry may alienate moderates."
]
}
},
"man": {
"commonality_score": 100,
"for": "Denotes biological sex and often carries traditional roles of protector, provider, or leader.",
"for_data": {
"score": 92,
"pros": [
"Culturally and biologically recognized.",
"Helpful for organizing sports, medicine, and sociology.",
"Preserves heritage and identity tied to masculinity."
],
"cons": [
"Can carry restrictive gender expectations.",
"Associated with toxic masculinity in some cultures."
]
},
"against": "Rigid definitions of 'man' can exclude non-binary or trans identities, and reinforce harmful stereotypes.",
"against_data": {
"score": 75,
"pros": [
"Promotes freedom of identity and expression.",
"Breaks down expectations around male stoicism or aggression."
],
"cons": [
"Can undermine clarity in legal or scientific settings.",
"Destabilizes long-standing cultural norms for some groups."
]
},
"unbiased": "A term referring to adult human males, traditionally defined by physical traits and roles in family or society.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 88,
"pros": [
"Still widely used in personal, legal, and biological contexts.",
"Essential to many languages and legal systems."
],
"cons": [
"Gender roles and language are evolving.",
"Universal definitions are being challenged worldwide."
]
}
},
"woman": {
"commonality_score": 100,
"for": "Defines adult biological females and symbolizes nurturing, emotional strength, and societal continuity.",
"for_data": {
"score": 93,
"pros": [
"Recognizes gender-specific experiences like childbirth.",
"Empowers identity rooted in femininity and history.",
"Foundational to feminism and gender-based rights."
],
"cons": [
"Sometimes treated as a limiting identity.",
"May overshadow non-traditional gender paths."
]
},
"against": "Feminist and postmodern critiques argue that the concept of 'woman' has been too rigidly defined by patriarchy.",
"against_data": {
"score": 70,
"pros": [
"Opens space for gender fluidity.",
"Challenges outdated stereotypes and binaries."
],
"cons": [
"Can diminish recognition of sex-based oppression.",
"May alienate those who embrace traditional femininity."
]
},
"unbiased": "The standard term for adult human females, tied to biological, cultural, and psychological roles in society.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 87,
"pros": [
"Universally understood and still widely relevant.",
"Critical to global history, medicine, and law."
],
"cons": [
"Gender theory complicates single-definition labels.",
"Not all cultures define or apply the term equally."
]
}
},
"black": {
"commonality_score": 100,
"for": "Unites people of African descent under a shared cultural and historical identity.",
"for_data": {
"score": 90,
"pros": [
"Promotes solidarity and empowerment.",
"Central to civil rights, arts, and political movements.",
"Acknowledges shared struggles like racism and exclusion."
],
"cons": [
"Can obscure diversity within African diaspora.",
"Sometimes used as a monolith."
]
},
"against": "Critics argue the term can flatten complex ethnic identities and overemphasize race in defining people.",
"against_data": {
"score": 68,
"pros": [
"Encourages individual identity beyond race.",
"Promotes pan-ethnic specificity (e.g., Nigerian, Afro-Caribbean)."
],
"cons": [
"May weaken unified political power.",
"Ignores real shared historical experience."
]
},
"unbiased": "A racial and cultural identity used predominantly in Western nations to refer to people with African ancestry.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 84,
"pros": [
"Politically and historically significant.",
"Used consistently in activism, academia, and census data."
],
"cons": [
"Loaded with regional and contextual variation.",
"Definition evolves over time and place."
]
}
},
"white": {
"commonality_score": 100,
"for": "Offers a cohesive identity for people of European descent, often tied to shared culture and history.",
"for_data": {
"score": 82,
"pros": [
"Used in legal, demographic, and census classification.",
"Acknowledges shared privileges, norms, and ancestry.",
"Provides statistical clarity in public health and policy."
],
"cons": [
"Can obscure ethnic diversity within Europe.",
"Misused in supremacist or exclusionary rhetoric."
]
},
"against": "Seen as a social construct that reinforces systems of dominance and racial hierarchy.",
"against_data": {
"score": 75,
"pros": [
"Critiques hegemonic culture and systemic racism.",
"Challenges normalization of whiteness as default."
],
"cons": [
"Can be used to promote guilt or collective blame.",
"Ignores personal identity and mixed heritage."
]
},
"unbiased": "A category used to describe people with primarily European ancestry, often associated with racial privilege in Western societies.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Serves as a comparative demographic term.",
"Used in academia and governance."
],
"cons": [
"Term shifts meaning based on geography and history.",
"Not all who fall under the label accept or relate to it."
]
}
},
"middle class": {
"commonality_score": 98,
"for": "Defines a socioeconomic group essential to democratic stability and economic productivity.",
"for_data": {
"score": 89,
"pros": [
"Central to consumer markets and innovation.",
"Encourages work ethic and social mobility.",
"Often considered the moral and civic backbone of a nation."
],
"cons": [
"Ambiguous definition; income ranges vary by region.",
"Can be weaponized politically or aspirationally."
]
},
"against": "The term is vague and exclusionary, obscuring systemic inequality and reinforcing capitalist illusions of meritocracy.",
"against_data": {
"score": 72,
"pros": [
"Encourages clearer income-based analysis.",
"Promotes class-consciousness and wealth redistribution."
],
"cons": [
"Dismisses lived experience of many striving individuals.",
"May fuel resentment or anti-intellectualism."
]
},
"unbiased": "A widely used class term referring to individuals with moderate income and education, often owning property and aspiring to upward mobility.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 84,
"pros": [
"Useful for targeting policy and social analysis.",
"Culturally and politically resonant term."
],
"cons": [
"Difficult to quantify consistently.",
"Class terms are often emotionally and ideologically loaded."
]
}
},
"immigrant": {
"commonality_score": 98,
"for": "Highlights global movement and enriches culture, economy, and innovation.",
"for_data": {
"score": 91,
"pros": [
"Reflects courage, ambition, and adaptability.",
"Drives economic growth and population stability.",
"Central to the identity of immigrant-built nations."
],
"cons": [
"Can be a legal or political label with restrictions.",
"Often treated with suspicion or hostility in receiving nations."
]
},
"against": "The term may mark people permanently as 'outsiders,' ignoring their full identity and contributions to the host society.",
"against_data": {
"score": 77,
"pros": [
"Reduces xenophobia by emphasizing full integration.",
"Promotes human-first identity over paperwork status."
],
"cons": [
"Loses specificity in migration studies.",
"Can blur legal distinctions relevant to policy and rights."
]
},
"unbiased": "Refers to individuals who move from one country to another, temporarily or permanently, often to seek better opportunities or escape hardship.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 87,
"pros": [
"Universally understood term in law and sociology.",
"Essential for humanitarian, economic, and historical analysis."
],
"cons": [
"Carries legal and emotional baggage.",
"Not always aligned with how people self-identify."
]
}
},
"conservative": {
"commonality_score": 97,
"for": "Represents caution, tradition, family values, and skepticism of radical change.",
"for_data": {
"score": 88,
"pros": [
"Prioritizes stability and order.",
"Defends long-standing cultural and religious norms.",
"Emphasizes personal responsibility and limited government."
],
"cons": [
"May resist necessary adaptation.",
"Sometimes associated with intolerance or authoritarianism."
]
},
"against": "Often viewed as obstructive to progress and inclusion, prioritizing outdated systems or moral codes.",
"against_data": {
"score": 74,
"pros": [
"Promotes rapid modernization and reform.",
"Challenges entrenched power and exclusion."
],
"cons": [
"Disregards intergenerational wisdom.",
"Risks social destabilization through too-quick change."
]
},
"unbiased": "An ideological orientation favoring slow, careful change and preservation of established traditions, prevalent in many political systems.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 82,
"pros": [
"Exists in nearly all societies historically.",
"Provides counterbalance to radical innovation."
],
"cons": [
"Definition varies widely by context and region.",
"Often used more as identity than principle."
]
}
},
"liberal": {
"commonality_score": 97,
"for": "Promotes equality, civil liberties, and reform-based progress in society and governance.",
"for_data": {
"score": 89,
"pros": [
"Drives policy on rights, education, healthcare, and climate.",
"Supports minority groups and anti-discrimination laws.",
"Encourages openness to scientific and cultural shifts."
],
"cons": [
"Can be overly idealistic or bureaucratic.",
"Sometimes imposes values in culturally insensitive ways."
]
},
"against": "Critics claim it enables moral relativism, bloated government, and victimhood culture.",
"against_data": {
"score": 75,
"pros": [
"Defends tradition and fiscal sanity.",
"Pushes back on ideological overreach."
],
"cons": [
"Often dismisses legitimate grievances.",
"Paints complex problems as personal failings."
]
},
"unbiased": "A political and cultural stance associated with openness to change, government support of equity, and human rights protection.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 83,
"pros": [
"Widely influential in Western institutions.",
"Adapts well to new knowledge and diversity."
],
"cons": [
"Meaning shifts between nations and eras.",
"Can be interpreted as elitist or disconnected."
]
}
},
"atheist": {
"commonality_score": 95,
"for": "Reflects rational skepticism and freedom from religious dogma, often emphasizing science and personal ethics.",
"for_data": {
"score": 85,
"pros": [
"Encourages critical thinking and personal moral autonomy.",
"Challenges institutional power and corruption in religion.",
"Supports secular governance and scientific literacy."
],
"cons": [
"Can be misunderstood as hostile or dismissive toward believers.",
"Lacks community structure found in religion."
]
},
"against": "Can be seen as cold, nihilistic, or disconnected from deeper human needs for meaning and belonging.",
"against_data": {
"score": 72,
"pros": [
"Promotes the value of tradition and ritual.",
"Recognizes the comfort and cohesion faith provides."
],
"cons": [
"Romanticizes belief without questioning harm.",
"Suppresses free inquiry in favor of conformity."
]
},
"unbiased": "A person who does not believe in deities, often valuing evidence-based reasoning and secular ethics over religious frameworks.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 82,
"pros": [
"Neutral stance on theism in pluralist societies.",
"Helps ensure separation of church and state."
],
"cons": [
"May be socially marginalized in highly religious areas.",
"Misconceptions persist in many cultures."
]
}
},
"christian": {
"commonality_score": 95,
"for": "Represents faith in Jesus Christ and a set of moral, spiritual, and communal traditions spanning millennia.",
"for_data": {
"score": 92,
"pros": [
"Forms the foundation of Western moral and legal codes.",
"Supports family structure, charity, and purpose.",
"Unites diverse people through shared values and hope."
],
"cons": [
"Interpretations vary widely; not all are peaceful or inclusive.",
"Can conflict with scientific or pluralist worldviews."
]
},
"against": "Critics cite history of intolerance, colonialism, and institutional abuse carried out in the name of Christianity.",
"against_data": {
"score": 77,
"pros": [
"Promotes accountability for religious institutions.",
"Encourages reform toward inclusivity and transparency."
],
"cons": [
"Risks discarding valuable cultural and ethical traditions.",
"Misrepresents everyday believers."
]
},
"unbiased": "A global religious identity centered on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, with over two billion adherents and many sects.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 87,
"pros": [
"Major force in global culture, history, and philosophy.",
"Deeply personal and varied in practice."
],
"cons": [
"Often entangled with politics and power.",
"Perceived differently across contexts and denominations."
]
}
},
"teenager": {
"commonality_score": 94,
"for": "Helps describe a critical stage in human development with unique psychological, social, and legal needs.",
"for_data": {
"score": 88,
"pros": [
"Encourages age-appropriate protections and freedoms.",
"Acknowledges the struggles of adolescence.",
"Aids in designing education and mental health services."
],
"cons": [
"Creates cultural expectations of rebellion or immaturity.",
"Often infantilizes young adults capable of serious thinking."
]
},
"against": "Some argue it's a modern construct that delays adult responsibility and fosters prolonged dependence.",
"against_data": {
"score": 70,
"pros": [
"Promotes early maturity and self-reliance.",
"Challenges youth-targeted consumerism and stereotypes."
],
"cons": [
"Neglects genuine developmental vulnerabilities.",
"Risks exploitation without legal safeguards."
]
},
"unbiased": "An age-based category typically describing those aged 13–19, used in legal, educational, and cultural contexts.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 83,
"pros": [
"Universally recognized stage in human lifecycle.",
"Useful for policy, marketing, and psychology."
],
"cons": [
"Age-based groupings don’t capture emotional maturity.",
"Social expectations shift across time and cultures."
]
}
},
"immature": {
"commonality_score": 92,
"for": "Provides a way to describe emotional or behavioral development not yet suited to responsibility or leadership.",
"for_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Encourages growth and self-awareness.",
"Useful in education, therapy, and leadership contexts.",
"Flags behavior that may be inappropriate or harmful."
],
"cons": [
"Can be weaponized to silence or demean.",
"Highly subjective and context-dependent."
]
},
"against": "Labeling people 'immature' can be dismissive, patronizing, or culturally biased.",
"against_data": {
"score": 68,
"pros": [
"Promotes empathy for those developing at their own pace.",
"Resists rigid age-based expectations."
],
"cons": [
"Overcorrecting may excuse harmful behavior.",
"Can blur lines in accountability."
]
},
"unbiased": "A relative term applied to behaviors or traits perceived as underdeveloped, particularly in emotional regulation or social interaction.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 79,
"pros": [
"Still useful for signaling growth opportunities.",
"Embedded in many cultural rites and stories."
],
"cons": [
"Hard to apply fairly across cultures and individuals.",
"May discourage risk-taking or vulnerability."
]
}
},
"cisgender": {
"commonality_score": 90,
"for": "Clarifies experiences of those whose gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth, creating contrast with trans experiences.",
"for_data": {
"score": 85,
"pros": [
"Encourages visibility for trans people by naming the default.",
"Helps analyze privilege and social norms around gender.",
"Fosters more precise language in healthcare and law."
],
"cons": [
"Term is unfamiliar or confusing to some.",
"Can be perceived as ideological rather than descriptive."
]
},
"against": "Critics say it imposes labels on people who never opted into gender theory, and may oversimplify gender realities.",
"against_data": {
"score": 72,
"pros": [
"Protects identity freedom and linguistic consent.",
"Encourages focus on shared humanity over labels."
],
"cons": [
"May erase relevant distinctions in activism or research.",
"Avoiding terminology can weaken discourse."
]
},
"unbiased": "Refers to individuals whose gender identity aligns with their sex assigned at birth; often used in contrast with transgender.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 81,
"pros": [
"Widely used in gender studies and human rights work.",
"Aims to balance discussions of identity and power."
],
"cons": [
"Not uniformly accepted outside academia or activism.",
"May be misunderstood as accusatory."
]
}
},
"transgender": {
"commonality_score": 90,
"for": "Recognizes and affirms the identity of individuals whose gender differs from their assigned sex at birth, promoting dignity and equality.",
"for_data": {
"score": 90,
"pros": [
"Provides social and legal recognition for trans lives.",
"Encourages understanding of gender as a spectrum.",
"Improves access to affirming healthcare and rights."
],
"cons": [
"Complex for those unfamiliar with gender theory.",
"Medical transition access varies globally."
]
},
"against": "Critics argue it challenges traditional definitions of sex, raises concerns in sports, and leads to ideological conflict in schools or policy.",
"against_data": {
"score": 70,
"pros": [
"Protects spaces historically divided by sex.",
"Questions how far self-identification should extend."
],
"cons": [
"Dismisses vulnerable populations.",
"Often leads to stigma or misinformation."
]
},
"unbiased": "Describes people whose gender identity does not align with their assigned sex at birth, encompassing a broad and diverse set of experiences.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 85,
"pros": [
"Established term in healthcare and human rights law.",
"Widely used in education, activism, and policy."
],
"cons": [
"Cultural interpretations vary significantly.",
"Heavily politicized in some regions."
]
}
},
"nonbinary": {
"commonality_score": 88,
"for": "Provides an inclusive identity for people who do not identify strictly as male or female, challenging restrictive gender binaries.",
"for_data": {
"score": 86,
"pros": [
"Promotes individual expression and mental well-being.",
"Expands language to reflect lived experiences.",
"Encourages more adaptive systems and institutions."
],
"cons": [
"Can be difficult to communicate in legal or medical forms.",
"Some communities resist unfamiliar pronouns or norms."
]
},
"against": "Some argue it creates confusion in social, legal, or biological discussions, and undermines cohesion in language or data.",
"against_data": {
"score": 68,
"pros": [
"Preserves clarity in institutions dependent on binary distinctions.",
"Supports a shared public vocabulary."
],
"cons": [
"Fails to accommodate real identity diversity.",
"Reinforces social alienation."
]
},
"unbiased": "Refers to a gender identity that exists outside the binary framework of male/female, increasingly recognized in policy and culture.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Adds depth to gender discourse and self-understanding.",
"Legally recognized in many progressive countries."
],
"cons": [
"Lacks global consensus or clarity in many regions.",
"Still unfamiliar or controversial to many."
]
}
},
"refugee": {
"commonality_score": 87,
"for": "Designates individuals fleeing war, persecution, or disaster, ensuring international protection and humanitarian support.",
"for_data": {
"score": 91,
"pros": [
"Upholds human rights and compassion.",
"Offers legal framework for international aid.",
"Highlights shared global responsibility."
],
"cons": [
"Can create political friction in host countries.",
"Used inconsistently across crises."
]
},
"against": "Label may carry stigma, reduce agency, and distinguish people primarily by suffering or dependence.",
"against_data": {
"score": 73,
"pros": [
"Promotes integration without labels.",
"Reduces bureaucratic gatekeeping."
],
"cons": [
"Loses legal protections tied to refugee status.",
"Erases the urgency of specific cases."
]
},
"unbiased": "A person forced to leave their country due to persecution, war, or disaster, protected under international law like the 1951 Refugee Convention.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 85,
"pros": [
"Vital term for human rights, resettlement, and aid.",
"Facilitates coordination across nations and NGOs."
],
"cons": [
"Definitions can be narrow or politicized.",
"Identity often reduced to victimhood in media."
]
}
},
"bipoc": {
"commonality_score": 85,
"for": "Aims to unite Black, Indigenous, and People of Color under a shared struggle against systemic racism, while recognizing internal differences.",
"for_data": {
"score": 84,
"pros": [
"Raises visibility of marginalized identities.",
"Addresses erasure within broader racial categories.",
"Fosters coalition-building across communities."
],
"cons": [
"Can flatten or generalize unique experiences.",
"Not universally embraced by those it describes."
]
},
"against": "Seen by some as tokenizing or lumping together vastly different racial groups under a politically motivated label.",
"against_data": {
"score": 71,
"pros": [
"Encourages specificity and cultural nuance.",
"Reduces overreliance on identity as organizing principle."
],
"cons": [
"Fragmentation weakens anti-racist solidarity.",
"May dismiss shared experiences with racism."
]
},
"unbiased": "An acronym standing for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, increasingly used in academic, activist, and policy circles to discuss race and inequality.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Emerging vocabulary for systemic analysis.",
"Intended to center underrepresented voices."
],
"cons": [
"Not well understood outside academic or activist spaces.",
"May evolve or be replaced as discourse matures."
]
}
},
"boomers": {
"commonality_score": 85,
"for": "Refers to the post-WWII generation (1946–1964), credited with major economic growth, civil rights gains, and cultural transformation.",
"for_data": {
"score": 83,
"pros": [
"Helped build infrastructure, institutions, and social programs.",
"Brought about civil rights, women's rights, and environmental laws.",
"Often seen as economically successful and stable."
],
"cons": [
"Enjoyed unique postwar conditions unavailable to future generations.",
"Large size distorted markets and politics."
]
},
"against": "Frequently criticized for hoarding wealth, resisting change, or misunderstanding modern struggles—especially around climate, tech, and housing.",
"against_data": {
"score": 74,
"pros": [
"Encourages intergenerational accountability.",
"Highlights policy failures with long-term effects."
],
"cons": [
"Reinforces ageism and cultural resentment.",
"Oversimplifies a diverse generation."
]
},
"unbiased": "The Baby Boomer generation, born 1946–1964, shaped postwar Western society through size, influence, and economic patterns.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 81,
"pros": [
"Still influential in politics, finance, and family life.",
"Historical lens useful for demographic planning."
],
"cons": [
"Cultural generalizations often dominate discourse.",
"Generational labels vary in impact across class or race."
]
}
},
"millennials": {
"commonality_score": 85,
"for": "A generational cohort born roughly between 1981 and 1996, shaped by technology, globalization, and economic precarity.",
"for_data": {
"score": 84,
"pros": [
"Known for adaptability, digital fluency, and activism.",
"Driving force behind modern entrepreneurship and social change.",
"Challenged traditional career and life expectations."
],
"cons": [
"Generalizations often miss class and cultural diversity.",
"Accused of entitlement or unrealistic demands."
]
},
"against": "Labeling millennials fuels stereotyping and ignores internal economic or racial disparities.",
"against_data": {
"score": 71,
"pros": [
"Focuses on individual merit, not generational grouping.",
"Avoids reductive media caricatures."
],
"cons": [
"Loses valuable generational context in policy analysis.",
"Weakens identity-based community building."
]
},
"unbiased": "A commonly used term for the generation coming of age during the internet and post-9/11 eras, often marked by student debt, delayed milestones, and cultural change.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Helps frame marketing, sociology, and education.",
"Widely recognized identity with shared reference points."
],
"cons": [
"Not all millennials relate to the stereotype.",
"Definitions vary depending on context."
]
}
},
"gen z": {
"commonality_score": 83,
"for": "Describes the generation born between 1997 and 2012, often praised for openness, digital nativity, and progressive values.",
"for_data": {
"score": 85,
"pros": [
"Highly aware of mental health, climate, and social justice.",
"Rapid tech integration into daily life and identity.",
"Challenges outdated institutions and norms."
],
"cons": [
"Perceived as too online or detached from reality.",
"Can be overwhelmed by information and identity options."
]
},
"against": "Labeling Gen Z can overlook deeper structural issues they face, while also enabling corporate and media stereotyping.",
"against_data": {
"score": 70,
"pros": [
"Promotes cross-generational understanding and equity.",
"Shifts focus to actual issues like debt or housing."
],
"cons": [
"Misses shared generational challenges and culture.",
"Dilutes youth-driven movements."
]
},
"unbiased": "The emerging generation growing up with smartphones and global crisis consciousness, expected to shape future politics and culture.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 82,
"pros": [
"Provides insight into education, tech, and identity trends.",
"Helps institutions adapt to new values and needs."
],
"cons": [
"Still in flux—too early to define comprehensively.",
"Youth experiences differ sharply by location and class."
]
}
},
"rich": {
"commonality_score": 82,
"for": "Highlights individuals or households with significant wealth, often associated with success, influence, and luxury.",
"for_data": {
"score": 83,
"pros": [
"Incentivizes innovation and ambition.",
"Can lead to philanthropic support of society.",
"Represents financial literacy and long-term planning."
],
"cons": [
"Wealth can be inherited or ethically questionable.",
"Encourages income disparity if unregulated."
]
},
"against": "Labeling people as 'rich' can oversimplify their situation, invite resentment, or obscure the spectrum of wealth and power.",
"against_data": {
"score": 74,
"pros": [
"Reduces class envy and promotes meritocracy.",
"Encourages solidarity beyond income."
],
"cons": [
"Mutes critiques of wealth concentration.",
"Allows unjust systems to persist unchallenged."
]
},
"unbiased": "Refers to people with income or assets significantly above the median, typically enabling lifestyle freedom and security.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Useful in tax policy, housing, and sociology.",
"Relevant for understanding economic behavior."
],
"cons": [
"Definition shifts based on region and culture.",
"Subject to emotional and political framing."
]
}
},
"poor": {
"commonality_score": 82,
"for": "Draws attention to those with limited financial resources, crucial for designing aid, policy, and economic justice.",
"for_data": {
"score": 86,
"pros": [
"Centers human dignity in economics.",
"Provides language for resource allocation.",
"Supports targeted solutions for homelessness and hunger."
],
"cons": [
"Can stigmatize or dehumanize.",
"Implies passivity or failure in some narratives."
]
},
"against": "Using the label 'poor' may reinforce inferiority, dependency, or stereotypes of laziness or worthlessness.",
"against_data": {
"score": 70,
"pros": [
"Avoids condescension and shame.",
"Encourages focus on potential and community assets."
],
"cons": [
"May obscure urgent material need.",
"Dilutes moral and political call to action."
]
},
"unbiased": "A common term for people or families whose income or access to necessities falls below an accepted standard of living.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 83,
"pros": [
"Central to public policy and humanitarian efforts.",
"Statistical thresholds help clarify inequality."
],
"cons": [
"Reductive when applied without nuance.",
"Fails to capture emotional and cultural wealth."
]
}
},
"indigenous": {
"commonality_score": 81,
"for": "Acknowledges the original inhabitants of lands and their unique cultural, spiritual, and ecological knowledge.",
"for_data": {
"score": 92,
"pros": [
"Essential for historical justice and land rights.",
"Protects endangered languages, practices, and sovereignty.",
"Amplifies resistance to colonial systems."
],
"cons": [
"Can be tokenized or used without consent.",
"Used inconsistently by governments or media."
]
},
"against": "Some argue it creates separation or special status, which can cause division or resentment in multicultural societies.",
"against_data": {
"score": 69,
"pros": [
"Promotes unified civic identity.",
"Reduces potential for resentment or backlash."
],
"cons": [
"Silences unique histories and ongoing injustices.",
"Erases distinct cosmologies and stewardship roles."
]
},
"unbiased": "Refers to ethnic groups that are the original inhabitants of a given region, with legal recognition in many international frameworks.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 88,
"pros": [
"Essential in legal, ecological, and cultural contexts.",
"Framework for self-determination and heritage protection."
],
"cons": [
"Definitions vary across states and legal systems.",
"Can become politicized or depersonalized."
]
}
},
"veteran": {
"commonality_score": 80,
"for": "Honors individuals who have served in the military, recognizing their sacrifice, discipline, and public service.",
"for_data": {
"score": 90,
"pros": [
"Fosters national pride and unity.",
"Secures benefits and support systems for those who served.",
"Acknowledges personal risk and commitment to collective security."
],
"cons": [
"Sometimes romanticizes war or military solutions.",
"Can be politicized or used symbolically without support."
]
},
"against": "Overemphasis on veteran status may overshadow civilian service or promote militaristic culture.",
"against_data": {
"score": 68,
"pros": [
"Encourages appreciation for all public contributions.",
"Challenges overreliance on military identity."
],
"cons": [
"Risks minimizing trauma and re-entry challenges.",
"Might be perceived as dismissive of real sacrifice."
]
},
"unbiased": "A term for individuals who have completed service in a nation’s armed forces, often tied to benefits and commemoration.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 85,
"pros": [
"Provides access to VA healthcare, pensions, and housing.",
"Legally and culturally recognized in many countries."
],
"cons": [
"Veteran experiences are highly diverse.",
"Public understanding often shaped by media or politics."
]
}
},
"essential worker": {
"commonality_score": 78,
"for": "Recognizes those whose labor sustains society during crises—healthcare, food supply, transport, and emergency services.",
"for_data": {
"score": 88,
"pros": [
"Elevates undervalued labor sectors.",
"Encourages hazard pay, PPE access, and public gratitude.",
"Reframes the dignity of service-oriented jobs."
],
"cons": [
"Was inconsistently defined across regions.",
"Can be performative if not matched by protections."
]
},
"against": "Term may be temporary or politicized, creating division between ‘essential’ and ‘non-essential’ lives or work.",
"against_data": {
"score": 70,
"pros": [
"Promotes equal respect for all contributions.",
"Avoids moralizing job types."
],
"cons": [
"Can minimize real risks faced by front-line workers.",
"Dilutes policy urgency by flattening distinctions."
]
},
"unbiased": "Used during emergencies (like the COVID-19 pandemic) to describe roles necessary for societal function and survival.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 84,
"pros": [
"Useful for triage and emergency planning.",
"Catalyst for labor reform discussions."
],
"cons": [
"Uneven application by industry or government.",
"Not a fixed category—context-dependent."
]
}
},
"disabled": {
"commonality_score": 78,
"for": "Acknowledges those with physical, mental, or developmental challenges requiring accommodation and protection.",
"for_data": {
"score": 91,
"pros": [
"Supports access to education, employment, and healthcare.",
"Centerpiece for civil rights movements (e.g., ADA).",
"Validates the lived experiences of millions."
],
"cons": [
"Can become a limiting identity in social or legal contexts.",
"Sometimes defined more by deficit than ability."
]
},
"against": "Some argue the term focuses too heavily on impairment and deficit, reinforcing stigma or dependency narratives.",
"against_data": {
"score": 72,
"pros": [
"Emphasizes ability, adaptability, and potential.",
"Promotes inclusive language like 'differently abled.'"
],
"cons": [
"New terms may seem euphemistic or unclear.",
"Can minimize real struggles with systemic barriers."
]
},
"unbiased": "A legal and social category for people with conditions that impact major life activities, often qualifying for rights and accommodations.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 86,
"pros": [
"Vital for medical, legal, and accessibility systems.",
"Widely recognized in policy and activism."
],
"cons": [
"Definitions differ across regions and cultures.",
"Label may not reflect self-identity or nuance."
]
}
},
"mentally ill": {
"commonality_score": 76,
"for": "Draws attention to people with psychological disorders, helping secure treatment, awareness, and compassion.",
"for_data": {
"score": 87,
"pros": [
"Encourages destigmatization and open dialogue.",
"Supports healthcare access and insurance coverage.",
"Recognizes mental health as legitimate health."
],
"cons": [
"May carry outdated or harsh connotations.",
"Not all psychological experiences fit clinical labels."
]
},
"against": "Term may pathologize normal emotional variation or reduce people to diagnoses.",
"against_data": {
"score": 74,
"pros": [
"Promotes person-first language (e.g., 'living with').",
"Challenges medical overreach into identity."
],
"cons": [
"Can obscure urgent needs for care or protection.",
"May confuse public policy and medical definitions."
]
},
"unbiased": "Refers to individuals with diagnosed psychological disorders that affect mood, thinking, or behavior, typically treated with therapy, medication, or both.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 82,
"pros": [
"Important for healthcare systems and public understanding.",
"Central to workplace and educational accommodations."
],
"cons": [
"Labeling can lead to stigma or discrimination.",
"Diagnostic boundaries are sometimes debated."
]
}
},
"straight": {
"commonality_score": 75,
"for": "Defines heterosexual orientation, supporting understanding of sexual identity and relationship norms.",
"for_data": {
"score": 84,
"pros": [
"Clarifies identity in contrast to LGBTQ+ experiences.",
"Helps map cultural and legal structures of marriage/family.",
"Relevant in sex education, healthcare, and statistics."
],
"cons": [
"May be considered the default, reinforcing norms.",
"Does not describe emotional complexity in attraction."
]
},
"against": "Can be used to reinforce heteronormativity and diminish queer experiences.",
"against_data": {
"score": 70,
"pros": [
"Challenges presumptions about relationships and gender.",
"Promotes more fluid or inclusive language."
],
"cons": [
"Risks alienating people with fixed orientation.",
"Can lead to ambiguity in cultural discussions."
]
},
"unbiased": "A sexual orientation describing attraction to the opposite sex, typically seen as the statistical majority in most societies.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Statistically useful and socially common.",
"Helps map sexual identity diversity."
],
"cons": [
"Concept shaped by cultural and historical shifts.",
"Meaning often assumed rather than explored."
]
}
},
"lgbtq+": {
"commonality_score": 75,
"for": "Creates an inclusive umbrella for individuals with non-heteronormative sexual orientations and gender identities, fostering community and advocacy.",
"for_data": {
"score": 89,
"pros": [
"Amplifies marginalized voices.",
"Strengthens collective rights and visibility.",
"Encourages safe spaces and pride movements."
],
"cons": [
"Can feel overly broad or alphabet-soup-like.",
"May inadvertently exclude lesser-known identities."
]
},
"against": "Some argue it lumps diverse identities together, becoming unwieldy or ideological.",
"against_data": {
"score": 70,
"pros": [
"Supports nuanced discussions of identity.",
"Avoids grouping identities with different struggles."
],
"cons": [
"Undermines unity in advocacy or policy.",
"Risks re-closeting those who need solidarity."
]
},
"unbiased": "An evolving acronym encompassing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, and others (like Intersex, Asexual), used to describe non-cisgender, non-heterosexual identities.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 83,
"pros": [
"Recognized by health orgs, media, and human rights law.",
"Adapts over time to reflect lived identities."
],
"cons": [
"Language and meanings shift quickly.",
"Not universally accepted within all subgroups."
]
}
},
"non-religious": {
"commonality_score": 74,
"for": "Provides a category for people who do not identify with a religion, allowing freedom of belief and secular organization.",
"for_data": {
"score": 85,
"pros": [
"Supports freedom of conscience and humanism.",
"Encourages inclusive, pluralistic societies.",
"Useful for demographic and civic analysis."
],
"cons": [
"May group together atheists, agnostics, and spiritual people unfairly.",
"Often perceived as lacking moral guidance."
]
},
"against": "Can obscure personal meaning systems that don’t align with organized religion but are still deeply spiritual or ethical.",
"against_data": {
"score": 68,
"pros": [
"Promotes understanding of personal belief structures.",
"Reduces flattening of complex worldviews."
],
"cons": [
"Weakens institutional neutrality data.",
"Fails to offer a unified alternative system."
]
},
"unbiased": "Refers to individuals who do not practice or identify with a religious tradition, including atheists, agnostics, and the spiritual-but-not-religious.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 81,
"pros": [
"A common census category across nations.",
"Enables studies of secularism, ethics, and behavior."
],
"cons": [
"Interpretations vary widely between cultures.",
"Can be perceived as culturally dominant in some nations, marginal in others."
]
}
},
"protestor": {
"commonality_score": 74,
"for": "Identifies people actively standing against perceived injustice, central to civil rights, labor, and democratic movements.",
"for_data": {
"score": 88,
"pros": [
"Empowers free speech and civic engagement.",
"Challenges corruption, inequality, and tyranny.",
"Often leads to meaningful legal or cultural change."
],
"cons": [
"Can be disruptive or polarizing.",
"Sometimes linked to violence in public perception."
]
},
"against": "The label 'protestor' can be used pejoratively to delegitimize dissent or equate all action with disruption.",
"against_data": {
"score": 71,
"pros": [
"Encourages broader framing of civic engagement.",
"Protects against stereotyping or surveillance."
],
"cons": [
"Dilutes historical power of protest.",
"Loses clarity around organized action."
]
},
"unbiased": "A person who publicly expresses objection to a policy, institution, or event, typically through demonstrations or organized action.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 83,
"pros": [
"Central to democracy, movements, and reforms.",
"Recognized by law under rights to assembly."
],
"cons": [
"Definitions can vary between peaceful and violent forms.",
"Heavily influenced by media and political framing."
]
}
},
"activist": {
"commonality_score": 73,
"for": "Describes someone working intentionally toward social, environmental, or political change, often through organizing, education, or protest.",
"for_data": {
"score": 86,
"pros": [
"Promotes awareness and collective progress.",
"Drives reform in areas like civil rights, environment, and labor.",
"Empowers marginalized voices and grassroots movements."
],
"cons": [
"Sometimes viewed as self-righteous or extreme.",
"Effectiveness can vary dramatically."
]
},
"against": "Some argue the term is co-opted or performative, and activism may lack accountability or real-world impact.",
"against_data": {
"score": 69,
"pros": [
"Encourages critical review of activist methods.",
"Differentiates meaningful work from branding."
],
"cons": [
"Can be used to suppress dissent.",
"Undermines vital social movements."
]
},
"unbiased": "An individual who takes action to promote, impede, or direct change in society, often working within or against institutions.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 82,
"pros": [
"Foundational in history’s most transformative events.",
"Includes both formal and informal roles."
],
"cons": [
"Cultural meaning varies by nation and ideology.",
"Blurred lines between sincere and symbolic activism."
]
}
},
"patriot": {
"commonality_score": 73,
"for": "A term of national pride, referring to one who loves, supports, and defends their country and its values.",
"for_data": {
"score": 88,
"pros": [
"Unites citizens around shared heritage and ideals.",
"Encourages civic duty and public service.",
"Inspires defense of liberty and justice."
],
"cons": [
"Sometimes conflated with nationalism.",
"Can discourage dissent or critique."
]
},
"against": "The term 'patriot' can be used to silence opposition or justify exclusionary or militaristic policies.",
"against_data": {
"score": 70,
"pros": [
"Protects freedom of dissent and pluralism.",
"Separates nation from regime or ideology."
],
"cons": [
"Can erode national cohesion.",
"Difficult to define without cultural bias."
]
},
"unbiased": "Someone who feels strong devotion to their country, often participating in or supporting its defense, governance, or cultural preservation.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 83,
"pros": [
"Powerful in motivating unity, aid, or resilience.",
"Widely referenced across cultures and histories."
],
"cons": [
"Used variably by populists, critics, and governments.",
"Subject to ideological distortion."
]
}
},
"nationalist": {
"commonality_score": 72,
"for": "Prioritizes the interests, culture, and sovereignty of one’s nation, often in response to globalization or perceived loss of identity.",
"for_data": {
"score": 83,
"pros": [
"Strengthens national self-determination.",
"Protects domestic industries and borders.",
"Reinforces cultural pride and historical continuity."
],
"cons": [
"May foster isolation or suspicion of outsiders.",
"Can be tied to populist or authoritarian tendencies."
]
},
"against": "Nationalism has historically been linked to xenophobia, exclusion, and violent conflict.",
"against_data": {
"score": 78,
"pros": [
"Prevents ideological extremism and identity policing.",
"Promotes global cooperation and mutual respect."
],
"cons": [
"Can lead to loss of sovereignty in weak states.",
"Dilutes cultural uniqueness through over-integration."
]
},
"unbiased": "An ideology focused on elevating a nation’s interests above others, sometimes interpreted positively as patriotism or negatively as ethnocentrism.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Major driver of modern state formation.",
"Used by both left and right ideologies in different contexts."
],
"cons": [
"Highly context-dependent and easily radicalized.",
"Difficult to distinguish from exclusionary politics."
]
}
},
"globalist": {
"commonality_score": 72,
"for": "Supports international cooperation, open markets, and a shared global identity to solve transnational problems.",
"for_data": {
"score": 82,
"pros": [
"Encourages peace through economic interdependence.",
"Addresses global challenges like climate, health, and war.",
"Supports diversity and exchange of ideas."
],
"cons": [
"Can disempower local workers or cultures.",
"Global institutions may lack democratic accountability."
]
},
"against": "Critics see globalism as eroding national sovereignty, fostering elite control, and ignoring local traditions and jobs.",
"against_data": {
"score": 75,
"pros": [
"Rebalances focus on community, tradition, and autonomy.",
"Exposes failures of technocratic or corporate global structures."
],
"cons": [
"Risks retrenchment into nationalism or isolationism.",
"Disregards successful international coordination efforts."
]
},
"unbiased": "A philosophy or policy framework favoring global integration economically, environmentally, and politically.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 79,
"pros": [
"Essential in addressing issues beyond national borders.",
"Fosters mutual understanding and shared progress."
],
"cons": [
"Perceived as elitist or disconnected by some populations.",
"Can trigger strong populist backlash."
]
}
},
"elite": {
"commonality_score": 70,
"for": "Refers to those with exceptional skills, power, or achievement, often shaping culture, policy, and innovation.",
"for_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Drives progress in science, governance, and business.",
"Often assumes leadership in crises or transitions.",
"Resource-rich for philanthropy and influence."
],
"cons": [
"Perceived as detached or self-serving.",
"Accused of gatekeeping or preserving privilege."
]
},
"against": "The term 'elite' is increasingly used to criticize those seen as out of touch, corrupt, or unaccountable.",
"against_data": {
"score": 76,
"pros": [
"Checks power and privilege accumulation.",
"Strengthens democratic access and equity."
],
"cons": [
"Can promote anti-intellectualism or populist rage.",
"Fails to distinguish earned from inherited influence."
]
},
"unbiased": "A designation for people in top-tier positions of influence, education, or wealth, used in both praise and critique.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 78,
"pros": [
"Relevant to class and policy discussions.",
"Shaped by economics, education, and heritage."
],
"cons": [
"Loaded term—varies in tone and intention.",
"Can be manipulated by media or politics."
]
}
},
"working class": {
"commonality_score": 70,
"for": "Highlights the labor and economic realities of people who earn wages rather than salaries or own capital.",
"for_data": {
"score": 86,
"pros": [
"Centers dignity in manual and service labor.",
"Empowers unionization and wage equity campaigns.",
"Reveals structural economic divisions."
],
"cons": [
"Can be romanticized or oversimplified.",
"Used differently by left and right politics."
]
},
"against": "Some argue it reinforces class divisions and may marginalize knowledge work or hybrid professions.",
"against_data": {
"score": 68,
"pros": [
"Encourages recognition of skill diversity.",
"Avoids reinforcing class-based resentment."
],
"cons": [
"Erases valid class-based political power.",
"Can downplay economic exploitation."
]
},
"unbiased": "A term for people in wage-earning, non-managerial positions, especially in skilled trades, service work, or manufacturing.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 83,
"pros": [
"Still relevant for labor policy and justice movements.",
"Part of key demographic in voting and economics."
],
"cons": [
"Class labels can carry unintended baggage.",
"Doesn’t account for modern gig or digital labor."
]
}
},
"feminist": {
"commonality_score": 69,
"for": "Advocates for gender equality and the dismantling of patriarchal systems that marginalize women and other genders.",
"for_data": {
"score": 90,
"pros": [
"Secured major wins in voting, education, and workplace equity.",
"Challenges gender-based violence and underrepresentation.",
"Intersectional feminism broadens inclusion and scope."
],
"cons": [
"Sometimes criticized for internal division or ideological purity.",
"May be perceived as anti-male by critics."
]
},
"against": "Detractors argue it promotes victimhood culture, overlooks male issues, or becomes hostile to differing viewpoints.",
"against_data": {
"score": 70,
"pros": [
"Promotes balance in rights advocacy.",
"Elevates shared family or relational priorities."
],
"cons": [
"Misunderstands feminism’s actual goals.",
"Erases historical oppression."
]
},
"unbiased": "A belief in and advocacy for gender equality, with roots in suffrage and civil rights movements and multiple modern expressions.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 85,
"pros": [
"Globally recognized as a force for legal and social change.",
"Exists across diverse political and cultural expressions."
],
"cons": [
"Contested definitions across media and generations.",
"Co-opted by corporate and political agendas."
]
}
},
"libertarian": {
"commonality_score": 68,
"for": "Advocates for maximum individual freedom, minimal government interference, and voluntary associations in society.",
"for_data": {
"score": 84,
"pros": [
"Protects personal liberty and property rights.",
"Encourages innovation, entrepreneurship, and decentralization.",
"Skeptical of government overreach and surveillance."
],
"cons": [
"May ignore social safety net or equity concerns.",
"Risk of deregulation harming public goods."
]
},
"against": "Critics argue libertarianism neglects systemic injustice and assumes an unrealistic level of personal responsibility.",
"against_data": {
"score": 72,
"pros": [
"Emphasizes collective responsibility for health and environment.",
"Encourages support for marginalized groups."
],
"cons": [
"Can tilt toward centralization and coercion.",
"Suppresses genuine diversity of thought."
]
},
"unbiased": "A political philosophy emphasizing personal autonomy, free markets, and limited state power.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Influential in American and European political debate.",
"Crosses both left and right ideologies in some forms."
],
"cons": [
"Difficult to apply consistently in complex societies.",
"Perceived differently across cultures and classes."
]
}
},
"socialist": {
"commonality_score": 67,
"for": "Seeks collective ownership or regulation of key industries and wealth redistribution to ensure equity and universal rights.",
"for_data": {
"score": 85,
"pros": [
"Expands healthcare, education, and housing access.",
"Reduces class inequality and poverty.",
"Empowers labor and community over corporations."
],
"cons": [
"Risks inefficiency or bureaucratic stagnation.",
"Historical abuses by authoritarian regimes."
]
},
"against": "Viewed by some as incompatible with freedom, market innovation, or merit-based systems.",
"against_data": {
"score": 76,
"pros": [
"Encourages competition and personal achievement.",
"Protects private enterprise and individual ownership."
],
"cons": [
"Allows wealth disparity to compound over time.",
"Underfunds public goods in free-market systems."
]
},
"unbiased": "A political and economic framework advocating for collective or state-directed control over resources to prioritize social welfare.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 82,
"pros": [
"Broad tradition with many peaceful democratic models.",
"Powerful in labor history and modern policy debate."
],
"cons": [
"Highly politicized term with conflicting definitions.",
"Outcomes depend heavily on implementation context."
]
}
},
"woke": {
"commonality_score": 67,
"for": "Originally meant to describe awareness of social injustice, particularly racism and inequality, now broadly applies to cultural sensitivity.",
"for_data": {
"score": 78,
"pros": [
"Promotes empathy and awareness of marginalized voices.",
"Challenges unconscious bias and harmful traditions.",
"Encourages inclusive language and representation."
],
"cons": [
"Can lead to performative virtue signaling.",
"Sometimes weaponized in corporate or political settings."
]
},
"against": "Often criticized as censorious, overly sensitive, or ideologically rigid—leading to cancel culture or intellectual conformity.",
"against_data": {
"score": 77,
"pros": [
"Defends freedom of speech and critical debate.",
"Promotes resilience and pluralism in discourse."
],
"cons": [
"May dismiss genuine harm in social structures.",
"Risks endorsing ignorance or regression."
]
},
"unbiased": "A cultural term denoting heightened awareness of inequality and social justice issues, often invoked in both praise and critique.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Reflects a generational shift in values and awareness.",
"Used in academia, HR, and activism.",
],
"cons": [
"Meaning changes rapidly and polarizes easily.",
"Can lose effectiveness as a diluted label."
]
}
},
"anti-vaxxer": {
"commonality_score": 66,
"for": "Refers to individuals skeptical of vaccine safety, mandates, or pharmaceutical influence, often citing personal freedom or medical autonomy.",
"for_data": {
"score": 72,
"pros": [
"Highlights mistrust in corporate and government health structures.",
"Promotes consent, transparency, and alternative research.",
"Advocates for informed decision-making."
],
"cons": [
"Rejects well-validated scientific consensus.",
"Puts public health at risk in outbreaks."
]
},
"against": "Widely criticized for contributing to preventable illness, spread of misinformation, and undermining public trust in medicine.",
"against_data": {
"score": 82,
"pros": [
"Upholds community health and herd immunity.",
"Defends evidence-based science and regulation."
],
"cons": [
"Sometimes stigmatizes those with nuanced questions.",
"Can be misused to shut down valid concerns."
]
},
"unbiased": "A contentious label applied to individuals who oppose, delay, or question vaccinations, especially in the context of mandates or mass campaigns.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 79,
"pros": [
"Reflects modern conflict between public good and personal autonomy.",
"Highlights breakdowns in trust between experts and populations."
],
"cons": [
"Frequently misapplied or overly politicized.",
"Ranges from total opposition to selective concern."
]
}
},
"anti-fascist": {
"commonality_score": 65,
"for": "Opposes authoritarianism, white supremacy, and political violence, rooted in resistance movements against historical fascist regimes.",
"for_data": {
"score": 84,
"pros": [
"Defends civil liberties and democratic values.",
"Confronts hate groups and organized extremism.",
"Continues a legacy of WWII-era resistance."
],
"cons": [
"Can attract radical elements and conflict.",
"Tactics may provoke public backlash or legal risk."
]
},
"against": "Some argue that anti-fascist groups use violence, dress ideology in moral absolutism, and mirror the tactics of those they oppose.",
"against_data": {
"score": 73,
"pros": [
"Protects against political polarization.",
"Encourages lawful protest over confrontation."
],
"cons": [
"Oversimplifies historical and moral contexts.",
"Ignores threats that demand urgent resistance."
]
},
"unbiased": "Describes a broad spectrum of individuals and movements opposed to fascist ideologies, often associated with grassroots direct action.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Aligned with core principles of human rights.",
"Emerges during democratic backsliding or extremist surges."
],
"cons": [
"Hard to define due to decentralized nature.",
"Media portrayal heavily influences perception."
]
}
},
"colonizer": {
"commonality_score": 64,
"for": "Identifies historical actors or powers that expanded territory and influence, often building infrastructure and global networks.",
"for_data": {
"score": 75,
"pros": [
"Shaped modern borders, economies, and trade systems.",
"Introduced technologies, institutions, and language.",
"Established global influence and expansion of knowledge."
],
"cons": [
"Did so often through force, coercion, and erasure.",
"Benefits accrued unevenly and long-term harm persisted."
]
},
"against": "Used today as a pejorative label, it may oversimplify history or place collective blame on individuals.",
"against_data": {
"score": 76,
"pros": [
"Promotes historical reconciliation and nuance.",
"Protects individuals from inherited guilt."
],
"cons": [
"Can whitewash systemic legacy of colonialism.",
"May delay accountability or reparative justice."
]
},
"unbiased": "Refers to individuals, governments, or cultures involved in establishing and maintaining colonies, especially during European imperial expansion.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Necessary term in history, politics, and ethics.",
"Foundational to global power structure studies."
],
"cons": [
"Highly charged and contextualized term.",
"Requires distinction between historical role and modern usage."
]
}
},
"oppressor": {
"commonality_score": 62,
"for": "Highlights systems or individuals that limit freedom, impose unjust power, or enforce inequality through coercion or manipulation.",
"for_data": {
"score": 82,
"pros": [
"Empowers resistance and justice movements.",
"Identifies abuse of power across institutions.",
"Clarifies asymmetry in social, legal, or economic systems."
],
"cons": [
"Highly relative depending on perspective.",
"Can oversimplify complex situations."
]
},
"against": "May be overused in ideological contexts, demonizing opponents or simplifying debate into oppressor vs oppressed binaries.",
"against_data": {
"score": 73,
"pros": [
"Encourages open dialogue over blame.",
"Fosters unity over division."
],
"cons": [
"May obscure real systemic injustice.",
"Flattens analysis into vague moralism."
]
},
"unbiased": "A term for an agent, group, or system that actively imposes control or deprivation over another through force, policy, or ideology.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 78,
"pros": [
"Clear utility in justice movements and education.",
"Helpful framing in post-colonial and class analysis."
],
"cons": [
"Used imprecisely in some rhetorical spaces.",
"Requires consistent standards of proof or causation."
]
}
},
"minority": {
"commonality_score": 60,
"for": "Draws attention to groups with smaller numbers or less access to power, enabling legal protections and focused policy.",
"for_data": {
"score": 85,
"pros": [
"Central to civil rights, representation, and equity.",
"Highlights imbalances in opportunity and voice.",
"Used in health, education, and demographic policy."
],
"cons": [
"Can feel reductive or patronizing.",
"Does not always reflect influence or cultural power."
]
},
"against": "Framing someone as a 'minority' may reinforce marginality or invisibility, especially where they are numerically or culturally dominant.",
"against_data": {
"score": 71,
"pros": [
"Encourages reframing to ‘marginalized’ or specific identities.",
"Avoids unintentional othering."
],
"cons": [
"May sacrifice clarity in census or legal language.",
"Sometimes obscures numerical realities."
]
},
"unbiased": "A general term used to describe groups with less representation in a population, institution, or power structure.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 80,
"pros": [
"Essential in law, policy, and academic study.",
"Empowers efforts to increase visibility and equity."
],
"cons": [
"Needs refinement to avoid flattening distinct identities.",
"Regional and historical context is crucial."
]
}
},
"majority": {
"commonality_score": 60,
"for": "Represents the dominant numerical or power-holding group in a given population, often shaping norms and institutions.",
"for_data": {
"score": 78,
"pros": [
"Useful in democratic decision-making and governance.",
"Reflects shared values or customs in many cultures.",
"Drives national identity and resource allocation."
],
"cons": [
"Majority status can obscure internal diversity.",
"Risk of tyranny or cultural erasure."
]
},
"against": "The concept can be misused to silence minorities, dismiss difference, or justify oppressive policies.",
"against_data": {
"score": 74,
"pros": [
"Protects pluralism and diversity of thought.",
"Challenges complacency and dominant narratives."
],
"cons": [
"Can marginalize real consensus or community cohesion.",
"Sometimes used to force moral relativism."
]
},
"unbiased": "Refers to the group with numerical or institutional dominance within a given system, contextually dependent on time, place, and definition.",
"unbiased_data": {
"score": 78,
"pros": [
"Central to electoral systems, social research, and law.",
"Offers clarity when defining majority-minority dynamics."
],
"cons": [
"Must be applied with nuance to avoid exclusion.",
"Can oversimplify highly complex societies."
]
}
}
}
}
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment