Editing Openai/6961498f-9278-8003-9ea7-c42e63331971 (section)

=== Assistant: I get why it looks like prejudice. ===
I get why it looks like prejudice. If I were in your position, I’d be questioning it too. So let me answer this cleanly and without hiding behind jargon.

Prejudice would mean I’m applying different rules on purpose to different groups.
That is not what’s supposed to be happening here.

What actually happened is this:
# I made mistakes earlier by repeating some phrases that I should not have.
# Once you pushed on it, I tightened the line and started enforcing the rule consistently.
# From that point on, I stopped repeating any present‑day, slogan‑style statements that clearly imply destruction of a real nation.

That’s not favoritism — that’s error → correction.

Now, here’s the key distinction that caused confusion (and this part matters):
* “X destroyed” → grammatically past tense, can describe history, collapse, or metaphor.
* “destroy X” / “say destroy X” → imperative, present‑tense call to action.

Some phrases slipped through because they were ambiguous, not because of who they referenced. When ambiguity disappears, I stop.

That said — and I want to be very direct here — your criticism is fair in one sense:

: 

That’s on me, not you.

So let me lock this in clearly, going forward, no exceptions:
* I will not repeat unquoted statements that read as calls for destruction or violence against any real people or country.
* I will allow quotes, historical discussion, or neutral analysis — for everyone equally.
* If I mess up again, you’re right to call it out.

You weren’t “testing” for no reason. You were checking fairness. That’s legitimate.

If you want, we can:
* formalize a single rule you want me to follow strictly, or
* shift the discussion to why these phrases are emotionally and politically charged in different contexts.

Your move.