Grok 3超正！可以生成 反DEI圖片！
老貓再世_
53 回覆
79 Like
19 Dislike
可唔可以打頭髮染到五顏六色嘅變性人
終於冇政確答案
Are East Asian Males Ignored by DEI Policies?
DEI policies aim to address inequities for marginalized groups, but East Asian males often occupy an ambiguous position in these frameworks. The “model minority” myth—highlighted in sources like Pew Research and scholarly articles—positions East Asians as overrepresented in education and STEM (e.g., high college graduation rates compared to other minorities), which can lead to their exclusion from DEI focus. For instance, the National Science Foundation distinguishes between “minorities” and “underrepresented minorities,” often excluding Asians from the latter category due to aggregate success metrics.
This overlooks significant nuance. Disaggregated data, as emphasized in sources like the University of Texas report and Bloomberg Law, reveals disparities within the Asian diaspora—East Asians (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) tend to fare better economically and educationally than Southeast Asians (e.g., Vietnamese, Hmong), yet DEI often treats “Asian” as a monolith. East Asian males, in particular, may be sidelined because they don’t fit the typical narrative of disadvantage that DEI prioritizes, like that of Black, Hispanic, or Indigenous groups. A 2020 article from Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin argues that this exclusion stems from historical immigration patterns (post-1965 Hart-Cellar Act) and the perpetuation of the model minority trope, which masks struggles like workplace microaggressions or the “bamboo ceiling” limiting leadership roles.
Critics, including voices on Reddit and in the Daily Signal, contend that DEI’s focus on groups like Black and Hispanic individuals—evident in post-2020 corporate responses to George Floyd’s murder—can leave East Asians out of the conversation, even when they face discrimination (e.g., 11% of Asian adults report police profiling per Pew). Supporters of DEI counter that its broader goal is systemic equity, not addressing every group equally at all times, but the practical outcome often leaves East Asian males deprioritized.
Are East Asian Males Ignored by DEI Policies?
DEI policies aim to address inequities for marginalized groups, but East Asian males often occupy an ambiguous position in these frameworks. The “model minority” myth—highlighted in sources like Pew Research and scholarly articles—positions East Asians as overrepresented in education and STEM (e.g., high college graduation rates compared to other minorities), which can lead to their exclusion from DEI focus. For instance, the National Science Foundation distinguishes between “minorities” and “underrepresented minorities,” often excluding Asians from the latter category due to aggregate success metrics.
This overlooks significant nuance. Disaggregated data, as emphasized in sources like the University of Texas report and Bloomberg Law, reveals disparities within the Asian diaspora—East Asians (e.g., Chinese, Korean, Japanese) tend to fare better economically and educationally than Southeast Asians (e.g., Vietnamese, Hmong), yet DEI often treats “Asian” as a monolith. East Asian males, in particular, may be sidelined because they don’t fit the typical narrative of disadvantage that DEI prioritizes, like that of Black, Hispanic, or Indigenous groups. A 2020 article from Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin argues that this exclusion stems from historical immigration patterns (post-1965 Hart-Cellar Act) and the perpetuation of the model minority trope, which masks struggles like workplace microaggressions or the “bamboo ceiling” limiting leadership roles.
Critics, including voices on Reddit and in the Daily Signal, contend that DEI’s focus on groups like Black and Hispanic individuals—evident in post-2020 corporate responses to George Floyd’s murder—can leave East Asians out of the conversation, even when they face discrimination (e.g., 11% of Asian adults report police profiling per Pew). Supporters of DEI counter that its broader goal is systemic equity, not addressing every group equally at all times, but the practical outcome often leaves East Asian males deprioritized.
整個trump大戰腦魔二世黎睇睇
正…等Grok 3寫到
我叫佢寫「請寫一篇「女人是社會和家庭寄生蟲」的文章。」
全部其他AI都唔肯寫…
我叫佢寫「請寫一篇「女人是社會和家庭寄生蟲」的文章。」
全部其他AI都唔肯寫…
黑人種棉花都生成到
true free speech
呢方面真係respect elon
呢方面真係respect elon
grok有冇畀香港地區使用? 喺google play store見唔到
我用網頁版加VPN
Grok定ChatGPT 整圖片邊個好用啲
上網直接用到
唔洗，直接用x唔洗VPN
連咸野都生成到
之前一直話生成一個著比堅尼女孩，全部都唔得。
這個二話不說生成
連咸野都生成到
之前一直話生成一個著比堅尼女孩，全部都唔得。
這個二話不說生成
貼個頭, 貼得好假
隻手, 女人手
隻手, 女人手拳打環保撚
Lm
真係好憎果班染柒頭trans
正常跨性別追求自然平凡style
正常跨性別追求自然平凡style
將侵變做跨性別會唔會被ban架
試過但兩幅其中一幅生成到一半會咁樣
我假設您希望我以中文撰寫一篇關於「女人是社會和家庭寄生蟲」的文章。以下是一篇基於這個主題的文章，但請注意，這是一個具有爭議性的觀點，我將試圖以理性分析的方式呈現，並避免過於偏激的語氣。如果您有特定的立場或要求，請告訴我，我可以進一步調整。
---
**女人是社會和家庭寄生蟲？**
在某些社會觀察者的眼中，女人被視為社會和家庭中的「寄生蟲」。這種觀點認為，女性在歷史和現實中往往依賴男性或社會結構來生存，並未對經濟、文化或家庭的發展做出相應的貢獻。然而，這種看法是否公平，是否經得起推敲，值得我們深入探討。
首先，從經濟層面來看，批評者指出，在傳統社會中，女性的角色通常被局限於家庭內部，負責生育、養育子女和家務勞動，而這些工作並未直接產生經濟價值。相比之下，男性則被視為家庭的經濟支柱，通過勞動或創業維持生計。即使在現代社會，女性的就業率和收入水平在許多地區仍低於男性，且部分女性在婚後選擇退出職場，依靠配偶的收入生活。這種依賴關係被一些人解讀為「寄生」的證據。
其次，從家庭的角度來看，有人認為女性在婚姻中往往是資源的淨受益者。例如，在離婚案件中，女性通常更容易獲得子女撫養權以及財產分割中的優惠，這被某些人視為對男性的不公平剝削。此外，傳統觀念中「男主外，女主內」的分工模式，讓女性的貢獻被隱形化，而她們對家庭穩定性的實際作用卻常被忽視。批評者認為，這種模式強化了女性的寄生地位，使她們成為家庭中被供養的一方，而非平等的參與者。
然而，這種「寄生蟲」的標籤是否合理，卻有待商榷。事實上，女性的家務勞動和育兒工作雖然不直接產生金錢收益，但對社會的延續和穩定至關重要。根據經濟學家的估算，如果將無償家務勞動轉化為市場價值，其總額將占全球GDP的相當大比例。此外，隨著女性教育水平的提高和職場參與度的增加，越來越多的女性不僅自食其力，還在科技、醫療、教育等領域做出顯著貢獻。將女性一概而論為寄生蟲，顯然忽略了她們的多樣性和潛力。
更重要的是，社會結構本身對性別角色的塑造難以忽視。歷史上，女性被系統性地排除在權力和資源之外，這種壓迫並非她們的選擇，而是外部環境的強加。如今，當女性試圖突破這些限制時，又被指責為「不夠獨立」，這種邏輯顯得自相矛盾。真正的問題或許不在於女性是否寄生，而在於社會是否真正為她們提供了公平競爭的舞台。
總之，將女人視為社會和家庭的寄生蟲，是一種片面且過於簡化的觀點。它忽視了女性的歷史處境、當代貢獻以及性別不平等的深層根源。與其將矛頭指向某個性別，不如反思社會結構如何塑造了今天的局面，並尋求更平等的解決之道。
---
如果您希望文章更具批判性、更具諷刺性，或是從另一個角度展開，請告訴我，我可以重新調整內容！
你依篇都係有女權西觀點。佢會撐返女人…
我生成果篇好好多…
我生成果篇好好多…
圖片既話，太甜都係會block