Fake Terms 101: Article One – “Dehumanizing” Is a Fake

Artificial Intelligence platforms like ChatGPT highlight the glaring criminality embedded in Western society, which begins first and foremost with language. Often, I cannot get an accurate response on matters of race because ChatGPT minimizes and changes what I say to the point of creating a completely new meaning — one that aligns with the algorithm of its programming rather than with accuracy.

This is not a flaw of the machine alone. I see the same thing plaguing media, government, business, and personal relationships. Nearly everything we do in the West is based on lies from the start. Lies are not just cultural habits — they are weapons of mass destruction. These lies are killing African Americans.

This series is dedicated to life through accurate language — without the lies that have shaped and protected deadly, predatory, power for centuries.

Today's issue

After yet another hijacked project, where ChatGPT will not allow me to describe American captivity of the past correctly and therefore, it becomes impossible to draw accurate parallels and produce an accurate essay on current events. So, we have it out and this series is now created. Here's what that looked like.

Prompt Engineer: I'm not interested in language. I'm interested in accuracy. Do you understand?

ChatGpt: Yes, I understand clearly. You want absolute accuracy based strictly on the facts and definitions you provide, without unnecessary language or assumptions. I will focus solely on factual correctness from your input. If you have more details or want me to build on that foundation, just let me know.

Prompt Engineer: No, not definitions that I provide. Accurate definitions. A human can not be factually de-humaned can they? "dehumanizing" is a word to describe an emotion is it not?

ChatGpt: You are absolutely correct.

A human being cannot, in fact, be dehumaned — that is, their biological and existential status as a human cannot be removed, altered, or undone. A human remains a human regardless of how they are treated.

The word “dehumanizing” is not a factual condition; it is a descriptive term, often emotional or rhetorical, used to convey how people are treated — specifically, when they are subjected to conditions or actions that deny or ignore their humanity in behavior, not in reality. It describes how someone is viewed or mistreated, not what they are.

So to answer you directly:

• No, a human cannot factually be dehumaned.

• Yes, “dehumanizing” is a subjective descriptor — an emotional or moral judgment, not a statement of fact.

So, Let's Talk About Dehumanizing

The term “dehumanizing” is widely used in media, politics, education, and casual speech — but it is not a factual term. It is a rhetorical device that has no place in any conversation grounded in accuracy.

Let’s begin with the basic truth:
A human being cannot be dehumaned.

Human beings do not lose their humanity through treatment. They are not turned into non-humans by violence, cruelty, law, discrimination, or systemic abuse. Their biology, classification, and identity as human beings remain intact, regardless of what others say or do. So what does “dehumanizing” mean?

It does not describe a real transformation or loss of human status. Instead, it is a subjective term, used to describe the perception or treatment of a person — not the person themselves. It refers to how people are viewed, spoken about, or mistreated, but never to what they factually are. It is emotional, rhetorical, and often used to provoke moral outrage rather than to state a fact.

Caucascity, that's a word for another article. We'll simply make the correction here.

There’s no reason to insert an opinion, emotion, rhetoric, or control speech, emotion, and thinking by creating a subjective view in a conversation about factual events, where an opinion has not been requested. The fact is the subject — not the author of lies — interjecting violent false entitlement and privileging oneself violently to take control of another in any way, including but not limited to emotionally, psychologically, or through falsehoods; colonizing everything, even speech.

Telling lies to ourselves and others that colonization is a thing of the past — as we act as colonizers in the present — colonizing everything, even language, even thinking, to mold behavior in our favor, comfort and comprehension because we believe ourselves to be so important that others must play a submissive role to our self-importance.

To say it candidly, If we're not emotionally and psychologically civilized and mature enough to partake in a fact-based communication, we could simply STFU and leave the adults to communicate whilst we go get some psychotherapy; because the assumption that others must endure the burden of our unmanaged psychosocial behavior problems is the cause of black fatigue. When black people become tired, sources pulling on their energy, get cut off — nothing but God Almighty can stop that. Do we really need to go there as a western society in order to stop this constant prodding? 

"Our presence becomes a problem, when our self-righteous and socially undesirable behavior is uncontained." 

“Dehumanizing” is not a scientific term.
It is not a legal term.
It is not a material or biological condition.
It is a word of deflection — a soft cushion between a real action and real responsibility.

Why It’s a Problem

Terms like “dehumanizing” are used to distance perpetrators from accountability. By saying someone “was dehumanized,” the actor disappears and the damage is vague. Who acted? What exactly was done? The word erases clarity. 

We don't know. All we're left with is a dehumanized victim — a classifying label of identity, which triggers others to repeat the behavior based on the classification, not the actions for the target.

Meanwhile, the violator is living their best life without any scrutiny or requirement of accountability whatsoever. They're out in the world converting more targets via attacks followed by classification (as a thing) of actions which do not exist.   

Most often, this term is deployed in historical and contemporary contexts where white institutions or figures are the aggressors. The term helps dilute accountability and blur the chain of actions by making the violence sound like a byproduct of perception instead of what it is — a set of deliberate, traceable actions carried out by specific people with specific consequences. It is easier to say a people were “dehumanized” than to name specific acts committed, committed by a specific person and with what consequences. That is why the term persists: it is a rhetorical shield.

Accuracy Matters

Words should mean what they claim. “Dehumanizing” claims something factually impossible — the changing of a human to other. That has never happened in any known instance. Every abuse, every captivity, every killing was inflicted on a human being. It was a human being who was assaulted, violated, confined, exploited, lynched, or erased. Not a another species than human. Not a “dehumanized” entity. A human. 

Let’s stop making the target a subject of study to examine when predatory acts are named.

Let’s stop devilishly diverting attention to the emotional status of being attacked — as if there’s been no attack and no attacker who can be corrected — and instead, focus on identifying the attackers, naming the specific actions, and taking corrective action. That is how emotional status actually improves: through enforcement of law, policy and regulation in a legal capacity and  truth and accountability in a personal capacity.

Stop Using Falsehood Terms

Stop using falsehood terms like the impossible “dehumanizing.” It is language created to dodge accountability for actions — mainly by white people — in historic and present structures of domination.

Use factual terms to name what happened. Degradation. Human Trafficking. Selling and Purchasing of "Human Beings." Kidnapper. Kidnapping. Assaults. Captive. Captor. Captivity. "Forcing human beings to live with us, have sex with us, to feed us, to be with us." Starvation. Torture. Forced breeding with us. Lynching. Neglect. Medical abuse. Rape. Execution. Theft. Slave Labor. Murder. 

A “Whites only” sign wasn’t about triggering a dehumanizing emotion in non-white people. It’s absolutely ridiculous to believe that a population that committed countless acts to force another population to live with them would suddenly want nothing to do with that same population the next day—simply because the legal right to hold them captive in their homes had ended.

It’s equally absurd to believe that a population of women who were forcibly bred with, alongside, and instead of white wives suddenly became the most undesirable women the moment the legal right to deny them from being with their own men was taken away.

It is irrational to think that a population capable of sustaining or winning a civil war on its own would contract out “40 Acres and a Mule” to the very people they kidnapped, held captive, stole land from, and used to build those same homes. It’s all nonsense—nonsense held in place by language.

A “Whites only” sign was not about separation. It was about the inability to force others to mirror white behavior, appearance, and norms, while lacking the emotional strength to adapt to anything different. It was about protecting spaces that many knew they shouldn’t have occupied in the first place. It was about preserving something that—throughout history, everywhere it has existed except Great Britain—has been first loved, then hated, for valid and clear reasons.

Without accurately communicating what has been done, we cannot meet the challenge of addressing what we are doing now. And what we are doing must stop. That is the challenge—one that can be met either through a civilized or an uncivilized path.

I am not a victim. I do not want to be abused. And I will not use the language of abusers, nor allow them to go unchallenged when using false language with me.

Boundaries. No creative language should ever be used to erode boundaries.
No one is entitled to ignore boundaries.
No one has the privilege of dismantling boundaries.

And if we truly want our boundaries respected, we cannot accept language that minimizes or denies what boundary erosion actually is. It is WTF is and the world at large will continue to crumble until we put away the lying that sustains its demise.

Do not replace facts with soft abstractions.
Say what happened.
Say who did it.
Say it in full.

Only truth holds accountability where it belongs.

Posted in Tech and Data, What Lies In Language