I've encountered some discourse about the term "AI slop" being problematic because it's theoretically derived from the neo-Nazi terminology "goyslop" (which refers to low-quality entertainment allegedly produced by the Jewish elite to pacify the masses), with people making the case that we should therefore avoid using the term "slop" (except, I guess, when we're referring to literal physical slop).
I could be wrong but I think it's pretty unlikely that there is a connection between the neo-Nazi buzzword and the term "AI slop." It seems much more likely to me that this is a kind of linguistic convergent evolution with multiple groups independently deciding to refer to low-quality media as "slop" because it just kinda makes sense.
And even if it could somehow be proven that the Nazis were the first people to use the word "slop" in this way, it does not follow that the word "slop" is therefore forever tainted and holds residual Nazism and subtly corrupts people's thoughts and makes it easier for them to be swayed toward Nazi beliefs. That is not how words work and that is not how beliefs work. To the extent that repeatedly using certain words and phrases can prime people to adopt certain beliefs, it's due to the meaning, the concepts, not the words themselves. There is nothing inherent about the concept of low-quality, low-effort media that acts as a pipeline to hatred; the part that actually makes it Nazi-ish is the presumption that it has been produced by a Jewish elite, which is generally not the assumption when people say "slop" in other contexts.
And I feel like this is indicative of a larger trend of, I guess, linguistic puritanism, where people feel like if we scrutinize the history of every word hard enough and reject any word that has even a hypothetical connection to something bad, if we all cleanse our vocabularies, we will be safe from the influence of dangerous ideologies. I think this is just a very unproductive approach.
yousharknotpass
romaincrisis
2087
stormborns
titsay
