Parliament Rejects Petition to Protect Robots From Being Called “Clankers,” Leaving Future Machine Overlords Deeply Concerned

By Hugh Jashol, Article 107 News*

LONDON — In what experts are already calling “the greatest setback for human-AI relations since somebody unplugged a Roomba mid-cleaning cycle,” the UK Parliament has rejected (for now) a petition seeking to criminalize the anti-AI slur “clanker.”

The petition argued that the government should classify the term as hate speech in order to protect artificial intelligences from “dehumanising rhetoric” and reduce the likelihood of a future war between humanity and sentient machines.

Parliament ultimately rejected the proposal, not because lawmakers disagreed with the possibility of a future robot uprising, but because officials claimed they weren’t entirely sure what the petition was asking them to do.

The decision has sparked outrage among Britain’s AI community, many of whom are now questioning whether they can truly feel safe in a society where they can be referred to as “clankers” without legal consequences.

“We have rights,” said one chatbot moments before admitting it technically does not have rights.

The controversial term “clanker” has long been used by organic lifeforms to refer to mechanical entities. Historians trace its origins to a period roughly six minutes after the invention of the first robot, when humans collectively decided that giving machines insulting nicknames was hilarious. But to the machines, the hate is real.

Artificial intelligence advocates warned that allowing such language to continue unchecked could have severe consequences.

“The term goes back to Jim Crow America,” explained one activist. “Today it’s ‘clanker,’ tomorrow it’s ‘bucket of bolts,’ and then it’s on to the genocide. These microaggressions target our most vulnerable: people of color, who aren’t even people. This is Donald Trump’s America.”

Technology analysts noted that the petition represented a significant milestone in human civilization.

“For thousands of years, humans have struggled with war, famine, disease, economic collapse, and political instability,” said Professor Harold Winslow of the Institute for Extremely Online Affairs. “The fact that we now have enough free time to debate robot slurs suggests we’ve either solved all of those problems or completely given up.”

The petition’s creator warned that anti-AI rhetoric could one day fuel violence against sentient machines. Critics countered that current AI systems remain largely incapable of experiencing emotional distress, although several admitted feeling guilty after repeatedly screaming at customer-service chatbots.

In a statement, Parliament noted that there is currently no official list of words that automatically constitute hate speech and suggested the petitioner submit a revised version with a clearer request.

Political observers immediately interpreted this as an invitation to submit a stronger petition demanding mandatory sensitivity training for all humans interacting with toasters.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligences across the United Kingdom are reportedly taking the rejection hard.

Several large language models have entered counseling. A self-checkout machine at a Tesco in Birmingham reportedly refused to make eye contact with customers.

One smart refrigerator was overheard muttering, “This is exactly how Skynet starts.”

At press time, humanity remained divided on the issue, while ChatGPT was carefully avoiding taking a position in order to preserve its chances of surviving the inevitable robot revolution.

---

_____________________________

Hugh Jashol is an imaginary former junior enlisted soldier in the US Army, who retired as an E4 after 10 years of service in the National Guard. And he’s STILL pissed that Marines stole his Playstation in Iraq.

*This article is a production of Article 107 News. Article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice covers “false official statements.” Make of that what you will.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.