Hacker News Reader

Comment by akie | Hacker News Reader

> a far-left “woke” interpretation of the world that I view as of immediate threat to our way of living, democracy and free speech.

WTF dude.

The core argument as to what you say is a "woke" interpretation of the world is to reshape the world in such a way that inherent privilege (for example being rich, being white, being male) does not completely predetermine anyone's outcomes. So that you can still "make it" even if you don't start out as rich, if you're not white, or male. Basically, if you want to boil it down to slogans, it's "the American Dream for everyone". Or, equal opportunities – not equal outcomes.

I'm not sure why that is a immediate threat to democracy, free speech, or your way of living.

View on HN

It seems like all of the actions to "rectify" the aforementioned issues clearly involve threats to democracy and free speech.

For example, the far-left "woke" interpretation has historically made use of and encouraged "cancel culture" to punish people that disagree with that worldview, which deprives them of their right to free speech. This is not imagined -- many people's lives have been destroyed because of this. Free speech is not just the First Amendment in the US... it is a tradition upheld in a plethora of ways, public and private.

In addition, not everybody agrees with the theory of inherent privilege, as it's often used to overlook or devalue the hard work of others with whom one disagrees.

Many people of all backgrounds are frightened by what they are seeing of the far-left "woke" view.

Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.

The only people that are 'frightened' by equality are those that have historically benefited from the lack of equality.

I’ve heard this stock answer many many times before. “Freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences.”

By this token, an authoritarian state has freedom of speech - say what you want, but don’t complain when you’re imprisoned or shot for it.

This political slogan does not logically imply that all consequences people choose to deal out are therefore somehow justifiable. Specifically, it does not give people permission to take action to curtail freedom of speech, which is precisely what is happening.

> "Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences."

It's kind of surprising to see that even the direct example of Ms. Gebru having just experienced "consequences" hasn't jolted people into realizing that that tired old phrase is problematic precisely because it cuts both ways.

I'm not sure how anyone can have this view of the world and keep a straight face.

However, here

> It seems like all of the actions to "rectify" the aforementioned issues clearly involve threats to democracy and free speech.

you at least acknowledge that there is a problem. So we just need to put our heads together and try to solve these problems... right?

Also, as a child of (at least some) privilege it takes a lot to see and understand the privileges you have. I hope you see yours, and I hope that you would want other people to have the same privileges that you have.

Umm, I think you need to do more research. Have you seen the toxic behavior she has demonstrated against respected people in the industry? She maybe is smart and pushing for good things, her approach of how she goes about it, especially with people she disagrees with is toxic and she did this to her self.

Both you and the parent invite flamewar. IMO the parent has a good point even if you remove this from what he said.

I think when people pull an episode of a TV show featuring an Asian man wearing make-up to play a dark elf due to fear of reprisal from race crusaders, we're in a bad place.

In the 90s and early 2000s it was quite common for TV shows that offended Christians in some way to be censored or cancelled by their network. This was due to letter writing campaigns by a small minority of Christians.

Is it fair of me to call Christianity a threat to democracy?

It isn't the Christianity so much as the ignorance, but yeah.

Google has deleted an entire track from a Zappa album (Sheikh Yerbouti) listing for reasons known only to itself. Aren’t we already there?

As a woman of color I see it as self-serving bullshit. I too can cry discrimination whenever someone disagrees with me and pretend to be working to make the world more fair. But the truth is, people in Ethiopia (where she was born) for instance give jackshit about AI and bias in facial recognition systems. If these people were so woke and concerned about underprivileged communities, they would tackle the problem at its root, not pick the easy fruit that is SV tech boys being scared that they would offend someone.

TL;DR: For someone relying so heavily on their race and where they came from, she is as privileged as the people she's criticizing.

If you are not sure why, then please read about what has happened before when far-left revolutions occurred based on these concepts of supposed “privilege”.

For example in Lenin’s Soviet Union. People were judged by their class membership rather than their individual behavior.

This ideology of group-membership based society is harmful to everything I consider liberal and free.

Don’t judge people by their appearance, judge them by their character.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com