Hacker News Reader

Comment by hellisothers | Hacker News Reader

In my 20+ years of being a professional, and especially after having been in leadership positions I’ve always been careful to watch what I say, when, and to whom. This isn’t paranoia and I haven’t felt “unable to express myself”, this is just part of functioning in polite society.

While I do agree there is more calling out of people for saying things (for better and worse) it also seems there is an increasing sense of entitlement to be able to say whatever you want and not be held accountable for it. This article seems to be falling into the latter bucket.

View on HN

While I agree with this, I think its important to keep in mind that students right out of college and who have not taken part in our society's big discussion on how to address racial/gender inequality and working towards equal proportion may not speak with the greatest of nuance. Give room for people to speak on their authentic experience (without trying to feel any personal offense) and give this forum to people who identify on any side of the political aisle. I happen to take the opinion that this so-called "Anti-Racist" movement happens to espouse quite a few policies that are discriminatory. Its not to say that some of their efforts are bad, but there needs to be room for critique without accusations of harboring racial resentment. The lack of room of express is creating resentment IMO.

I think the whole DEI movement is a great example. It's easy to say "we should hire a POC or woman for this position", it's not ok to say "we should not hire based on gender or race".

DEI = Diversity, Equality(edit: equity), and Inclusion, according to Duck.

(For anyone who hasn't seen the acronym before.)

The "E" means "Equity". I still don't know exactly what this means but I know it's not supposed to mean Equality. I think it infers affirmative action. I think it's one of those terms that's vague by design.

It’s equity as in “equity in your house” equity. Many people have been denied access to equity in “the system” and if the disenfranchised have skin in the game then this stabilizes the system.

It is similar to policies that made access to home ownership easier (for some) because having a mortgage (and equity) is implicit buy into the system which lowers the likelihood that you’ll fight against it.

Those without equity have nothing to lose.

Equity entails discrimination.

"Good" discrimination, a worldview that requires racial essentialism and stereotypes.

Reduce everyone to their immutable attributes and tailor your behavior accordingly.

Since in the minds of social justice people, one group is unconditionally placed below another group (think of the vocabulary they use when they say "the work is never done"), we must actively discriminate to fix things.

>> The lack of room of express is creating resentment IMO.

Some say the election of Donald Trump is in part due to the backlash against the intolerance of the left. He definitely does not say things to be "politically correct".

"it also seems there is an increasing sense of entitlement to be able to say whatever you want and not be held accountable for it. "

???

I think it's definitely the opposite.

The evidence seems clear - dozens of the centre-left's most foundational global thinkers (i.e Noam Chomsky et. al.) have had to take out a page in Harper's to literally tamp down the authoritarian tendencies of those suppressing speech, mostly more extremists of 'their own side'. [1]

This represents a profound shift in sentiment from just one generation ago whereupon thinkers (such as Chomsky!) would have been fighting the 'other side' for the ability to speak their minds - as in the case in more classical authoritarian societies (i.e. Belarus).

We are not entering a world where 'those evil racist using the n-word are finally being called out' - frankly - this was already the case for at least generation.

We are now entering the phase where people are destroyed for having slightly controversial, but nevertheless respectable opinions that fit within civil discourse.

Student unions are banning comedians, and thinkers with whom they disagree.

Aside from 'public statements' - there is of course the reasonable act of contextualization. What people say while they are partying, drinking it up, among one another, as friends, is not 'public discourse'. This notion that people must live 'professionally sanitized lives every waking moment' is rubbish. The whole point of 'privacy' is the ability to speak freely.

I'm concerned by your statement, because as your professional life encroaches upon you with 'greater degrees of responsibility' - you may be projecting that narrow perspective onto society at large, and risk authoritarian moralizing from a sanitized executive bubble 'where even thoughts are guarded'.

So yes, there are a few dirtbags being called out, but for everyone one of them there's a long list of legit thinkers being blacklisted, and a much longer list of regular plebes unable to just act normally, within their own context with the moral beam of globalism like a spotlight upon them at all times.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Letter_on_Justice_and_Open_D...

>> In my 20+ years of being a professional, and especially after having been in leadership positions I’ve always been careful to watch what I say, when, and to whom. This isn’t paranoia and I haven’t felt “unable to express myself”, this is just part of functioning in polite society.

>> While I do agree there is more calling out of people for saying things (for better and worse) it also seems there is an increasing sense of entitlement to be able to say whatever you want and not be held accountable for it. This article seems to be falling into the latter bucket.

> ???

> I think it's definitely the opposite.

> The evidence seems clear - dozens of the centre-left's most foundational global thinkers (i.e Noam Chomsky et. al.) have had to take out a page in Harper's to literally tamp down the authoritarian tendencies of those suppressing speech, mostly more extremists of 'their own side'. [1]

You're both right:

On the right, there seems to be a growing view that "free speech" means that you should be able to say whatever you want (even if it's literally a factually untrue lie), and not experience any social censure and be welcome on any platform or venue. For an example of this, see the nonsense around the false claims of election fraud and people quitting Twitter for Parler because of Twitter's labels on that misinformation.

On the left, there's the extreme form of political correctness that's metastasized into "cancel culture," where in some quarters there's an unwillingness to tolerate differing opinions and perspectives on many topics.

" there seems to be a growing view that "free speech" means that you should be able to say whatever you want (even if it's literally a factually untrue lie)"

This is a good point, however, it's worth pointing out that 'free speech' definitely covers 'untrue and false facts'.

I guess, if you're the President of the US, lying about election outcomes, the the results of the lies are so outrageous, that there may be some 'sanction' on a private platform.

I'm not sure what the 'censure' should be for private individuals, sometimes regular people have difficulty with the facts.

>> On the right, there seems to be a growing view that "free speech" means that you should be able to say whatever you want (even if it's literally a factually untrue lie), and not experience any social censure and be welcome on any platform or venue.

> This is a good point, however, it's worth pointing out that 'free speech' definitely covers 'untrue and false facts'.

I suppose so, but such things are often not protected by the First Amendment, and expressions of falsehood have no positive value except when corrected. The point I was making was actually the clause after the one you quoted.

> I guess, if you're the President of the US, lying about election outcomes, the the results of the lies are so outrageous, that there may be some 'sanction' on a private platform.

> I'm not sure what the 'censure' should be for private individuals, sometimes regular people have difficulty with the facts.

What I meant by "social censure" was criticism, condemnation, correction, social rejection, etc. The people on the right that I was talking about seem to believe the free speech means they should be immune from those things, or that their statements should be presented with a false balance (e.g. as a he-said-she-said, "Trump says the sky is green, but Biden disagrees and says the sky is blue"), or that others should be obligated to repeat them without further comment. The Parler things show that clearly, since their main objection was that their false statements on Twitter were being paired with corrective warnings and sometimes even hidden behind them.

You haven't been to college recently then - it's a minefield of hollow moralism, safety-ism, and virtue signaling.

On the topic of polite society, please be mindful that the word “entitlement” is often used to attack and harm others emotionally.

It might be more inclusive to chose something like “expectation” or “assumption”.

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm but if it’s representing an actual grievance could you expand on it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com