4 ms·

Maybe a small exception can be made when that other has little to no voice due to circumstances but it does not apply in this context. I've seen people from all

Maybe a small exception can be made when that other has little to no voice due to circumstances but it does not apply in this context. I've seen people from all nationalities express opinions on HN without worry.

wolco 7y ago
In situations where one has little voice. Having someone more powerful speak for them usual results in them still having no voice but the person speaking for them can use this to further their voice. We must allow others to use their own voice. Teach them. In the past many of sins have resulted in assuming someone else's pain. The rich do gooder's action doesn't always help and frequency hurts. I will give you an example. A shoe factory in India employing children and offering a dollar a day pay. Twitter campaign mounts company closes plant. Twitter folks rejoice and feel they have done good. But back in India everyone loses their job, the kids working were supporting sick parents who cannot work and get sicker. Children are forced into the sex trade. People on twitter are still rejoycing because no one followed up on the people they were speaking up for. In fact they were not speaking up for these workers they were speaking against the shoe company. After they caused the shoe company pain they didn't care about the rest. The question becomes are you speaking for the voiceless or yourself? If the voiceless wanted to reduce immigration because they want to increase the chance of getting a good paying position would you share those voices if they didn't match your views/voice? Or would you try to mute that voice but increase the volume on some other aspect you believed in? Speaking for someone else is probably a bad idea.
- diegoperini 7y ago
  I believe there can still be examples where an opposite (as in one with positive impact) case can be made. Regardless, you have a point, thus I stress, exceptions are exceptions.

wolco 7y ago

In situations where one has little voice. Having someone more powerful speak for them usual results in them still having no voice but the person speaking for them can use this to further their voice. We must allow others to use their own voice. Teach them. In the past many of sins have resulted in assuming someone else's pain. The rich do gooder's action doesn't always help and frequency hurts. I will give you an example. A shoe factory in India employing children and offering a dollar a day pay. Twitter campaign mounts company closes plant. Twitter folks rejoice and feel they have done good. But back in India everyone loses their job, the kids working were supporting sick parents who cannot work and get sicker. Children are forced into the sex trade. People on twitter are still rejoycing because no one followed up on the people they were speaking up for. In fact they were not speaking up for these workers they were speaking against the shoe company. After they caused the shoe company pain they didn't care about the rest. The question becomes are you speaking for the voiceless or yourself? If the voiceless wanted to reduce immigration because they want to increase the chance of getting a good paying position would you share those voices if they didn't match your views/voice? Or would you try to mute that voice but increase the volume on some other aspect you believed in? Speaking for someone else is probably a bad idea.

diegoperini 7y ago
I believe there can still be examples where an opposite (as in one with positive impact) case can be made. Regardless, you have a point, thus I stress, exceptions are exceptions.