4 ms·

> free speech meant the freedom to speak your mind As long as you were white, reasonably well-off, and probably male, yes. It did not mean that for almost eve

> free speech meant the freedom to speak your mind As long as you were white, reasonably well-off, and probably male, yes. It did not mean that for almost everyone else. Also "speaking your mind" has never been (and never should be) consequence free. There was just no recourse for the majority to apply consequences until recently. > The idea that people would routinely get fired for voicing their opinions [...] would have seemed shockingly unfree. I'm pretty sure people have been fired for voicing their opinions all the time - it just wasn't white folk, especially men. And not just fired - plenty of people have been killed for voicing their opinion in the USA since day 1. Just not really white folk, especially men. > That's where society used to draw the limit. Because society used to be a lot more lopsided in terms of diversity, power balance, etc. Now the balance has shifted and some of the people who previously had all the power do not like it one bit.

neonate 6y ago
> As long as you were white, reasonably well-off, and probably male, yes. It did not mean that for almost everyone else. There's some truth to that, but the solution is obviously to extend the same freedom to everyone, not dive into authoritarianism. > There was just no recourse for the majority to apply consequences until recently It is not at all the majority who are "applying consequences". It is a small vanguard of extremists, most of whom conspicuously belong to the classes they criticize.
dependenttypes 6y ago
> There was just no recourse for the majority to apply consequences until recently And this was a good thing. Before that the majority applied said consequences via witch trials. > I'm pretty sure people have been fired for voicing their opinions all the time - it just wasn't white folk, especially men. And not just fired - plenty of people have been killed for voicing their opinion in the USA since day 1. Just not really white folk, especially men. Said people did not have the freedom of speech. It would be great if we changed that so that it applies to everyone.
thu2111 6y ago
I think I'm learning to scan-read articles, opinion pieces, HN comments and the moment a reference to "white men" and "people who had/have all the power" crops up I know it's going to be some critical theory nonsense. White men have zero power in today's society. They get discriminated against all the time, often by other "white men" (=caucasians+indians+chinese+etc) who have adopted some weird religion in which they're meant to atone for the sins of their ancestors and worship black people because of their skin colour. You aren't the majority, by the way. It may feel like that because people with your views are by far the most aggressive at shutting other people down or firing them for not agreeing with your beliefs, but that's not the actual same thing as being in the majority. There is going to be blowback against this kind of modern day Bolshevism.
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  > White men have zero power in today's society. Look around. Who's in charge? It's still white men. It's going to be white men for at least another decade, I reckon. > They get discriminated against all the time They really don't. > You aren't the majority, by the way. Oh, when it comes to privilege I am and that's why I understand it.
  - throwaways885 6y ago
    GP is talking about cultural power, not political power. Look around you and you'll see so much: - affirmative action which sees white males as "above" other races, so "compensates" for others - being told they're the root of all evil - being told they can't "punch down" - even though this is a white supremacist viewpoint because it's putting one race over all others - being told colourblind-ness is racist I want to be peers with all races and genders, not divided over silly lines.
    - zimpenfish 6y ago
      > GP is talking about cultural power, not political power. And yet where do the life and death decisions get made? In political arenas, not cultural ones. > - being told they're the root of all evil For a long time, they were. (Trust me, I'm English, I'm painfully aware of this.) Many of them in power still are - just look at the GOP, for example, or UKGOV. > - being told they can't "punch down" I mean, "punching down" is bad no matter who does it. > - being told colourblind-ness is racist Because it's still picking a side - "I don't want to get involved" is just an implicit picking of the side with the most power.

neonate 6y ago

> As long as you were white, reasonably well-off, and probably male, yes. It did not mean that for almost everyone else. There's some truth to that, but the solution is obviously to extend the same freedom to everyone, not dive into authoritarianism. > There was just no recourse for the majority to apply consequences until recently It is not at all the majority who are "applying consequences". It is a small vanguard of extremists, most of whom conspicuously belong to the classes they criticize.

dependenttypes 6y ago

> There was just no recourse for the majority to apply consequences until recently And this was a good thing. Before that the majority applied said consequences via witch trials. > I'm pretty sure people have been fired for voicing their opinions all the time - it just wasn't white folk, especially men. And not just fired - plenty of people have been killed for voicing their opinion in the USA since day 1. Just not really white folk, especially men. Said people did not have the freedom of speech. It would be great if we changed that so that it applies to everyone.

thu2111 6y ago

I think I'm learning to scan-read articles, opinion pieces, HN comments and the moment a reference to "white men" and "people who had/have all the power" crops up I know it's going to be some critical theory nonsense. White men have zero power in today's society. They get discriminated against all the time, often by other "white men" (=caucasians+indians+chinese+etc) who have adopted some weird religion in which they're meant to atone for the sins of their ancestors and worship black people because of their skin colour. You aren't the majority, by the way. It may feel like that because people with your views are by far the most aggressive at shutting other people down or firing them for not agreeing with your beliefs, but that's not the actual same thing as being in the majority. There is going to be blowback against this kind of modern day Bolshevism.

zimpenfish 6y ago
> White men have zero power in today's society. Look around. Who's in charge? It's still white men. It's going to be white men for at least another decade, I reckon. > They get discriminated against all the time They really don't. > You aren't the majority, by the way. Oh, when it comes to privilege I am and that's why I understand it.
- throwaways885 6y ago
  GP is talking about cultural power, not political power. Look around you and you'll see so much: - affirmative action which sees white males as "above" other races, so "compensates" for others - being told they're the root of all evil - being told they can't "punch down" - even though this is a white supremacist viewpoint because it's putting one race over all others - being told colourblind-ness is racist I want to be peers with all races and genders, not divided over silly lines.
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    > GP is talking about cultural power, not political power. And yet where do the life and death decisions get made? In political arenas, not cultural ones. > - being told they're the root of all evil For a long time, they were. (Trust me, I'm English, I'm painfully aware of this.) Many of them in power still are - just look at the GOP, for example, or UKGOV. > - being told they can't "punch down" I mean, "punching down" is bad no matter who does it. > - being told colourblind-ness is racist Because it's still picking a side - "I don't want to get involved" is just an implicit picking of the side with the most power.