Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If you try to speak for the Black community, and you aren't black, you don't have the "wrong color of skin", you are speaking for others without their permission, and they have the right to correct the record if they consider your take to be inaccurate.

If you try to speak for the trans community, and you aren't trans, you aren't being censored, you are being rebutted. Trans people have the right to correct the record when someone speaks on their behalf in a disagreeable way.

Anyone who sees disagreement as a form of censorship needs to take a step back and recognize that the right to disagree is an important facet of free speech, and attempting to defeat things like "cancel culture" and other vocal forms of public disagreement is a demonstrably larger threat to free speech than anything the social justice community could ever dish out.

Censorship is largely being redefined as experiencing consequences for what one says. This is an extraordinarily cowardly misrepresentation of censorship, that tries to redefine free speech as your speech, and tries to force the narrative that disagreement with your speech is actually stripping you of the right to speak.

Sure, public shaming and doxxing may have a chilling effect on many people's willingness to speak freely, but a lack individual willingness is not equivalent to a lack of permission.

Free speech requires bravery. If you are too much of a coward to speak freely, you aren't being censored, you're just a coward afraid of others' free speech.




> If you try to speak for the Black community, and you aren't black, you don't have the "wrong color of skin", you are speaking for others without their permission

So... wait... are you saying all these white people in BLM marches...

You're on a very slippery slope, my friend.


You are misunderstanding. Folks marching in BLM Marches aren't speaking for the Black community.

The poster is talking about things more akin to, say, a non-trans person speaking about the experience of being trans or someone who has never went to college speaking for college graduates - when really, they shouldn't try to speak for groups they aren't a party to.

In other words, I can talk about prejudice and racism I've experienced and witnessed, but this doesn't mean that I have the credentials to talk about what it is like to, say, have dark skin in the US and experience that sort of racism. It just isn't the same, and I don't have that experience. After all, I can (in the US) basically just be a face in the crown in a small town.


Two people with the same shade of dark skin, but different in every other way. Are they both part of the "Black community"? Can one speak for the other?

Or is this "community" thing a political thing, where members share a narrative? If so, why do they get to claim the badge of "Black community" from other dark-shaded folk who aren't like-minded?


> but a lack individual willingness is not equivalent to a lack of permission.

Just out of interest, are you in behavioral economics promoting nudging?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: