>actions have consequences and you're being held accountable.
If there was no government-sanctioned affirmative action and if discrimination of the basis of race was not outlawed, all the consequences in the world would not change the fact that the "cancel culture whiners" (your own words) will rise in status (both social and economic) relative to minorities and liberals. So, yes - actions do have consequences, including for you.
Extrapolating from a trend that has held in the West for a double-digit number of years to the entirety of the future of humanity is probably an extreme form of availability bias.
A trend that has lasted decades? Try at least centuries.
Egalitarianism and tolerance is a cornerstone of Enlightenment thinking. Constitutions gave power to the people over kings. Capitalism gave individuals a chance to rival the power of vassals who were determined by a caste system.
I’d argue it’s a trend that’s gone on much longer, but progress was much slower when access to information and ideas was not the same as the last century.
It’s not to say there aren’t setbacks, but those setbacks have always been temporary or localized.
Now can something completely prevent this progress? Yeah, but it leads to very dystopian futures that everyone should hope to avoid.
Well, it’s sorta helpful to better understand your mindset. Of course you don’t see any connection between the Enlightenment and trans rights.
It would suck to realize one’s ideological underpinnings are the same as those that have been on the losing side for centuries and are almost universally recognized as the “bad guys” now.
It is really cute to believe your beliefs will win out in the next decades. Again another great attempt at humor, bravo!
>If someone is convinced that black people are inferior to white people, I want them to be afraid to express that.
Elaborate on how and why exactly you think they should be afraid.
Should they be afraid for their physical safety because you want violence against them to not be punishable (or the state to have to enact such violence by law)?
Should they be afraid for their freedom because you want hate speech laws instituted that would land them in jail?
Nobody is afraid to voice their opinion because of the disapproval of leftists and "liberals" so it should be one of the 2 above or something similar.
No. Communists are not nazis. Communists do not advocate for the extermination of any marginalized group. I made it very clear that the opinion being expressed matters here, so I'm not sure why you'd think this is inconsistent?
As a person from an ex-communist country, whose family was killed by the communist government for being farmers I would disagree with that. So my question would be - why jail nazis but not communists?
Oh wow, you are talking about my grandfather who was killed because he owned 2 acres of land and his family was sent to Siberia.
At least now I know why you have such blind spot re. communists, as you do sound like a tankie alright.
Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN or use it for ideological battle. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Please also omit name-calling and swipes and personal attacks from your comments here. Believe me, I know how intense it can get when other people's points land on old wounds, but we're all responsible for managing our reactions.
> racists should find it hard to make friends and find employment.
It may surprise you but any form of social ostracism that is not government sanctioned will not achieve any of that regarding regular people. It will affect only celebrities and a segment of the public intellectuals. (But there will be a different segment that will benefit)
Regarding kanye west, his biggest problem was that a significant chunk of his "sponsors" (=board members of companies) and business partners were actually jewish. Had he said the same thing about Australian Aboriginals (or the same thing about jews but if his main market was East Asia), he'd be completely fine after the initial outrage subsided. So I don't think you actually understand anything about your example at all.
>Would you enjoy to continue working when your boss badly wants to fire you, and your colleagues badly want to have you fired, but they can't by the law? How soon would you leave by yourself? Being fired usually at least involves some severance pay.
Most (all?) of continental Europe actually has such laws, which is why you don't hear about american style firings here. So, your logic has been tested in practice and found out to be wrong.
If you cant have something you don't have to want it either. It's irrational and a waste of time to want to see someone fired or to want to fire someone if it's not going to happen.
There are always ways to make someone's employment feel miserable while staying on completely legal ground. If a boss wants someone fired but can't fire, the boss (and worse yet, coworkers) can "help" the person make the right decision and start looking for a new opportunity.
This can give the victim some valuable paid time though.
>we won't be able to tell whether where it came from anyway
You won't be able to if you look solely at the output. There are ways to check audit and verify the process by which said output was produced. They are also gamable but the cost of gaming them is not insignificant.
> You won't be able to if you look solely at the output.
i think this is the scenario in question, if someone is lying about the source of an image
> There are ways to check audit and verify the process by which said output was produced. They are also gamable but the cost of gaming them is not insignificant.
this is interesting to know about. do you have some zero knowledge proof arrangement in mind here?
Davinci costs 2 cents for 1000 tokens (≈600 words), so no.