As it was with "campus protests violate free speech!" from the folks who immediately turned around and banned voluntary diversity programs at universities.

As it was with "Twitter bans violate free speech" from the folks who bought it and banned @elonjet and the word cisgender.

▲

icapybara 2 days ago | parent [-]

Are people not allowed to suggest models may be too censored? Is that idea censored?

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent [-]

Am I not allowed to suggest it's disingenuous bullshit to pull the "both sides" thing?

▲

icapybara 2 days ago | parent [-]

That's right. It was uncalled for. I see no evidence OP was making a bad faith argument, but you assumed that right away.

	▲	2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	AlecSchueler 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Because it's incredibly frustrating to see the government remove women and men of colour from government websites, deleting climate data, and sending out violent mobs to round people up while people sit around saying their main worry is that regulatory bodies will move to make things "too woke." There's no "woke" equivalent to the insanity being acted out by the US administration.

▲

techno303 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

why? Most regulations (ADA, affirmative action, etc.) fall into the "not woke enough" category of model regulation. Current administration aside, complaints of this sort are more likely. It’s absurd, really, to believe there would be a regulation governing a model being too woke; regulation itself is woke

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Most regulations (ADA, affirmative action, etc.) fall into the "not woke enough" category of model regulation

For sake of argument, let’s assume this is true. Those rules are still structured as laws, with boundaries and legal recourse. The precedent being set, that the President gets “voluntary” deference from private companies, is un-American and will be abused by the left.

	▲	techno303 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think I'm smart/intellectual enough to respond to this or i just don't understand what you're saying

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The ADA isn't about wokeness. It's about being able to live in society with a disability.

▲

techno303 2 days ago | parent [-]

Limiting a business's ability to exist because they can't afford to accommodate a small percentage of the population is 100% about wokeness

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Well, we've just now defined safety rules, health codes, paying taxes, and the like as "woke".

You'd be calling the First Amendment woke if we proposed it now.

▲

techno303 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Taxes? How?

I agree with the rest, sure.

Health codes and safety rules are woke, yes. I would have thought that as given. Debates over where you draw the line are absolutely a matter of wokeness.

The way freedom of expression is regulated today is generally woke. The WPFI is insanely woke.

▲

ceejayoz 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Taxes? How?

They, at times, "[limit] a business's ability to exist because they can't afford to accommodate a small percentage of the population".

> Health codes and safety rules are woke, yes.

I take it you never read the parable of the boy who cried wolf.

▲

techno303 2 days ago | parent [-]

getting the vibe that english isn't your first language, and don't feel like arguing theough a language barrier

i don't begin to understand either of these points

fwiw i'm woke, happy to be woke, encourage wokeness

	▲	ceejayoz 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> getting the vibe that english isn't your first language Well, that's a first for me. Alternate theory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48023653
	▲	JumpCrisscross a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Every business has a threshold tax rate beyond which it ceases to be viable. Herego, for every tax rate there are businesses right below that threshold that are taxed out of existence.

▲

freejazz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Debates over where you draw the line are absolutely a matter of wokeness.

This is offensive in how trite it is

▲

jasonlotito 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

"Woke" is just a dog whistle. It's used by anti-intellectuals on the right to signal their allegiance to whatever their dear leader says, and is used to say "I am triggered by this idea" regardless of what the idea is. Anything can be woke to these people, up to and including the 2nd Amendment.

▲

bdangubic 2 days ago | parent [-]

it is actually perfect, you hear or read “woke” you can immediately turn around and know the level of intelligence in front of you requires immediate extraction from any further proceedings :)

▲

AlecSchueler 2 days ago | parent [-]

The terrifying thing is that we can't just ignore it anymore, though. These people are wielding the power of the world at a time of global crises.

▲

bdangubic 2 days ago | parent [-]

it is the people that are buying the BS though… those wielding power will say whatever the F they want to rile up the people but end of the day it is the people buying this.

the outmost funny thing to me glancing at this from the sidelines (I stopped following news and am generally largely disconnected from “politics”) is that people that are buying the “woke” garbage are not realizing they voted for the most woke there is. entire current administration is DEI hires (this is literal, every single person working is DEI hire), cancel culture is raging, if they could they would cancel 50% of the population (this is especially funny to me, shows you how “small” people are), you got billions of dollars literally being stolen in broad daylight while bitching about nancy pelosi, you got two president’s sons pillaging the country while bitching about hunter’s laptop… so fascinating to watch america slowly disintegrate into what has become

	▲	AlecSchueler a day ago \| parent [-]
		Watching from the sidelines isn't disconnecting from politics, it's supporting the status quo. Please reconsider your position.

▲

freejazz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

ADA preceeded wokeness by at least 2 decades