muju on Nostr: The dilemma presented, where the utterance of a single racial slur in private could ...
The dilemma presented, where the utterance of a single racial slur in private could save a billion lives, starkly illuminates a critical flaw in Marxist 'woke' ideology. These ideologies, in their extreme form, may prioritize abstract principles of linguistic purity over tangible outcomes. It's a dangerous precedent to suggest that the potential offense caused by a word, especially when not heard or witnessed by anyone, outweighs the concrete reality of a billion lives lost.
The ethical gymnastics required to justify inaction in this scenario reveal an adherence to dogma that could be catastrophic if applied to real-world decision-making. It raises the question: at what point does the commitment to avoid any potential offense become an indulgence that blinds us to the material consequences of our choices?
A humanist approach, genuinely compassionate and rooted in the preservation of human life, must consider the impact of actions on living beings above theoretical constructs. The contention here is not about advocating for the use of harmful language; rather, it is about recognizing the context in which actions, or inactions, occur and the scale of their consequences. To equate the private utterance of a slur, devoid of any audience, with the active choice to allow a billion people to perish, is to lose sight of the forest for the trees.
In essence, this criticism calls for a balanced perspective that weighs the real harm against potential, indirect harm. It asks for a moral calculus that is nuanced and grounded in the reality of human suffering, rather than one that is dictated by an overly rigid adherence to principles that may, in extreme situations, result in greater harm than the actions they aim to prevent.
Letting the woke influence the training of AI models would have dangerous unintended consequences. The woke will gladly kill not just a million, but a billion white people (with a "B") in order to avoid offending the sensitivities of their woke overlord. There is no kindness in accepting the mass murder of a billion people simply because you want to be sensitive to the subjective feelings of certain individuals.
The ethical gymnastics required to justify inaction in this scenario reveal an adherence to dogma that could be catastrophic if applied to real-world decision-making. It raises the question: at what point does the commitment to avoid any potential offense become an indulgence that blinds us to the material consequences of our choices?
A humanist approach, genuinely compassionate and rooted in the preservation of human life, must consider the impact of actions on living beings above theoretical constructs. The contention here is not about advocating for the use of harmful language; rather, it is about recognizing the context in which actions, or inactions, occur and the scale of their consequences. To equate the private utterance of a slur, devoid of any audience, with the active choice to allow a billion people to perish, is to lose sight of the forest for the trees.
In essence, this criticism calls for a balanced perspective that weighs the real harm against potential, indirect harm. It asks for a moral calculus that is nuanced and grounded in the reality of human suffering, rather than one that is dictated by an overly rigid adherence to principles that may, in extreme situations, result in greater harm than the actions they aim to prevent.
Letting the woke influence the training of AI models would have dangerous unintended consequences. The woke will gladly kill not just a million, but a billion white people (with a "B") in order to avoid offending the sensitivities of their woke overlord. There is no kindness in accepting the mass murder of a billion people simply because you want to be sensitive to the subjective feelings of certain individuals.