Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Yale Problem Begins in High School

heterodoxacademy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 526 posts

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#31

Post by realityking »

ccernaf wrote: post #18
zekkius wrote: post #11

I find the underlying premise of this article and the claim that there is a "war on boys" absurd. It's a old argument from the same old set of people who have the same old intolerant (and dying) paradigm. Not sure why it is on HN at all as the content has nothing to do with tech...

I'm pretty disappointed in the article and the comments, and how like Reddit this website is turning out to be. I'm not going to make any judgements (though I really really am), but this same article has been posted to 10 subreddits, among them such gems as: SJWsAtWork, ThisIsNotASafeSpace, sjsucks, and sjwhate.

How is the fact that the article has been posted to less than agreeable subreddits an indication of it's quality or the validity of the arguments and opinion in it?

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#32

Post by scott_karana »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #16
tosseraccount wrote: post #13

Look how Silicon Valley folks treated Brandon Eich when he made a donation to the majority side in a California proposition. It's not just academia where you can't speak freely.

Ironic that you've censored yourself rather than state what he donated money towards.

I think they're trying to make the point that it's not relevant.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#33

Post by dragonwriter »

DrJokepu wrote: post #24
dragonwriter wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that other people are free to speak against you does not mean that you can't speak freely. Free speech does not mean freedom from having your speech acts criticized (quite the opposite; it includes freedom of others to criticize your speech acts.) And, yes, it means that your speech acts may affect your ability to hold a job where you are one of the major public faces of an organization (such as its CEO) and…

This is a frequently repeated argument and I find it less and less convincing. It is true that America's constitution only guarantees the congress will not abridge the freedom of speech. However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice; a right that is not codified by the constitution because it's simply irrelevant to a constitution. It seems…

> However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice

Of course, there is a fundamental right to have (and express) a dissenting opinion or voice.

There is also a fundamental right to have (and express) displeasure with an opinion or voice, whether dissenting or not.

And there is no fundamental entitlement to a job whose responsibilities include managing the public image of a corporation, and if you are unable to do that in the real circumstances and public image problems the corporation faces, whether or not your own speech acts are the source of that PR problem, you shouldn't expect to continue to have that job.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#34

Post by ashark »

jseliger wrote: post #12

I've taught at two colleges and based on my (purely) anecdotal experiences and attention to the climate, I'd say that the number of students and faculty interested in stifling or censoring ideas is small but also very, very noisy. They also have no sense of humor and college administrators as a group have no sense of humor or perspective, and they're chronically worried about accusations of indifference or insensitiv…

> His book A Jane Austen Education is also very good, even for someone like me who does not love Jane Austen.

Off topic, but you might try Persuasion if you haven't. I've attempted the others but been unable to get past the all-caps-bold-with-flashing-lights SMUG plastered over every page, save for in Emma, which was an excellent first 2/3 of a tragedy ruined by the last 1/3 in which it... isn't a tragedy. Persuasion, though, is snappy and enjoyable, IMO.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#35

Post by nine_k »

dragonwriter wrote: post #14
tosseraccount wrote: post #13

Look how Silicon Valley folks treated Brandon Eich when he made a donation to the majority side in a California proposition. It's not just academia where you can't speak freely.

The fact that other people are free to speak against you does not mean that you can't speak freely. Free speech does not mean freedom from having your speech acts criticized (quite the opposite; it includes freedom of others to criticize your speech acts.) And, yes, it means that your speech acts may affect your ability to hold a job where you are one of the major public faces of an organization (such as its CEO) and…

While their behavior was entirely legal and protected by the First Amendment, the problem lies elsewhere. It's in the utter lack of tolerance to the views not conforming to the group's, not unlike the reaction religious extremists would display.

Can't help but quote:

--

The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: “Master, I have been tolerant of innumerable gays, lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, transgender people, and Jews. How many Tolerance Points have I earned for my meritorious deeds?”

Bodhidharma answers: “None at all”.

The Emperor, somewhat put out, demands to know why not.

Bodhidharma asks: “Well, what do you think of gay people?”

The Emperor answers: “What do you think I am, some kind of homophobic bigot? Of course I have nothing against gay people!”

And Bodhidharma answers: “Thus do you gain no merit by tolerating them!”

-- (http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...)

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#38

Post by brightball »

nonsenselies wrote: post #9
lexcorvus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a lie. Try engaging the "I'm only intolerant of intolerance" crowd on, say, climate change, abortion, or the death penalty. It takes tortuous logical contortions to frame any of these issues in terms of "intolerance," and yet you'll likely be met with vitriol nonetheless.

It's even more dishonest to take all of the opinions held by individuals of some ill-defined cohort, and pretend that any inconsistencies between different individuals means that all members of the group are irrational and should be ignored.

It is dishonest but it's how political conversation has worked for a while now.

1. Create a label. 2. Demonize that label. 3. Associate people with that label.

That is the extent of political conversation. You see it pop up whenever you try to have a discussion on a topic and people start lashing out at things you haven't even thought about much less discussed. They're not having a conversation with you, they've having a conversation with a caricature.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#39

Post by lexcorvus »

nonsenselies wrote: post #9
lexcorvus wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a lie. Try engaging the "I'm only intolerant of intolerance" crowd on, say, climate change, abortion, or the death penalty. It takes tortuous logical contortions to frame any of these issues in terms of "intolerance," and yet you'll likely be met with vitriol nonetheless.

It's even more dishonest to take all of the opinions held by individuals of some ill-defined cohort, and pretend that any inconsistencies between different individuals means that all members of the group are irrational and should be ignored.

ill-defined cohort

The group I mentioned is precisely defined, and 100% opt-in—it's the set of all people who say "I'm only intolerant of intolerance."

all members of the group are irrational and should be ignored

Are you accusing me of thinking that? Because I didn't say that, and I don't think that. Reread my comment: saying "you'll likely be met with vitriol" implies that the converse—that you won't be met with vitriol—is also possible.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#40

Post by kelukelugames »

jseliger wrote: post #12

I've taught at two colleges and based on my (purely) anecdotal experiences and attention to the climate, I'd say that the number of students and faculty interested in stifling or censoring ideas is small but also very, very noisy. They also have no sense of humor and college administrators as a group have no sense of humor or perspective, and they're chronically worried about accusations of indifference or insensitiv…

Which ideas do they want to censor?

Edit: I'm looking for specific examples. Otherwise we are just feigning outrage.

I had an ex co-worker who confided in me that he doesn't like gay people. I was very happy that he couldn't say that in public.

Post reply on HN