Live data from Hacker News

The Yale Problem Begins in High School

heterodoxacademy.org

181–190 of 526 posts

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#181

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.

> 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.

Good call. As long as your opinions remain "acceptable" you have nothing to worry about.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amusing joke and I've run across similar ones (South Park, for one, had two old guys grumbling about how long it took "PC" to run its course last time) but on a more serious note, I wonder how much of it is just the nature of young, relatively wealthy/privileged people to want to "change the world" and find a cause. I'm a bit past college age these days but in the mid/late 90's when I was at university, there were pl…

The biggest failure of such people is that their own conduct serves as a terrible advertisement for the sort of worldview they promote. Look at these people: do you see happy, healthy, mindful, compassionate, self-confident, well-adjusted human beings? I don't. I see bitter, spiteful, demanding, insecure, Us-vs-Them types, perpetually searching for the next perceived slight. Are these the sort of people I'm supposed…

That's actually our biggest hope of getting rid of SJW phenomenon. The underhanded methods they use means also that as they grow, they start to turn on each other. The cancer gets cancer, and dies before it can grow too much. I think the general population will slowly realize that being evil is not the best strategy for making others better people.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh. The Brendan Eich issue was about freedom of association -- in particular, the right of Mozilla employees and stakeholders not to be associated with the bigoted groups (and their hateful TV ads) Eich was supporting -- rather than freedom of speech. If you're still not clear as to the distinction, please see: https://xkcd.com/1357/

responding to someone's opinion with "Ugh." is exactly what the op article is about

It's not their opinion that merits the "Ugh." It's that people seem to be perpetually misinformed about many basic factors regarding the Eich case.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#184
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course Eich's critics had the right to criticize him. The point is that calling for his resignation was grossly disproportionate.

The point is that calling for his resignation was grossly disproportionate. Depends where you draw the line. Many people feel that when Eich chose to support groups that were running bigoted TV ads (beyond simply expressing an opinion as to a ballot issue) he effectively crossed that line.

And others feel that a person who can make this statement:

https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/

  ...I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words 
  alone will not change anything.  I can only ask for your support 
  to have the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime 
  express my sorrow at having caused pain. ...
and who has never even been accused of discrimination, harassment, or abuse of any kind in his professional capacity (or otherwise AFAIK) should be given the chance to prove himself.

I'm pretty sure they didn't send the ads out for the approval of every campaign contributor before they aired them.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#185
post #80
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...

So what's your explanation for the events described?

The school (teachers and students together) recognizes an ideology (patriarchy) that they see as a problem and responds by creating a culture that opposes that ideology, in order to reduce the power of that ideology. I don't see any way to take a neutral stance on this issue, as ``doing nothing'' is supporting the status quo (patriarchy), so if you agree that patriarchy is a problem, then the school should be celebrated for picking the right side of the issue. If you like patriarchy, that's a different issue.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#186

These people act this way because they are elitist. They think they know what should be better than anyone else and therefore there is no need for debate or for rights like free speech. I find that quite ironic because presumably, these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. But maybe there isn't so much of a contradiction. They are simply more elitist than they are anything else. They don't really stand for eq…

[deleted]

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#187
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Since we're not talking about the constitution, which strictly relates to government and public property, then we're talking about private entities and private property. You do not have the right to speak on my property. Forcing that is in direct contradiction to a free society that has a conc…

And thus you have the shifting definition of what is "extreme" or not.

Then again, if you keep chopping off the edges of the bell curve, everything that doesn't precisely match the middle is extreme by comparison.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vi…

Pedantry is a poor defense.

"Group X tends to do Y."

"How dishonest. You're saying all members of Group X do Y and should therefore be ignored."

"I said none of those things. I said Group X tends to do Y, which implies that some members of the group don't do Y."

"Pedantry is a poor defense."

Calling me dishonest or pedantic is pure projection. If you have trouble seeing it, here's a mirror: http://www.amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-ebook/d...

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amusing joke and I've run across similar ones (South Park, for one, had two old guys grumbling about how long it took "PC" to run its course last time) but on a more serious note, I wonder how much of it is just the nature of young, relatively wealthy/privileged people to want to "change the world" and find a cause. I'm a bit past college age these days but in the mid/late 90's when I was at university, there were pl…

The biggest failure of such people is that their own conduct serves as a terrible advertisement for the sort of worldview they promote. Look at these people: do you see happy, healthy, mindful, compassionate, self-confident, well-adjusted human beings? I don't. I see bitter, spiteful, demanding, insecure, Us-vs-Them types, perpetually searching for the next perceived slight. Are these the sort of people I'm supposed…

And the problem now is that if you say something like that the response will range from being told to "check your privilege" to sensitivity training. You may be told your speech is violently aggressive and creates an unsafe environment.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, it's a free country for everybody. But, IMHO, the threshold for taking arguments outside the political arena and into the realm of boycotts and demands for resignations should be a lot higher than it seems to be today. Otherwise vibrant, productive arguments don't happen, since everyone's concentrating on bankrupting the other side of money, "platforms", or legitimacy.

This is the reason I keep two HN accounts - I fear that any political comments I make here could jeopardize my professional life (about which I contribute fairly often). Online, that's a fairly easy thing to manage. In real life, it means I really have to walk on eggshells a lot, and I seldom participate in voicing my opinions (or supporting certain causes) in which I'd otherwise participate, solely out of fear. In m…

I do this too. I found it almost impossible to post on my account under my own name, on any topic about psychology, politics, economics, or diversity because I am too afraid of what I've said being taken out of context later, or used against me in ways I can't anticipate now. I found myself frequently writing a post, only to delete it shortly afterward, worrying that it was somehow too risky.

In today's climate, you can't really even propose a thought experiment or discuss a hypothetical without being accused of holding that position yourself, and criticized as such. I don't even really have strong convictions about most of the things I discuss, except the desire to analyze them rationally and objectively, and the willingness to challenge both conventional wisdom and new radical positions.

Even while posting under an anonymous username, I still find myself self-censoring because of the risk that my identity could someday be connected. HN administrators can certainly trivially connect me, since they see the origin of my traffic for my two accounts, and I have not taken pains to anonymity the traffic for this one. However, HN admins themselves like pg have been posting under alts (and probably still do, for the same reasons), and seem to support this.

I have been wanting to propose that HN or some site like it offer a feature where you can switch your post to "Anonymous Coward" later, if it proves to be too controversial. Or post as "Anonymous Coward", and later assign the post to your name if you feel OK about how the discussion turned out. I think this would be better than having people feel like they can't post at all, or that they need alts to post. Having an alt is kind of like Anonymous Coward, except that you can't claim credit for just a single post that you turn out to feel OK about later.

The thing is, I think, that humans "try on" ideas like they try on clothes. We don't necessarily mean everything we say all the time (unless we take great pains to ensure it). The public discourse seems to expect that people have their minds firmly made up about everything, and a completely firm viewpoint that can be understood and criticized, but the reality is much more fluid. Or to put it differently: writing something that you can firmly stand behind requires a lot of time and energy, and a bar of quality and thoughtfulness and judgment that can rarely be met for Internet forum comments. Sometimes I'd just like to have a conversation, without fearing that something I say can be taken out of context and used against me years later when random-topic-of-the-day becomes a hot-button issue.

Post reply on HN