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

401–410 of 526 posts

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#401

Post by Tarrosion »

id wrote: post #292
richard_mcp wrote: post #45

I was originally going to lump this article in with other "men's rights movement" stuff until I saw the author was Jonathan Haidt. I had the honor to take Psyc 101 with Prof. Haidt years ago at the University of Virginia. He was a wonderful teacher who expected the best out of his students. He struck me as a very intelligent man who had put a lot of thought into both what he taught as well as his opinions. When he br…

So it doesn't matter what is being said as long as it is coming from the right person?

Or more charitably, the grandparent comment author found a way to do the admirable (and for almost all of us, all-too-rare) task of reevaluating with renewed respect something previously dismissed.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#402

Post by z3t4 »

The problem is that this also goes on in adulthood and even in board meetings. Even if you have the majority on your side they will sit quietly and watch you take a beating!

Then think about what happens if you try to have a discussion about something that is not "politically correct".

The problem with not allowing discussion about extreme topics is that the extremists will end up only discussing among themselves. And that's where it can become dangerous.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#403

Post by Pyxl101 »

lukeschlather wrote: post #360
Pyxl101 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because (at least in part) they commit crime at far higher rates per capita. Black men commit about half of all murders in the USA, despite being about 13% of the population. The statistics are similar for many other crimes. 39% of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black from 2011-2013 per FBI statistics [1] [3]. In 2010, 62,593 blacks were victims of white violence,…

It's important to note the distinction between "blacks commit 50% of the murders in the US" and "50% of the murder convictions in the US are black people." It's well-documented that 40 years ago a white person could openly kill a black person and they would not be convicted. I've read a lot of studies, reviews of court cases, and court judgements about the subject, and it is clear that prosecutors are far less likely…

Other data support these ratios. For example, in surveys of crime victims such as the National Crime Victimization Survey, the race reported by victims of their attacker reflects the proportion of conviction rates:

"The UCR and NVCS show similar trends regarding the races of offenders. Generally, the number of minorities identified as offenders is disproportionately high compared to their overall numbers in the population. As Ronald J Berger et al. advise the NCVS, 'Data are consistent with the UCR. The offenders in these types of crimes are disproportionately young, nonwhite, and male.'" (NVCS page 312, can be found by Google search-inside-the-book)

I would be interested to research the topic further. Could you provide more information about the studies you mentioned? I have not previously seen convincing evidence that bias in the justice system is responsible for the racial disparity in these crime statistics. From what I understand, a lot of the murders are black-on-black violence, as well. In 2013, 90% of blacks were murdered by blacks. A majority of people are killed by one of their own race in general (though black-on-white violence is much higher than white-on-black). People are typically murdered by someone who knew them intimately.

  [Updated per correction]
  Blacks killed by blacks: 90% [1]
  Blacks killed by whites: 8%
  Whites killed by whites: 82%
  Whites killed by blacks: 15%
In what way are these murder statistics going wrong? White people are committing murder and getting away with it? Whites are committing murder, but it's falsely attributed to blacks? There are single examples of all sorts of crazy things happening in individual cases, but I haven't seen evidence or argument supporting that this happens systematically to a degree anywhere near enough to explain the discrepancy. Murder is a very serious thing, and it's hard for me to believe that prosecution bias is responsible for statistics saying that blacks commit ~4-5x as much crime as whites, and 10x as much murder as whites.

I find it plausible that there are effects along the lines of what you're saying, but I find it hard to believe that it would result in a murder per capita discrepancy of 10:1. It seems more plausible that that kind of bias would result in a discrepancy of much smaller proportions, especially for murder. I would be glad to review whatever evidence is available.

[1] https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/...

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#404

Post by wtbob »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #274
sinxoveretothex wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it necessary to "come down hard" on people who express morally wreak (or even stupid) viewpoints? Surely, putting forth a better argument or, at least, ignoring them is a far more morally superior response than suppressing their speech? I've recently read about Bobby Sands (who was a IRA member who starved himself to death) and am reminded of that monk who lit themself on fire in protest. I think an interestin…

You think it's OK for a majority to say that racial Jews should not have property rights and then make it so? Eich achieved hos goal of writing oppression into the state constitution. Ignoring or tolerating promotion of oppression doesn't make it go away. (That's exactly the fair and balanced horseshit I was talking about.) Tolerating morally neutral actions is entirely different from tolerating morally bad actions.…

> Eich achieved hos goal of writing oppression into the state constitution.

You mis-spelt 'sanity' as 'oppression.' It's not oppression to pass a law saying that a man who claims to be a hyena cannot demand to be taken in by a zoo; it's not oppression to pass a law saying that a woman who claims to be Intergalactic Space-empress doesn't automatically have her orders followed; it's not oppression to pass a law stating that two people who aren't married don't get to force everyone to pretend that they are.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#405

Post by dang »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #386
venomsnake wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no idea what secular means do you? Admit it. The Eastern Bloc was extremely secular. That doesn't prevented it from being quite oppressive.

Nobody is saying that the Eastern Bloc was secularly moral.

Please stop, both of you.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#406

Post by dang »

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...

Content on HN needn't have anything to do with tech, as you'll see if you read the first of the site guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's not good that large parts of the thread have erupted into low-rent flamewars, though.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#407

Post by dragonwriter »

ps4fanboy wrote: post #397
dragonwriter wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Avoiding committing crime and avoiding being incarcerated for crime are not the same thing. (The first may help in the second, but just as committing a crime is neither necessary nor sufficient to assure incarceration for it, avoiding committing a crime is neither necessary nor sufficient to avoid incarceration for it. It is frequently argued that it is both more necessary and less sufficient for blacks to avoid crim…

Its hard to be incarcerated for murder without someone actualy being murdered. Therefore the most effective way to avoid incarceration for murder is to stop murdering. People are not being wrongly incarcerated (wholesale) for violent crimes that dont exist, not being violent is sufficient to avoid incarceration for such crimes.

> Its hard to be incarcerated for murder without someone actualy being murdered.

No, its hard (but not impossible) to be incarcerated for murder without someone being dead. In a system in which law enforcement, the judiciary, and/or the population from which juries are drawn are biased against people like you -- whether for race or other reasons -- it can be quite easy to be incarcerated (or worse!) for murder without having killed the person who is dead, much less having murdered them (which is legally more specific than merely having killed them.)

> People are not being wrongly incarcerated (wholesale) for violent crimes that dont exist, not being violent is sufficient to avoid incarceration for such crimes.

No, even if the premise was true (that people are not wrongly incarcerated for violent crimes that do not exist), it doesn't justify the conclusion: not being violent would not be sufficient to avoid incarceration based on that premise, you'd have to stop everyone else from being violent, too, since only the existence of the crime, not you actually being the one who committed it, is posited as necessary for the punishment to occur.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#408

Post by ps4fanboy »

karmacondon wrote: post #375
lumberjack wrote: post #25

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…

So if Common Joe's views on gender can be summarized as "Women should stay in the kitchen", is it elitist to not take that idea seriously? It has nothing to do with people's relative social or intellectual standing, and no one should have to bring themselves down to anyone else's level. Bad ideas are bad ideas, and should be labelled as such. It's hard to tell if someone making a controversial statement is doing so t…

I have never seen a single person take the position you a suggesting with any real seriousness, this is a caricature of a real discussion, the problem is who gets to decide on what the current brand of "band ideas" are. At the moment its who ever is the biggest bully.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#409

Post by caskance »

rmxt wrote: post #353
caseysoftware wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The line I quoted says "doesn't like" not "hate" but by equating the two and then banning "hate speech" you are succeeding in your goal of shutting down ideas and discussion. Well done.

Distilling one's "like" of a person down to their sexual preference [or skin color/religion/take on abortion/etc.] isn't exactly the best way to promote ideas and discussion, either. I am not sure if someone saying "I don't like gay people" is the best person to defend in the debate of "what is free speech?", which is what it seems like you are trying to sarcastically do here. Note, this coworker in question didn't s…

It's just as reasonable as defending someone who says "I don't like pumpkin pie", "I don't like racists" or "I don't like project managers". Nobody's obligated to like anyone or anything else, and you're not a bad person for not doing so.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#410

Post by sinxoveretothex »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #274
sinxoveretothex wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it necessary to "come down hard" on people who express morally wreak (or even stupid) viewpoints? Surely, putting forth a better argument or, at least, ignoring them is a far more morally superior response than suppressing their speech? I've recently read about Bobby Sands (who was a IRA member who starved himself to death) and am reminded of that monk who lit themself on fire in protest. I think an interestin…

You think it's OK for a majority to say that racial Jews should not have property rights and then make it so? Eich achieved hos goal of writing oppression into the state constitution. Ignoring or tolerating promotion of oppression doesn't make it go away. (That's exactly the fair and balanced horseshit I was talking about.) Tolerating morally neutral actions is entirely different from tolerating morally bad actions.…

Suppose that everyone in the world (except Jews perhaps) believed that it WERE OK for them not to have property rights, then what would protect their property rights?

The truth is that what is right is decided by how well the arguments for it can convince people.

If you look back far enough, the arguments were: my army is stronger than you. As you get closer to the present, we tend to like using better arguments (the veil of ignorance for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance).

It's based on notions like the veil of ignorance that we can say maybe every human should have property rights lest the group we're part of today lose it when the balance of power shifts.

That's why I believe that jews should have property rights, but don't believe that advocating against what I believe should be stifled. I am confident enough that my argument is better than theirs to not need to prevent their speech if you prefer. I also don't believe that we should stifle: climate change denial, flat earthers, religious people, pro-life people and a host of other people that I believe are wrong.

Post reply on HN