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

491–500 of 526 posts

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#491

Post by sinxoveretothex »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #461
sinxoveretothex wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You make a nonsense point (nobody is arguing for morality by majority rule) then refute it by pointing out that you have good arguments for advocating a certain morality. Then you make a straw man (nobody is arguing for stifling anybody). At the core, you seem to agree with me that there are certain actions that we should be intolerant of. Things like murder we should not tolerate forcefully, and things like oppressi…

Hmm, I thought thinking about my initial question would be enough to see my point from your perspective. Maybe it is.

You were, in your now flagged comment, arguing for stifling (or censoring if you prefer) people who, you believe, hold that kind of opinion.

The point I am making is that morality is only part of it. In practice, it doesn't matter that you're right if you're dead. You say that

> tolerating promotion of oppression doesn't make it go away

I'll answer that arguing with words without understanding the process that allows for people to agree to "fight" with words rather than weapons is even less likely to make bad ideas go away.

This won't convince you, I know, the tone of your replies shows an adversarial reading of my comments. But maybe one day you'll have a more skeptical approach to your own beliefs.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#492

Post by dragonwriter »

Pyxl101 wrote: post #403
lukeschlather wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 popul…

The UCR aren't independent data that confirm conviction-based statistics, they are based on law-enforcement reporting, and share the same biases as prosecutions do.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#493

Post by lern_too_spel »

sinxoveretothex wrote: post #491
lern_too_spel wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a nonsense point (nobody is arguing for morality by majority rule) then refute it by pointing out that you have good arguments for advocating a certain morality. Then you make a straw man (nobody is arguing for stifling anybody). At the core, you seem to agree with me that there are certain actions that we should be intolerant of. Things like murder we should not tolerate forcefully, and things like oppressi…

Hmm, I thought thinking about my initial question would be enough to see my point from your perspective. Maybe it is. You were, in your now flagged comment, arguing for stifling (or censoring if you prefer) people who, you believe, hold that kind of opinion. The point I am making is that morality is only part of it. In practice, it doesn't matter that you're right if you're dead. You say that > tolerating promotion o…

My now-flagged comment said absolutely nothing about censorship or stifling. It said bad actions shouldn't be tolerated. Again, what is bad isn't up for vote. It can be deduced logically -- see my other posts. Otherwise, why do people not follow the "extremes" in their religious texts?

You seem to hold a revisionist historical view that the civil rights movement was entirely unproductive, even though it was unpopular at the start (again, morality doesn't depend on the majority). Loudly pointing out bad actions works.

The funny thing about that now-flagged comment is that it was up to +5 points before it dropped fast. There must be an unwritten rule against calling out superstitions.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#494

Post by sinxoveretothex »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #493
sinxoveretothex wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, I thought thinking about my initial question would be enough to see my point from your perspective. Maybe it is. You were, in your now flagged comment, arguing for stifling (or censoring if you prefer) people who, you believe, hold that kind of opinion. The point I am making is that morality is only part of it. In practice, it doesn't matter that you're right if you're dead. You say that > tolerating promotion o…

My now-flagged comment said absolutely nothing about censorship or stifling. It said bad actions shouldn't be tolerated . Again, what is bad isn't up for vote. It can be deduced logically -- see my other posts. Otherwise, why do people not follow the "extremes" in their religious texts? You seem to hold a revisionist historical view that the civil rights movement was entirely unproductive, even though it was unpopula…

> It said bad actions shouldn't be tolerated.

What do you mean by not tolerating if not stifling? If you look at the Mizzou and Yale things, stifling is exactly the right word: "we're just walking forward", "we can't hear you" and others.

> You seem to hold a revisionist historical view that the civil rights movement was entirely unproductive, even though it was unpopular at the start (again, morality doesn't depend on the majority).

My argument isn't that it didn't work, but that you fail to understand why it worked.

It worked because the arguments were convincing, not inherently because people pointed to something and said "this is stupid".

It has nothing to do with being loud (in the literal sense that I understand you to mean it).

Perhaps a better way to say what I'm trying to is: I think that the reason you arrive at the "right" conclusion is coincidental. The approach is flawed and it does and will lead to nonsense sometimes.

Another way to show what I mean is by counter-example: if someone advocated for, say, racial tolerance because they argued that we can't know who's a Christian based on race, I don't care if we agree on the conclusion, the process is a big problem.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#495

Post by mreiland »

nickbauman wrote: post #127
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…

The problem with "balancing viewpoints" argument is that it isn't based on a critical ethos and so it cannot progress on the basis of logos. You can have a "balanced viewpoint" and still have debates about "whether the moon is made of the body of Vince Foster or not." There are certain ideas that just don't belong in a university setting because they are bunk and this has nothing to do with diversity of opinion. It s…

I wish more people understood this.

I like it frame it in a less politically correct way and simply ask people if they're up for debating whether or not pedophilia should be legal. If the answer is no, then they necessarily must agree that there are things for which a reasonable person can have a closed mind about and still remain reasonable.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#496

Post by [deleted] »

thelastguy wrote: post #486
erikpukinskis wrote: post #329

There's nothing wrong with what is being said here. Except that there are just as many "climate" issues that woman and people of color have to face, if not more. This person is cherry-picking discussions about race and gender and saying "it's horrible that climate issues are making it difficult for these white/male students from participating" but the same level of outcry doesn't exist even though in almost every oth…

>You can't just have boys who have never thought about what colonialism actually feels like And now, you're just assuming that white boys have no empathy. Wow. >Proper affirmative action requires you to get in and take responsibility for your recruitment process and the social issues surrounding it... If everybody just stop fighting, there would be world peace. BUT, the reality is, not everybody will stop fighting. A…

[deleted]

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#497

Post by moistgorilla »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #459
moistgorilla wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under what moral framework are you judging Eich? I can think of many ways what Eich did could be construed as morally neutral and/or morally positive. Not that I think gays shouldn't have the right to marry. It's just that your idea of what makes something moral is horribly naive and self-serving.

Under the framework of cold rational logic. In what ways could Eich's actions be construed as morally positive without resorting to superstitions and other faulty logic? You're absolutely right that my ideas are self-serving though. I am neither gay, nor black, nor a descendant of Abraham, but I am a human living in society. As such, I want to live as long as possible, and oppressing people to the point of ingesting…

> Under the framework of cold rational logic. In what ways could Eich's actions be construed as morally positive without resorting to superstitions and other faulty logic?

Yeah that isn't an ethical framework. You were judging his actions under the framework of moral utilitarianism. The flaws with this can be found in a google search.

His actions could be construed as moral under a rule-utilitarian moral framework and a kantian virtue ethic framework. (The virtues being participating in politics and standing up for what you believe.)

> and oppressing people to the point of ingesting cyanide is not going to help grow a scientific community large enough to keep me alive as long as I would like

This is a straw man. Oppression of gays in the US amounted to not giving them the right to marriage and not having them be protected in the work place for their sexuality. Neither of which amount to "oppressing people to the point of ingesting cyanide".

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#498

Post by Retra »

thelastguy wrote: post #488
Retra wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not the bad guy for expressing that discrimination is a problem, you're the bad guy for not doing so eloquently and revealingly. But discrimination is not inherently a problem, it is only a problem when it leads to bad decision-making, especially in the long term. If I were very short (a factor I cannot control) and I was responsible for reaching high places, it would be discriminatory to deny me the position,…

>If I build a ladder for short people, am I insulting tall people? Am I ignoring them? Am I reducing them to a number? The problem is that, you're not just building a ladder. You're purposely not hiring the tall peoples. Instead, you purposely hire the short people, because you perceived the short people to have a disadvantage in height. Then after you hired them, you build each and everyone of them a ladder, to make…

If you came to me looking for a job, and we've had this exact conversation, here's what I'd want to say to you:

"My goal is to hire competent people. Technically competent and socially competent people. That means getting along with others and understanding their perspectives and priorities. I don't care how well you know some piece of software; you can learn that in a book. I can buy you a book. You can't learn basic human decency from a book.

As someone who presumably cares about this company, I'm aware that we do not only sell products, but also culture, and if you cannot produce valuable culture, then you will not serve this company well. I will not hire you. Not because I have some quota to meet, but because I have standards to meet, and you do not meet them. If you want to be so myopic as to ignore gender issues (or any other issue that actually matter to people in this world,) then go do that on your own time."

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#499

Post by thelastguy »

nine_k wrote: post #35
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…

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, Hispan…

Is this from a book. I would love to read it.

Re: The Yale Problem Begins in High School

#500

Post by thelastguy »

Retra wrote: post #498
thelastguy wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If I build a ladder for short people, am I insulting tall people? Am I ignoring them? Am I reducing them to a number? The problem is that, you're not just building a ladder. You're purposely not hiring the tall peoples. Instead, you purposely hire the short people, because you perceived the short people to have a disadvantage in height. Then after you hired them, you build each and everyone of them a ladder, to make…

If you came to me looking for a job, and we've had this exact conversation, here's what I'd want to say to you: "My goal is to hire competent people. Technically competent and socially competent people. That means getting along with others and understanding their perspectives and priorities. I don't care how well you know some piece of software; you can learn that in a book. I can buy you a book. You can't learn basi…

On the other hand, if you come to my company, and every decision you make, you make because of a person's specific gender, then that's sexist, and I would no hire you either.

All workers need to be treated the same (aka, professionally) no matter the gender. I don't need my workers to go around making decision based on whether the other work is male or female. That's sexist.

People need to stop treating people differently base on their gender, and need to start treating all people the same, no matter their gender. When you do something because of a specific gender, that's sexism.

Post reply on HN