This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University • Hacker News Board

Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University

#551

Post by philh » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 6:04 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #510

philh wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People aren't just scared of being forbidden from making racist jokes. People are scared of being forbidden to express opinions. Like, here's someone who was fired for saying someone else shouldn't have been fired: http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/turtle-rock-communit... And it makes me pretty uncomfortable when people express "fear of being attacked for doing something that's okay", and other people turn that…

My problem with this line of argument is that people who aren't well-off straight white guys like myself are already scared of expressing opinions. They have been for centuries. The only thing that has changed is that people with privilege, on rare occasion, can no longer say certain things without any consequence. As Popehat writes, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. There's an important ques…

Let's be clear. You're saying it's okay to fire people for saying "it's not okay to fire people for bigotry". Yes? If you're not okay with that, if you think Josh Olin should not have been fired, please say so.

I can see your argument, here. I disagree with you, but that's not what I want to get at here.

What I want to get at is this: it's one thing to be scared of making racist jokes. It's another thing to be scared of expressing opinions like "Donald Sterling should not have been fired".

When people say "I'm scared to express opinions", and then you attack them "ha ha, look at the white people complaining that they're afraid to make racist jokes, how sad for them" - and then you also say that it's okay to fire people for the opinions that they say they're scared to express...

I don't have a polite term for this.

Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University

#552

Post by warfangle » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 6:04 PM UTC

mkrfox wrote: post #516

warfangle wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a stark difference between what people who dislike the concept of "safe space" think a "safe space" is and what a "safe space" actually is. A "safe space" is a place where you know you aren't going to be singled out and harmed (verbally or physically) by someone telling you that you're a queer faggot and deserve to die. A "safe space" is a place where people can discuss the actual issues of hatred, bigotry an…

That's what's so annoying. Everyone's having this big screaming conversation about something and using the words for something else, like they're working with some kind of bilingual dictionary. The entries for "safe space" and "trigger warning" got mixed up with a Sudoku puzzle, and everyone's pretending it makes perfect sense instead of looking for a better dictionary.

Trigger warnings are important, in the context of a safe place.

I'm coming from the direction of a) being genderqueer and b) having survived sexual assault. Safe places have been remarkable in giving me a place to discuss my feelings about gender without ridicule or hate. Trigger warnings have been pivotal in me recovering from being molested as a pre-teen.

I'm actively scared of coming out in the developer community, because of its deep rooted misogyny. But here I am :)

(edit: I love that I just got down-voted for coming out to the community as both queer and victim of sexual assault! Thanks for proving me right, HN.)

Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University

#553

Post by DanBC » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 6:06 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #534

jonknee wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Really? Citation please; I simply don't believe this. Most Christian universities that I have any knowledge of invite (or at least aren't averse to it) tough discussion, and allow for a pretty wide range of critical thought about interpretations of the Bible, how Christianity should relate to politics, culture, science, and many other subjects. You have missed out on the wave of evangelical schools that market to p…

All universities (and for that matter, employers) have a code of conduct or ethics that defines standards of behavior and expectations. How is that babysitting?

This one tells you how to dress (modestly), and not to dance, and not to go to the cinema, and not to smoke tobacco, and not to drink alcohol (even if you're off campus).

A christian extremist complains about a student who had complained about a sermon, and says that viewpoints need to be challenged. It's useful to see if that extremist is a massive hypocrite or not. In this case it seems he is.

Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University

#554

Post by undersuit » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 6:06 PM UTC

jonknee wrote: post #525

aggieben wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a stark difference between a free and voluntary association of like-minded people and a so-called "safe space", which uses a pretext of "victimization" to capriciously thought control others who simply committed the offense of disagreeing or criticizing. If you hate Christianity, why would you go to this school? If you aren't willing to follow behavioral rules, why would you go to this school? If you think ph…

> Really? Citation please; I simply don't believe this. Most Christian universities that I have any knowledge of invite (or at least aren't averse to it) tough discussion, and allow for a pretty wide range of critical thought about interpretations of the Bible, how Christianity should relate to politics, culture, science, and many other subjects. You have missed out on the wave of evangelical schools that market to p…

>The University supports the stance of The Wesleyan Church on the issue of dancing.

No dancing guys and gals, it encourages the encroachment of evil upon the home.

Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University

#555

Post by genug » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 6:07 PM UTC

laotzu wrote: post #209

The Gift of Insults, an old zen tale: There once lived a great warrior. Though quite old, he still was able to defeat any challenger. His reputation extended far and wide throughout the land and many students gathered to study under him.One day an infamous young warrior arrived at the village. He was determined to be the first man to defeat the great master. Along with his strength, he had an uncanny ability to spot…

It's like the old saying: offense is taken, not given.

Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University

#556

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 6:08 PM UTC

brightball wrote: post #250

coldpie wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you suggesting people should not learn to cope with uncomfortable ideas? No one is arguing for this.

Yes...actually they are. That's what a trigger warning is. It's insisting that a declaration be given in advance to remove someone from the possibility of having to cope with something uncomfortable. A safe space is an echo chamber. If we really want to know the cause of these tendencies, we need only look to the internet. You used to need to find a group of people to hang out with in your area and in doing so you'd…

> It's insisting that a declaration be given in advance to remove someone from the possibility of having to cope with something uncomfortable.

That's a needlessly uncharitable portrayal of it. A trigger warning can be used just like a movie's rating is. I don't avoid R rated movies, but I appreciate knowing when I'm walking into one.

Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University

#557

Post by logfromblammo » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #479

logfromblammo wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not entirely an ad hominem. The original claim contains an implicit appeal to authority in citing the link to the blog. Saying that the authority cited is not actually a valid authority (due to a known bias) is not quite the same as ad hominem. We resort to reputation to calibrate the burden of proof. If the source cited is not a valid authority, that doesn't make them wrong, but it does make it harder for them…

I'm not appealing to authority at all. The article reproduces verbatim a table from the DOJ, then does multiplication. I reproduced the multiplication myself, since so many people seem to think the white supremacists can't multiply.

But the multiplication does not support the assertion. I am sure that many people biased by skin color can perform multiplication with the help of a calculator. The accuracy of the calculation is not at issue.

The issue is that the multiplication is not valid according to Bayesian probability analysis. It doesn't matter how valid the original numbers are if you interpret them incorrectly. The implicit appeal to authority is that a group known for social policy commentary is somehow expected to have greater credibility in the area of statistical analysis.

In reality, they are just as bad at it as everyone else.

So in exposing the appeal to authority, we see more clearly that the burden is on them to show that their analysis is mathematically correct. So tell me. Why does the multiplication support their claims?

Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University

#558

Post by maldusiecle » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

Agustus wrote: post #544

maldusiecle wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gee, think you have enough scare quotes around? There absolutely are victims on college campuses--victims of sexual assault, of racist acts of violence, of acts of intimidation based on their sexual orientation. I knew people who suffered these things. It's crap to act as if this is all made up. The purpose of safe spaces isn't to impose thought control, it's to allow people who have suffered a chance to recover. You…

What of those who are not in college, do we provide them who have experienced these acts a safe space? Are college students, the supposed vanguard of curious minds, closing their minds and reducing their ability to deal with the world they live in?

People outside of college can and absolutely should have access to safe spaces, yes. Why wouldn't/shouldn't they?

As for your second question, it's so obviously disconnected from what has been said so far that it's hardly worth even answering. A victim of homophobic intimidation who wants a space free of homophobic intimidation is not "reducing their ability to deal with the world they live in." You're stringing right-wing jargon terms together in ways that obviously don't make sense. A person doesn't have any less of a "curious mind" simply because they want to spend time in a place free of intimidation, violence, or hostility.

Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University

#559

Post by warfangle » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

chrisdbaldwin wrote: post #511

warfangle wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a stark difference between what people who dislike the concept of "safe space" think a "safe space" is and what a "safe space" actually is. A "safe space" is a place where you know you aren't going to be singled out and harmed (verbally or physically) by someone telling you that you're a queer faggot and deserve to die. A "safe space" is a place where people can discuss the actual issues of hatred, bigotry an…

That's a long way of saying "shut up."

That's a long way of saying "you don't matter."

Re: This Is Not a Day Care. It’s a University

#560

Post by aeturnum » Tue, Dec 01, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #534

jonknee wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Really? Citation please; I simply don't believe this. Most Christian universities that I have any knowledge of invite (or at least aren't averse to it) tough discussion, and allow for a pretty wide range of critical thought about interpretations of the Bible, how Christianity should relate to politics, culture, science, and many other subjects. You have missed out on the wave of evangelical schools that market to p…

All universities (and for that matter, employers) have a code of conduct or ethics that defines standards of behavior and expectations. How is that babysitting?

The term 'babysitting' as defined in the article it somewhat nebulous, but seems to at least include policing speech to avoid offending others.

However, the school's official rules tell students they should not engage in, "profanity, crude, vulgar, or offensive language, and disrespectful behavior [including] gossip, dishonesty, and malice." The school has a right to define behavior requirements for the student body (all of whom are adults who can choose to attend or not). However, if they are going to post an attack on a student who wishes to expand the speech restrictions on campus, it seems reasonable for them to explain why the student's ideas about restricting speech are bad and their ideas are good.

In a more general sense - most people agree there should be some limits on speech (fire in a theatre, etc). However, when someone suggests a limit on speech they don't like the reaction is like the one in the article: shocked disbelief that someone would want to restrict speech! I don't have strong feelings about "safe spaces" and the like, but I don't think the idea is that strange or hard to understand and that people should at least talk about it within our never-ending discussion about how we want to live with each other.