Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat • Hacker News Board

Re: Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat

#221

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 05, 2017, 5:10 PM UTC

a_puppy wrote: post #216

vinceguidry wrote: post #111

People worried about free speech rights should realize that Harvard is a private university. If I held a party at my house and didn't want to invite you because you called my dog a 'mutt', you'd get laughed out of court if you tried to sue me over it. People should be allowed to organize under whatever principles they want to organize under. Disallowing Harvard to use whatever criteria they want to use to admit stude…

"People worried about womens' rights in the early 20th century should have realized that Harvard was a private university. If I held a party at my house and didn't want to invite you because you were a woman, you'd get laughed out of court if you tried to sue me over it. People should be allowed to organize under whatever principles they want to organize under. Disallowing Harvard to use whatever criteria they want t…

[deleted]

Re: Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat

#222

Post by ziggysak » Mon, Jun 05, 2017, 5:10 PM UTC

nxrabl wrote: post #203

ziggysak wrote: post #79

I think an article such as this one is a clear example of the generational differences between older and younger people. I'm fairly close to these kids' age and I've browsed memes from /r/dankmemes and enjoyed them. The thing is, is that these memes are supposed to be self-aware of how offensive they are. That's the joke. They're meant to be so offensive and ridiculous that reactions can be drawn from outside spectat…

I'm probably around the same age you are, and I have to disagree with you that these kinds of jokes are harmless. For one thing, cultures like this do provide safe havens to people who actually hold bigoted views 'sincerely'. I've been in IRL conversations that ran along these norms, and it was a really uncomfortable experience, especially as a member of a favorite 4Chan target group. It became fairly obvious over th…

To your first point: It's certainly immoral to be a true bigot, but it's more immoral to silence dark humor simply because of the one individual who believes it. In fact, I would argue that attempting to stifle these individuals is what amplifies their tendency to hold bigoted views. For example, if you're in an in-real-life group conversation and you're all friends and you're roasting another friend for something he did, it's completely fine. But once someone goes too far and begins insulting him sincerely, you punish the person who made the insult, not the group.

As to your second point, I don't know why you think people who enjoy memes are somehow intellectually lazy. I don't really see how your logic works here as memes are simply jokes transmitted via the internet. Are you implying that anyone who makes jokes or enjoys dark comedy has to be intellectually lazy?

Re: Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat

#223

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jun 05, 2017, 5:10 PM UTC

a_puppy wrote: post #216

vinceguidry wrote: post #111

People worried about free speech rights should realize that Harvard is a private university. If I held a party at my house and didn't want to invite you because you called my dog a 'mutt', you'd get laughed out of court if you tried to sue me over it. People should be allowed to organize under whatever principles they want to organize under. Disallowing Harvard to use whatever criteria they want to use to admit stude…

"People worried about womens' rights in the early 20th century should have realized that Harvard was a private university. If I held a party at my house and didn't want to invite you because you were a woman, you'd get laughed out of court if you tried to sue me over it. People should be allowed to organize under whatever principles they want to organize under. Disallowing Harvard to use whatever criteria they want t…

[deleted]

Re: Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat

#224

Post by pvnick » Mon, Jun 05, 2017, 5:10 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #172

pvnick wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Folks always make this argument which this kind of thing comes up. Just because you as a private entity can limit free speech, doesn't mean you should . Censorship is generally a bad idea, and I as a private entity can be upset at Harvard for doing it.

The Internet has shown all of us that simple restrictions on speech go a long way towards creating a welcoming and friendly atmosphere. Attacking basic civility and hate speech restrictions on speech is putting principles before reality. You don't want to make any laws restricting truly public speech, but censuring private entities for that is counter-productive.

Cutting down on trolling, perhaps. But there appears to be an encroaching ideologically-driven purge in some areas against people expressing "incorrect" speech. Most of the complaints seem to be focused on youtube, twitter, and facebook (e.g. pewdiepie; also H3H3 productions appears to be having trouble; the site-wide purge of alt-right accounts on twitter and the banning of Milo; instapundit and james o'keefe were temporarily banned; I think nobody would be surprised if someone like Steven Crowder got in trouble someday soon; etc.).

Re: Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat

#225

Post by weberc2 » Mon, Jun 05, 2017, 5:10 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #177

weberc2 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yours is the argument posed by employers who posted "Blacks need not apply" adverts. Are you sure that's the hill you want to die on? Anyway, by "oppression", I was referring to the OPs implicit suggestion that were prohibit unpopular speech, which is oppression.

Race is a protected class where we as a society have explicitly decided that there are societal benefits to overriding free association in the course of the transaction public business (emphasis on public, both in the governmental and the "running a business" sense of the term). "Racist jerk" is not a protected class. So, yes, I'm quite comfortable with this hill. It has a nice shining city on it. Shame its originato…

Race wasn't protected in the fifties either, and yet few would argue that it only became oppressive when the laws were changed. Those who would support your argument are the very same you would evict from your holy hill!

Re: Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat

#226

Post by maxwin » Mon, Jun 05, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

pvnick wrote: post #148

vinceguidry wrote: post #111

People worried about free speech rights should realize that Harvard is a private university. If I held a party at my house and didn't want to invite you because you called my dog a 'mutt', you'd get laughed out of court if you tried to sue me over it. People should be allowed to organize under whatever principles they want to organize under. Disallowing Harvard to use whatever criteria they want to use to admit stude…

Folks always make this argument which this kind of thing comes up. Just because you as a private entity can limit free speech, doesn't mean you should . Censorship is generally a bad idea, and I as a private entity can be upset at Harvard for doing it.

How do u deal with hate speech

Re: Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat

#227

Post by misingnoglic » Mon, Jun 05, 2017, 5:13 PM UTC

misterbowfinger wrote: post #197

misingnoglic wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that standards should be lowered for high school seniors. These are people who are legally allowed to vote, join the army, buy guns, etc.., and for these people it's go to Harvard. They should know that it's unacceptable to share memes about sexual violence, racism, and whatnot, especially on Facebook. When I was in 6th grade (I'm 21 now), my school gave us the talk about the internet, saying that whate…

Maybe getting the acceptances revoked is just the kick in the ass that they need. That is MAJORLY different then getting yelled at by your mom. If you asked any of these 10 kids if they'd rather 1) Get yelled at by an authority figure, or 2) Have your acceptance rescinded I guarantee all of them will choose option 1. By the way, you're very lucky to have a parent who cares enough to teach you valuable lesson.

I'm not saying that they're equivalent. I'm just saying it's the kick in the ass they needed, because otherwise they would just be privileged guys going to Harvard, sharing offensive memes and not understanding why it's wrong until the next worst thing happens. Obviously the thing where their parents punish them is not happening anymore, they're adults now.

Re: Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat

#228

Post by eropple » Mon, Jun 05, 2017, 5:14 PM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #225

eropple wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Race is a protected class where we as a society have explicitly decided that there are societal benefits to overriding free association in the course of the transaction public business (emphasis on public, both in the governmental and the "running a business" sense of the term). "Racist jerk" is not a protected class. So, yes, I'm quite comfortable with this hill. It has a nice shining city on it. Shame its originato…

Race wasn't protected in the fifties either, and yet few would argue that it only became oppressive when the laws were changed. Those who would support your argument are the very same you would evict from your holy hill!

If racist jerks end up actually oppressed instead of having to deal with the consequences of their very specific and very active choices (which stand in stark contrast to the genetic/external-social of "race"), I am entirely and one hundred percent onboard with having a conversation about whether society is made better by considering them a protected class. I will not hold my breath on either the likelihood of that oppression nor on whether society is made better by enabling them.

Do you have an actual argument, or are you just whatabouting?

Re: Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat

#229

Post by metaphorm » Mon, Jun 05, 2017, 5:16 PM UTC

vinceguidry wrote: post #147

Houshalter wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anyone in the comments that genuinely believe what Harvard did was illegal. They have a legal right to do whatever they want (so long as they don't receive any taxpayer money whatsoever, which I'm not sure is true.) But we have a legal right to criticize them for it and be angry at them.

No, but they are saying that it's a free speech issue. It is a free speech issue, but not in the way they are saying. Your anger is misplaced if it's directed at Harvard.

who is "they" and what did "they" say, specifically? can you quote someone? the discussion of speech issues is often about culture and norms rather than about legal statutes.

Re: Harvard withdraws 10 acceptances for ‘offensive’ memes in private group chat

#230

Post by openasocket » Mon, Jun 05, 2017, 5:16 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #135

JoshTriplett wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dystopian fiction has given so much terrorizing weight to the concept of "thoughtcrime" and "wrong think" that I think people forget how much positive effect a culture can have on widespread mindsets and stopping ignorance. There are some ignorant thoughts that have almost entirely fallen out of the collective consciousness (in terms of serious belief, not abstract discussion of the past). (As a random example, there…

Dystopian fiction has given so much terrorizing weight to the concept of "thoughtcrime" and "wrong think" that I think people forget how much positive effect a culture can have on widespread mindsets and stopping ignorance. Authorities, especially institutions of higher learning, shouldn't be in the business of policing their student's speech. That's not "culture." That's oppression. Using bad actions in the service…

I dislike these absolutist arguments. It ignores any sort of context or nuance and generally shuts down discussion. In general, I understand and sympathize with your line of reasoning, and championing of free speech. However, I think you are going too far.

Consider HN: we have down votes, comment flagging, and moderators. That is very much the policing of speech. Would you consider this oppression?