Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 370 posts

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

#261

Post by 2_listerine_pls »

pyre wrote: post #102
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw this firsthand with a former flatmate of mine. He passionately studied Semitic languages and Persian at uni, spent a lot of time traveling or studying abroad in Israel, Arab countries, and Iran. His social circle in Europe was heavy with immigrants from those countries and with them he seemed to be the best of friends. And yet he loved to visit 4chan and collect anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim memes to repost else…

But making that shit turn up everywhere just normalizes it. People start seeing those things and agreeing with them, no matter how "ironically" he intending them to be taken. Ideas like "let's get Donald Trump elected for the lulz" have real-world effects. "It was just for laughs, mate" isn't really a good excuse. At a certain point, it approaches "watching the world burn" territory.

> Ideas like "let's get Donald Trump elected for the lulz" have real-world effects.

Do you have statistics to back that claim?

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

#262

Post by pc86 »

weberc2 wrote: post #64
pc86 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? People are totally within their rights to share these things in public or in private. Private institutions, including Harvard, are totally within their rights to rescind admissions offers because of it.

And private individuals are well within their rights to point out that Harvard's actions are inconsistent with their purported values of free speech.

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. And from a legal perspective free speech just means the government can't punish you for protected speech. Individuals and entities are free to discriminate based on your protected speech all they want.

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

#263

Post by fao_ »

nxsynonym wrote: post #209
fao_ wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's simply a different world view. One that states that people with more melatonin are fundamentally inferior and should be subservient to people with less melatonin. It is a point of view that is objectively and morally wrong. I wonder whether you would support the right of people to state that PoC should be sterilized, or the rights of people to call people to attack PoCs. Because that is what more and more peop…

There is no such thing as an objectively correct or incorrect world-view. It's an opinion and is shaped by culture, circumstance, and upbringing. To answer you question - Yes, I would support the rights of people to state whatever they wish. I also support the rights of individuals such as you or myself to call those people morons, and to not associate with them. Suppressing speech, and demonizing people for their vi…

> There is no such thing as an objectively correct or incorrect world-view.

Of course there is. If I have the world-view that I am the most successful person in the world, yet 90% of people have not heard of me, then that world-view is false. If I have the world-view that climate change is just something made up the scientists to get more funding, then that world-view is false. If I have the world-view that some people are inferior because of their skin-colour, then that world view is scientifically false. As best as we can objectively measure, those world-views are false.

> Suppressing speech, and demonizing people for their views (no matter how "objectively wrong") does not solve any problem.

You are incorrect, and you mistake how facism works. Facism is not after the truth, facism is not after peace. The only peace that facism, and facists want, is peace through the absence of justice. The only goal of white supremacists, is to create a world in which PoC either no longer exist, or are subjugated. They will abuse any system and platform that you give them, to spread their philosophies and ensure more people join their cause. They continue to be a thriving community because the educated population have ignored them out of politeness. The sole goal of them is to further their philosophy. The only way we can stop that, is by depriving them of platforms from which to speak their hate.

Let us not forget the last time we tried to bargain with white supremacists. Several deals were forged, and as soon as the facists had got a firm position, they went back on the deals and moved into Poland, and meanwhile began exterminating parts of their populations that they deemed inferior. The only reason they were able to do that was because they were ignored and thus tolerated by the educated population.

If you think I am being paranoid, let us look at what the leader of the large political movement called the "alt-right" stated only a few years ago:

""""Instead of asking how we can make reparations for slavery, colonialism, and Apartheid or how we can equalize academic scores and incomes, we should instead be asking questions like, "Does human civilization actually need the Black race?" "Is Black genocide right?" and, if it is, "What would be the best and easiest way to dispose of them?" With starting points like this, wisdom is sure to flourish, enlightenment to dawn. """"[0].

[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20120216183528/http:/www.alterna...

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

#264

Post by throwanem »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #258
throwanem wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, certainly social and professional exclusion of one's political opponents has some historical evidence for its efficacy as a tactic, at least in the short term. Those of us who have qualms around consequentialism find this efficacy not reason enough to regard such behavior as exemplary of virtue. Those who do not have such qualms might be well advised to consider, from a utilitarian perspective, the ultimat…

> political opponents Framing bigots as "political opponents" has some efficacy as a tactic too, given people's allergy to politics. It's sad that this has, especially recently, become equated to politics. "How should we organize government", or "are certain functions better handled by government" are reasonable questions of politics. "Should we treat some people as less than other people" is not a question of politi…

> Framing bigots as "political opponents" has some efficacy as a tactic too

How about framing political opponents as "bigots"?

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

#265

Post by noer »

2OEH8eoCRo wrote: post #250
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…

Sure they're private so they aren't bound by law to allow freedom of speech but they still send a bad message by suppressing it.

Free Speech isn't "Consequence-Free Speech" and is a two way street. Sure, feel free to say/write the most despicable, racist thing imaginable. However, what is often forgotten is that there are consequences for everything that happens. As long as the government isn't restricting you from or putting you in jail or saying/writing it, the speech is free.

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

#266

Post by vinceguidry »

a_puppy wrote: post #255
vinceguidry wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I specifically noted the civil rights exception in my comment.

You stated the exception without justification. You need to give an actual argument for why discrimination should be an exception but free speech shouldn't. Free speech has historically been considered an extremely important right. In fact, free speech is a civil right--one of the originals. Why shouldn't it be included under your civil rights exception?

The civil rights movement itself exposed the need for specific legal protections for minorities, because leaving it all up to the "marketplace of ideas" only ensures that patterns of systemized oppression continue.

What happens when you don't restrict along protected grounds is that entire industries collude to exclude those classes of people. Mass hatred drowns out the whole marketplace.

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

#268

Post by stcredzero »

openasocket wrote: post #230
stcredzero wrote: post #135

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. 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?

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.

Absolutist argument? Where do you get that? Who's being absolutist? What evidence do you have that I don't have "a line?" Do you have any evidence that I support people yelling "fire" in a theater? Please provide your evidence, as I do take an absolute stand against people putting words and positions onto others on HN with no evidence.

It ignores any sort of context or nuance and generally shuts down discussion.

So are you basically saying it's okay to engage in partisan thought and speech policing of political viewpoints of graduating high school seniors by trolling through their social media?

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

No. I don't get instantly excluded for voicing an opinion. Instead I get feedback. There's the difference. Is there a real flow of information? Is there a real marketplace of ideas? Or is it, "put up or shut up?" That's the difference.

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

#269

Post by throwanem »

openasocket wrote: post #257
throwanem wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that I could've been more clear in my prior comment. Here's one in which I more precisely formulated the argument I'm trying to make here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14489045

That's more clear, but you're still talking in pretty broad generalities. Let's focus on the concrete case here: if you were Harvard staff, and people were posting these things on your incoming freshman forum, what actions would you take? I get your point on proportionality of response, but it's not clear what you think would be a fitting response to this incident.

Sure, let's do that. Leaving aside all questions of whether or not this falls within Harvard's disciplinary remit - we'll assume that it does - I would have these students begin their academic careers at the school on disciplinary probation, which I gather is contemplated within its policies on maintaining an acceptable standard of conduct among students. Disciplinary probation, from what I've been able to find in a cursory examination of Harvard's public website, also provides formal grounds for more decisive action should the unacceptable conduct persist.

That seems to me a reasonable middle ground between on the one hand doing nothing, which I agree would be a highly questionable decision even from the purely cynical perspective that anyone accepted to Harvard may reasonably be expected not to violate the eleventh commandment in such damnfool fashion and if they don't already know that then they better get on learning - and, on the other hand, rescinding these prospective students' acceptance, with the concomitant potentially very significant impairment of their lifelong prospects, on the basis of they posted some tasteless images to a private Facebook group.

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

#270

Post by TheGirondin »

vinceguidry wrote: post #179
TheGirondin wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Doesn't make them less private. Yes, it does actually.

What about government contractors? They're funded by the government. Your way of thinking about it taints every dollar that passes through government, forcing everything that deals with the government to be treated as part of the government.

Being hired to do a job and being funded are two very different things.
Post reply on HN