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

311–320 of 370 posts

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

#311

Post by a_puppy »

bradleyjg wrote: post #280
a_puppy wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Free speech has historically been considered an extremely important right as against the government . It's never been considered part of the accept all commers obligation of places of public accommodation. It's a false analogy. A restaurant turning away a would be customer because he's black isn't the same thing as a restaurant turning someone away because he's wearing KKK regalia. The words 'free speech' aren't a ma…

If I understand correctly, you're pointing out that Harvard has a legal right to suppress its students' freedom of speech. I agree; I'm not arguing that Harvard has broken the law. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize Harvard, or complain about the trend towards universities suppressing freedom of speech, or even advocate for making what Harvard did illegal [0]. So I agree that "free speech" doesn't apply in a legal sense, but I don't think that's relevant to the discussion.

(Or did I misunderstand what you were saying?)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Law

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

#312

Post by julianmarq »

Frondo wrote: post #37
metaphorm wrote: post #22

I'm so conflicted right now. On the one hand, yeah, that shit is offensive and I'm not too keen on elevating a person who makes jokes about sexual assault or violence against minorities. On the other hand I'm terrified at the creeping surveillance society that has institutions examining all of our utterances for "wrong speech", which is much too close for comfort to "wrong think", which is much too close for comfort…

I am perfectly fine with private organizations banning whoever they like for posting racist shit. Racist shit is "wrong speech". If I have friends who start uttering racist shit, and I can't talk them out of it, they are no longer my friends. (This has happened precisely once, no regrets. Thanks, Fox News, for poisoning an old man's mind.) Posting racist memes is wrong, saying racist things is wrong, thinking racist…

> Posting racist memes is wrong, saying racist things is wrong, thinking racist thoughts is wrong. How did we get here, that racism falls under the scare-quotes version of "wrong speech" and not actually wrong speech??

There has never been, there never should be, and most likely there never will be (no matter how your crowd fights for it) such a thing as wrong speech. At least not outside of totalitarian states.

As long as anyone accepts the concept of wrong speech, anything can be labelled that, and wars can explode over the littlest thing.

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

#313

Post by bradleyjg »

a_puppy wrote: post #311
bradleyjg wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech has historically been considered an extremely important right as against the government . It's never been considered part of the accept all commers obligation of places of public accommodation. It's a false analogy. A restaurant turning away a would be customer because he's black isn't the same thing as a restaurant turning someone away because he's wearing KKK regalia. The words 'free speech' aren't a ma…

If I understand correctly, you're pointing out that Harvard has a legal right to suppress its students' freedom of speech. I agree; I'm not arguing that Harvard has broken the law. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize Harvard, or complain about the trend towards universities suppressing freedom of speech, or even advocate for making what Harvard did illegal [0]. So I agree that "free speech" doesn't apply in…

I'm saying that "suppressing its students' freedom of speech" is a category error in the first place. There's never been in the United States or elsewhere a widespread norm that offensive speech should not come with any consequences from fellow private citizens and from private organizations. When you said "Free speech has historically been considered an extremely important right" that's simply inaccurate with respect to the private context. It was never so considered. Certainly not as any sort of right, but not even as a general norm.

If you want to advocate for the desirability of adopting a new norm, from here forward -- fine go ahead and do it. But simply repeating the words "free speech" over and over again isn't convincing.

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

#314

Post by fao_ »

julianmarq wrote: post #306
fao_ wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or a chance to explain themselves. You imply that media condoning racism, and sexual violence can be justified.

> You imply that media condoning racism, and sexual violence can be justified. You imply that sharing memes in a private group is equivalent to a KKK meeting or actual sexual assault.

In these cases, condoning them creates and contributes to an environment in which they are acceptable. The only way we are going to remove sexual assault and racism from the world is for every one to understand that these things are never acceptable in any context. Thus, while not equivalent, allowing it to be condoned in private groups is directly contrary to our goals as a society.

Bear in mind that this argument is not intended as an argument for "thoughtcrimes" to be made illegal, it is made as an argument for creating and encouraging strict rules against this behaviour in privately-owned spaces. Facebook is not a 'public space', they just choose to give you those rights.

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

#315

Post by stcredzero »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #259
metaphorm wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lets have a more realistic conversation about the consequences of shunning and ostracizing people, even if those people are noxious (in some way). does it really work? it seems to work in-so-far-as it purges specific communities of specific people. it doesn't remove those people from larger society and it most certainly doesn't change their mind. it makes them feel aggrieved to the point where they lash out with redo…

> it seems to work in-so-far-as it purges specific communities of specific people I'll take that; that's progress. If the only effect is to improve such communities, that's a good enough reason. And if we can get people to stop making "but free speech!" arguments against it, and start talking about free association, it'll have a much more widespread effect.

I'll take that; that's progress.

Here's what this kind of thinking has done in the US: The left has crammed themselves into cities, effectively reducing their voting power outside of those cities. This sort of thinking has been "effective" -- in that Donald Trump is now president.

And if we can get people to stop making "but free speech!" arguments against it, and start talking about free association, it'll have a much more widespread effect.

What you want, is for "your side" to infiltrate virtually all of the ruling boards of all non-governmental organizations in society and have them start enforcing your particular views, on pain of marginalization and expulsion. We in the US once had that widespread condition with the form of the belief system called "Christianity" and such tactics were often used to try to coerce so-called "proper" behavior from atheists, homosexuals, and polygamists. Would you justify having such widespread social coercion once again, because this time, supposedly the "correct" side would win?

Progress throughout history has been made through commerce and people coexisting and really talking to each other. One group enforcing its will over another has always resulted in overt injustice, or covert injustice -- even in the case of the Civil War. (The victims I have in mind in that last reference are all black people, despite the clear progress of abolition.)

I'm all for people talking about "free association." Infiltrating all of the ruling committees of otherwise politically neutral non-government organizations and issuing edicts for what you shall believe, on pain of expulsion, is not at all supporting of or supported by the notion of "free association" -- anymore than using one's status and authority to get someone else to say yes to sexual intercourse is truly consensual sex. True freedom is truly consensual choice, and it's not really consensual if the big motivator is fear.

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

#316

Post by a_puppy »

vinceguidry wrote: post #282
a_puppy wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And right now the entire university education industry is colluding to suppress certain types of speech; an incident like this could happen at most universities, not just Harvard. So why doesn't freedom of speech also deserve specific legal protection? You still haven't justified treating freedom of speech differently from freedom from discrimination.

I'm having trouble following your logic. In my original comment, I stated that Harvard should have a right to choose who they want to admit or not admit to their school, unless they wanted to discriminate on illegal grounds. Everyone here is exercising their rights. The kids have a right to exercise their rights to free speech, and Harvard has a right to run a business the way they want to run it. Harvard is not a pu…

I'm arguing that it's insufficient to point out that Harvard is a private institution, because the exact same argument could be used to justify discrimination. You have to show how free speech and discrimination are different.

I agree that under 2017 US law, Harvard has a legal right to kick out the students. Similarly, under 1930 US law, Harvard had a legal right to reject all female applicants.

I agree that those students can try to apply to a different university. Similarly, women rejected by Harvard in 1930 could apply to a different university.

I agree that this wasn't a good solution for the women rejected by Harvard in 1930, because most other universities would also reject them. I argue that it's also not a good solution for freedom of speech in 2017, because most US universities now suppress certain types of speech.

The reason we have anti-discrimination laws is because without them, minorities would have no other options. The reason we need free speech protections is because without them, people with the "wrong" opinions have no other options.

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

#317

Post by julianmarq »

fao_ wrote: post #314
julianmarq wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You imply that media condoning racism, and sexual violence can be justified. You imply that sharing memes in a private group is equivalent to a KKK meeting or actual sexual assault.

In these cases, condoning them creates and contributes to an environment in which they are acceptable. The only way we are going to remove sexual assault and racism from the world is for every one to understand that these things are never acceptable in any context. Thus, while not equivalent, allowing it to be condoned in private groups is directly contrary to our goals as a society. Bear in mind that this argument i…

> In these cases, condoning them creates and contributes to an environment in which they are acceptable.

No, it doesn't, and you literally have no ground to make this argument. You're welcome to try linking "research" that supposedly suggests "this something or other" and then I'll be happy to point out how they don't actually make your case, if you wish.

> The only way we are going to remove sexual assault and racism from the world is for every one to understand that these things are never acceptable in any context.

And yet none of these students committed a hate crime or assaulted anyone. It's almost as if thought policing were useless and someone who's evil will do horrible things because they want to and not because "something something bad environment", just like a good person (the overwhelming majority, thankfully) won't do them, no matter the context.

And, guess what, your country has come a long way from the segregation of the 60s without needing to ban jokes. And nothing says this trend won't continue. Of course, the regressive left and the reactionary right are trying their damnedest to put setbacks or even make you walk back, but let's hope they're just noise that will die out eventually.

> Thus, while not equivalent, allowing it to be condoned in private groups is directly contrary to our goals as a society.

No, it isn't. Happiness isn't and shouldn't be mandatory. You're free to call someone out or leave if someone makes a joke you don't like, you don't get to tell them to not make it.

> Bear in mind that this argument is not intended as an argument for "thoughtcrimes" to be made illegal

Yes it is, but your rationalization isn't the worst I've read. Still incorrect, obviously.

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

#318

Post by vinceguidry »

a_puppy wrote: post #316
vinceguidry wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having trouble following your logic. In my original comment, I stated that Harvard should have a right to choose who they want to admit or not admit to their school, unless they wanted to discriminate on illegal grounds. Everyone here is exercising their rights. The kids have a right to exercise their rights to free speech, and Harvard has a right to run a business the way they want to run it. Harvard is not a pu…

I'm arguing that it's insufficient to point out that Harvard is a private institution, because the exact same argument could be used to justify discrimination. You have to show how free speech and discrimination are different. I agree that under 2017 US law, Harvard has a legal right to kick out the students. Similarly, under 1930 US law, Harvard had a legal right to reject all female applicants. I agree that those s…

> I argue that it's also not a good solution for freedom of speech in 2017, because most US universities now suppress certain types of speech.

Well, if they want to change that state of affairs, they can go start a civil liberties movement to get "the right to post dank memes" enshrined as a legally-protected act.

Let me know so I can go sign their petition.

The point I'm trying to get across is that nothing about your argument that is compelling enough to convince a reasonable adult, much less a plurality of Americans to fight for it. Justice isn't free, just because you say things should be fair and the Constitution says it should be this way doesn't make your particular injustice worth fighting for. Civil rights for minorities was. What do I know, maybe dank memes will be in the future. I'm not holding my breath though.

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

#319

Post by a_puppy »

bradleyjg wrote: post #313
a_puppy wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand correctly, you're pointing out that Harvard has a legal right to suppress its students' freedom of speech. I agree; I'm not arguing that Harvard has broken the law. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize Harvard, or complain about the trend towards universities suppressing freedom of speech, or even advocate for making what Harvard did illegal [0]. So I agree that "free speech" doesn't apply in…

I'm saying that "suppressing its students' freedom of speech" is a category error in the first place. There's never been in the United States or elsewhere a widespread norm that offensive speech should not come with any consequences from fellow private citizens and from private organizations. When you said "Free speech has historically been considered an extremely important right" that's simply inaccurate with respec…

I disagree with your claim that there has never been a widespread norm. On university campuses in particular, there was a long-standing norm of tolerating radical and controversial opinions.

If a large group of private universities all retaliate against students for expressing certain opinions (which is what's happening) then that causes the same harm as if the government does it. As I've argued elsewhere in this thread, that's analogous to how discrimination is harmful even if it's by private institutions instead of by the government.

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

#320

Post by stcredzero »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #288
stcredzero wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. Say anything you like. Learn to live with the consequences Having found that much of the modern world has quite effective protections for free speech and free association, authoritarians have learned this "one weird trick" to hide their activities. Here's the dishonest trick: Just because it's not in the set of rules enforced by city, county, state, and federal officials, then it's not censorship. That's the sa…

> Our country and most of the western world has a long history of the whole of society oppressing groups largely through such non-government oppression. > people read the posted sign or subtly got the funny vibe Or the bigoted meme? It's a great argument; you might consider exactly which point it's a great argument in favor of. I am amazingly uninterested in arguments for why it's important to support racism and sexi…

I am amazingly uninterested in arguments for why it's important to support racism and sexism

I am amazingly uninterested in "aguments" where you put words in other people's mouths. Where do I support racism and sexism? Please provide a quote. (Big fail for you here!) As it so happens, I'm a liberal non-heterosexual brown person. Violence is wrong, no less so if it's done against vile, violent people. Coercion is wrong, even if it's done against people I dislike. The suppression of free speech is wrong, no matter who is talking.

in attempts to equate freedom of association as equivalent to violence

It's certainly not equivalent to violence. However, it's still fake and crappy if you're just interested in getting your way, and have reduced certain other human beings in your mind to some status where their consensuality doesn't matter. That's the whole reason why democracy is the best form of government we have so far: it respects consensuality the best out of every other system we've tried.

"your particular ideas of what's right and wrong". Enjoy beating up that strawman as long as you like, but it has little to do with any actual position I'm advocating.

So your ideas of "social justice" are better than everyone else's? You claim to have some sort of line to "the truth?" A close friend of mine received some sort of award and several hundred dollars for her work in social justice, and she agrees with much of what I have said.

You said yourself in this very discussion that you want "your side" to infiltrate all of the organizations and force the certain people you think are "bad" because they disagree with you. You want society to run in this way, and even if it just succeeds in creating pockets of people who think like you, that's great. Well, that's exactly what you said, and my position is precisely this: Thinking this way is crappy and it's emotionally dishonest. It creates an oppressive fake "consensus," and it convinces absolutely no one. The kind of society it would create would be just as truly about "justice" as the Christian religion dominated society of the 19th century was truly about "Christian values" -- only on the surface! This is my position, and exactly this. The only "straw-manning" that's been done has been yours. You are the one philosophically advocating coercion. Honestly, does the thought of coercing all of those horrible people to leave groups not strike you as righteous vengeance? Are you honestly free of hate of people in your heart?

I agree with many of your political aims, but be honest with yourself: Your position is weak someplace, and thus you have turned away from convincing and towards coercion.

Post reply on HN