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

#341

Post by vinceguidry » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 3:14 AM UTC

a_puppy wrote: post #336

vinceguidry wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 yo…

I agree that dank memes in particular are not worth fighting for. However, I think the same policies and attitudes that get dank memes banned are also suppressing serious political speech. And the suppression of political speech on college campuses is an issue that a lot of reasonable adults take very seriously. See e.g. https://www.thefire.org/ and https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus I'm not quite sure which po…

I'm arguing that Harvard should be able to use reasonable measures to affect campus discourse, up to and including an outright speech ban if that's necessary, given of course that it is appropriate with existing limitations on such speech bans. (time, place and manner restrictions)

You are asking about specific policy that I think Harvard should be able to or not be able to enact. The thing about policy is that it necessarily has a chilling effect. But symbolic actions like this one can send messages without making everyone feel like they're under the gun. Properly tailored, it scares the people that need to be scared and lets everyone else feel safe and protected.

I have no problems with the action that Harvard took. They did not rescind all of the invitations of those involved, and exercised good judgment. It was a nuanced and appropriate response to the situation.

If you remove the ability of school administrators to exercise judgment, then you're basically tying their hands together and things can rapidly devolve into a cesspool.

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

#342

Post by maxwin » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 4:27 AM UTC

pvnick wrote: post #251

maxwin wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do u deal with hate speech

Ignore it. How is that even up for debate?

Apparently, you have never been the target of hate speech. I mean as an organization or platform, hate speech is gonna cause serious damage. You can't just tell individuals in your community or organization to ignore it. For example, in my country Myanmar,we just got free speech. But now we are dealing with hate speech which actually lead to hate crimes. The spread of religious hate speech causes one community of people to set fire/ kill another community of people. You can't just ignore hate speech.

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

#343

Post by maxwin » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 4:30 AM UTC

gdix wrote: post #240

maxwin wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand ,how do u stop hate speech?

You defeat bad arguments with good arguments. By the way this is the ONLY way. Silencing those you disagree with will only enrage and mobilize those people, and those people vote. Hence, Trump.

  Unfortunately, We don't live in an ideal world where everyone is rational and can't be easily manipulated.For example, in my country Myanmar,we just got free speech. But now we are dealing with hate speech which actually lead to hate crimes. The spread of religious hate speech causes one community of people to set fire/ kill another community of people.  Hate speech and false facts travels fast and they come back again and again. Sometimes , well , most of the times, the only way  you can win is to have zero tolerance for it.

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

#344

Post by YCode » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 4:52 AM UTC

weberc2 wrote: post #289

pc86 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free speech means exactly freedom from consequences. You're confusing the value of free speech with the specific contractual guarantee provided by the government. In other words, a university that commits itself to free speech contradicts that commitment by unaccepting students based on their speech.

It is somewhat hypocritical.

Curiously their school paper (or w.e.) recently posted a treatise [1] on free speech, including this bit:

> We also believe that the essential definition of free speech has itself been twisted and clouded. Free speech only entails the right of every individual to “speak freely.” It does not give one the right to speak free of criticism or protest. It does not give one the right to say something which could reasonably be construed as inciting chaos or violence. It does not give one the right to any forum that one desires... Certain speakers do not deserve the platform Harvard University offers, especially when their rhetoric runs antithetical to the values we should all hold dear.

Also many news outlets have mentioned this bit from their admissions policy:

> the university reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission if the admitted student “engages or has engaged in behavior that brings into question their honesty, maturity or moral character,”

One might claim their "speech" displays a lack of maturity and moral character and avoid a paradox.

[1] http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2017/5/25/commencement-201...

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

#345

Post by Houshalter » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 5:10 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #339

metaphorm wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

humor with the intention of ridiculing something by using its own tropes to the point of absurdity to show the wrongness/badness of the thing is a well-established form of satire and commentary. a satirist is emphatically NOT in concordance or agreement with that which they are satirizing. I find it unreasonable that you are arguing against this basic premise. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I hope I am because If I…

You're assuming the people employing that black humor don't believe what they're saying. I, and I expect the person to whom you reply, don't adhere to that assumption. I think that "just a joke", in this context, is the exhibition of profound naivete. And even if the speaker realizes it's a joke--the listeners often don't. See the /pol/ commentary elsewhere in this thread; /pol/ was "just joking" until those jokes we…

Yes people employing black humor don't believe what they are saying. That's literally the whole point. I really doubt there are that many people that actually want to murder babies. Or do any of the insane things that come up in a good cards against humanity game.

Maybe you could make a utilitarian argument against black humor. Maybe you could argue that such jokes encourage actual baby killers and the world would be better without them. I really doubt that's true, but even if it was, it's a very different argument. People want these kids expelled because they think they are actual monsters, which is probably false. Not because of theoretical arguments of the utility of banning black humor.

Pols transition to conservatism has nothing to do with black humor, but how it's set up. It's a site that not only doesn't censor, but strongly encourages discussions on taboo topics. Of course it will attract people that believe taboo ideologies and are banned or ostracized elsewhere.

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

#346

Post by JoshTriplett » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 5:15 AM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #335

JoshTriplett wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For one who decries false equivalence of equating some non-violent action to violence, I find your application of "harm" here a real stretch, and a bit hypocritical besides! I don't think it's unreasonable to use the term to refer to non-physical harm. I'm certainly not equating it to violence. > I wonder if you're the sort of person who would advocate that a non-political group make a political statement, then mak…

I don't think it's unreasonable to use the term to refer to non-physical harm. I'm certainly not equating it to violence. Are you claiming that fear of ostracizing isn't in the same general category as the without-violence-but-convincing threat of violence? I don't see how you can honestly say they aren't both in the category of severe . (I've personally dealt with both.) There doesn't have to be any equivalence for…

Nobody brought up 'convincing threats of violence' before now. But since you did, yes, I'd absolutely claim a difference. It's one thing to fear being excluded from a group, and quite another to fear for your safety, whether there's an actual threat or simply something that feels ominous. And even when exclusion or banning is on the table, there's a step between quietly removing someone from a community (leaving them to make a scene or not) and loudly warning people about the threat they pose; it takes a lot more direct concern for others' safety to warrant the latter. And if you read the article, there were multiple incremental steps taken, and not everyone involved was ejected, nor does it sound like anyone was named who didn't want to be.

For that matter, exclusion is typically entirely reversible, given appropriate reasons to do so.

More importantly, however, you're focusing on the effect on the excluded, and ignoring their effect on others.

If you're asked to be quiet in a library, you're not being oppressed; even if you're talkative by nature, you can manage to shut up so others can ready and study. If you don't, you'll be asked to leave, or ultimately made to. But that doesn't mean people in the library go around with that fear and threat as the ultimate reason, any more than people go around with 'I might go to jail' as the only thing stopping them from injuring someone.

The same goes if you're participating in a community with a code of conduct that makes it welcoming and comfortable. Even if you're naturally toxic and obnoxious, hopefully you can manage to suppress that tendency in order to participate in the community. If not, you'll be asked to leave, or ultimately made to. But people participating in the community don't have that at the forefront of their minds all the time. That's largely the point.

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

#347

Post by stale2002 » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 6:17 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #215

stale2002 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comments offends me. How would you like it if I then contacted your workplace and got you fired, or expelled from school.

I wouldn't! But if I did something shitty (let's be real here, you're not offended, you're upset at the notion that words have consequences), it would be entirely within your rights to react to what I did. And mine to defend myself, and my employer to decide whether the cost of being represented by someone with my views was commensurate with its return.

Look, nobody is arguing that Harvard is doing something that is literally illegal.

But that is their only defense.

What we are arguing is that the Harvard administration is full of terrible people who can go F themselves. Because they do not care about students and they do not care about freedom of thought.

Maybe they are just going to start expelling people because they publicly disagreed with them about tuition hikes or something else that is arbitrary. Who knows!

That wouldn't be illegal either. Would you defend them for that?

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

#348

Post by stale2002 » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 6:26 AM UTC

noer wrote: post #265

2OEH8eoCRo wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well then maybe Harvard should lose its billions of dollars in government funding.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

And the consequence for not supporting freedom of thought should be that the government takes away its billions of dollars from you.

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

#349

Post by weberc2 » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 10:00 AM UTC

YCode wrote: post #344

weberc2 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech means exactly freedom from consequences. You're confusing the value of free speech with the specific contractual guarantee provided by the government. In other words, a university that commits itself to free speech contradicts that commitment by unaccepting students based on their speech.

It is somewhat hypocritical. Curiously their school paper (or w.e.) recently posted a treatise [1] on free speech, including this bit: > We also believe that the essential definition of free speech has itself been twisted and clouded. Free speech only entails the right of every individual to “speak freely.” It does not give one the right to speak free of criticism or protest. It does not give one the right to say som…

I assumed all along that the reason for their unacceptance was the "speech which displays a lack of maturity", but this is also inconsistent with the value of free speech. Even though their official view on free speech might be deliberately vague, this doesn't seem to be the attitude displayed by the Harvard community who (in my observation) have taken a more traditional and Berkeleyan philosophy. Even if Harvard's action isn't hypocritical, it's still permissible and reasonable to criticize them for behaving in a manner incongruent with the value of free speech, even though they believe restricted speech is free speech.

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

#350

Post by ziggysak » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 12:37 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #338

ziggysak wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we just have different views on how to approach bigotry. We both can agree that it is a black mark on our society and we should overcome it as a culture. However, where we disagree is how to do it. I see the current climate of "preventing the spread of bigoted ideas" as creating what we know as the alt-right. If you check 4chan's /pol/, you will see an incredible amount of people admit to becoming alt-right b…

> If you check 4chan's /pol/, you will see an incredible amount of people admit to becoming alt-right because "so many snowflakes are always so offended and call me names". If, however, we as a society can more tolerate dark humor and bigoted comments, the bigots either stop talking or evolve to accept more tolerant views. No, the bigots then just push the line further, and further, and further, to normalize their bi…

I used to be there too, and still am so I can observe how it's evolving. I'm not necessarily even disagreeing with you, but what I am arguing for is not normalizing the bigotry, it's to go back to not even considering their views. The issues arise when we give the alt-right names like "alt-right". It makes them sound powerful and organized.

They're not "literal fascists". Literal fascists were in Italy overthrowing the government 70 years ago. All these people have is the ability to create chaos. When we give them coverage and attention, we feed them. What you're advocating for is what we're doing right now - trying to shut off these toxic wells. But what it's simply doing is adding fuel to the fire.