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

#361

Post by JoshTriplett » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 7:36 PM UTC

julianmarq wrote: post #308

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. I didn't read past this. Were you under the impression that thought policing is only a matter of fiction? You don't read world news, do you? I wouldn't be surprised since only an echo chamber wo…

Cultural influence goes both ways, certainly, and your suppositions of ignorance are unwarranted, unwelcome, and incorrect. I'm not suggesting policing thoughts, nor that a government should ever be in this business. I am suggesting that private institutions have every right to choose who they accept or associate with, based on the kinds of culture they wish to promote or discourage.

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

#362

Post by JoshTriplett » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 7:44 PM UTC

stcredzero wrote: post #358

JoshTriplett wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the first paragraph of your response, you've already gone far beyond the bounds of any reasonable discussion. The rest of your post is answered in my response elsewhere in the thread, and I'm done putting energy into this discussion.

The philosophical grounding is the same. If the progressive left were wholly on the side of right, they wouldn't have to throw things like free speech under the bus, or vilify things like the values of the founders of the US. Authoritarians like that would rule by force and shame rather than the consent of the governed. Many under the "progressive" flag have dehumanized their opponents in their hearts, and so have lo…

And thus you dismiss all of them in one breath with "many have", and attempt to demonize anyone who would dare to say "in some spaces, some speech is not OK". You don't have to dehumanize someone to observe that they're causing problems and harming others. And you don't have to paint anyone who disagrees with you as an absolutist authoritarian with no sense of nuance. Next time, try addressing the arguments made, not the arguments that are easier to dismiss. I say "next time", because I really have no further interest in wasting more of my time here.

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

#363

Post by anabis » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 10:31 PM UTC

maxwin wrote: post #343

gdix wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 agai…

I thought Rohingya were persecuted before freedom of speech also.

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

#364

Post by anabis » Tue, Jun 06, 2017, 11:03 PM UTC

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #71

2_listerine_pls wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many do it for fun while not being racist. 4chan is an example.

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…

Judge him by his actions.

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

#365

Post by pyre » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 2:07 AM UTC

julianmarq wrote: post #304

pyre wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as you say that, repeating something over and over eventually normalizes it no matter how much you try to remain conscious of this process.

... According to you . You don't get to police or interpret how anyone else thinks. Maybe "repeat it often enough and it will be true" applies to you, but you don't get to project your thought processes onto others.

There's a pretty wide spectrum between "do whatever you want" and "let's implement thought-crime." I don't understand how me saying that something is a bad idea for anyone to do somehow becomes "policing" what other people are thinking. Could you please explain that to me?

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

#366

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 3:25 AM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #361

julianmarq wrote: post #308

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. I didn't read past this. Were you under the impression that thought policing is only a matter of fiction? You don't read world news, do you? I wouldn't be surprised since only an echo chamber wo…

Cultural influence goes both ways, certainly, and your suppositions of ignorance are unwarranted, unwelcome, and incorrect. I'm not suggesting policing thoughts , nor that a government should ever be in this business. I am suggesting that private institutions have every right to choose who they accept or associate with, based on the kinds of culture they wish to promote or discourage.

[deleted]

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

#367

Post by julianmarq » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 3:34 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #365

julianmarq wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... According to you . You don't get to police or interpret how anyone else thinks. Maybe "repeat it often enough and it will be true" applies to you, but you don't get to project your thought processes onto others.

There's a pretty wide spectrum between "do whatever you want" and "let's implement thought-crime." I don't understand how me saying that something is a bad idea for anyone to do somehow becomes "policing" what other people are thinking. Could you please explain that to me?

I probably was too extreme by calling that particular instance "policing" so I apologize for wording that poorly.

But, that aside, your claim of "normalization" remains baseless.

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

#368

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 07, 2017, 8:40 PM UTC

fao_ wrote: post #65

nxsynonym wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because free speech is universal. You can't cherry pick what topics/views/opinions are protected based on your world view.

People protecting the right of racists to spread racism, support racism. It cannot be any other way. You cannot claim that you dislike racism, and and also want to preserve it. Also, "Free speech" refers to the fact that the government cannot bust in to your house with a SWAT team and arrest you for speaking something that they don't like. Private companies can enforce whatever speech rules they like, and that doesn'…

[deleted]

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

#369

Post by fao_ » Thu, Jun 08, 2017, 9:49 AM UTC

julianmarq wrote: post #317

fao_ wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 racis…

> 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.

If you are a private company, such as an american university, or facebook, you absolutely do get to decide to tell people not to make jokes, and you absolutely do get to make hiring decisions based on bad jokes.

> It's almost as if thought policing were useless

This is not thought policing, this is looking at someone's jokes and attitudes towards People of Colour and women and deciding as a private company if you want a toxic person, someone who thinks that it's alright to joke about sexual harassment, in your private space.

> someone who's evil will do horrible things because they want to and not because "something something bad environment"

There are no evil people, there are only people who have been brought up in an environment where the actions they have taken are acceptable. What, you think people who do evil things are genetically predetermined to do them? It's rubbish. Hundreds of psychopaths have been born and never hurt a fly, it's about upbringing and social rules, rather than some "innate need to do 'bad'".

> And, guess what, your country has come a long way from the segregation of the 60s without needing to ban jokes.

Actually, the country I live in, like most European countries, has hate speech laws. We no longer have quite as bad a problem with racism as the US does.

> And nothing says this trend won't continue.

The 915 surviving and growing white supremacy hate groups, along with the 'alt-right' (The leader of the alt-right has openly written that he wants to exterminate black people), says otherwise. That young people feel that they can support such openly racist and anti-PoC movements, says a lot about the atmosphere today.

> but let's hope they're just noise that will die out eventually.

I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about the National Socialist Party...

> No, it isn't. Happiness isn't and shouldn't be mandatory.

We're not making happiness mandatory, we're making blatantly abusive speech against the law. I mean, it should be covered under the various "harassment" legislation, but shrug apparently not.

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

#370

Post by julianmarq » Fri, Jun 09, 2017, 12:09 AM UTC

fao_ wrote: post #369

julianmarq wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 racis…

> 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. If you are a private company, such as an american university, or facebook, you absolutely do get to decide to tell people not to make jokes, and you absolutely do get to make hiring decisions based on bad jokes. > It's almost as if thought policing were useless This is not thought policing, th…

> There are no evil people, there are only people who have been brought up in an environment where the actions they have taken are acceptable.

Funny, serial killers still exist and will continue existing, even though society has condemned that for a long, long time.

Yes, some people are born with their wires misshapen, just like there're people born deaf. What? Did you think that the brain was, somehow, our only organ that couldn't get messed up since birth?

> What, you think people who do evil things are genetically predetermined to do them? [...] Hundreds of psychopaths have been born

So, are they or are they not born? You're contradicting yourself.

> Actually, the country I live in, like most European countries, has hate speech laws. We no longer have quite as bad a problem with racism as the US does.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. A friend of mine (hailing from my latin american country) and the refugee crisis tell me otherwise. If so-called "hate speech" is banned openly, it just happens behind doors, using so-called "coded language".

> The 915 surviving and growing white supremacy hate groups, along with the 'alt-right'.

So do TERFs, the militant branch of BLM, AntiFa, etc. If we're going to judge by fringe groups, they just happen to be more visible every day on both sides. And they don't represent the majority, it's as if they were called "fringe" for a reason.

> I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about the National Socialist Party...

And it did die out. Some people might be itching to call anyone they disagree with "nazis", but they aren't.

> We're not making happiness mandatory, we're making blatantly abusive speech against the law

Funny how you earlier in this very same comment said that you weren't arguing for thought policing. Glad you decided to become honest at the end.

> I mean, it should be covered under the various "harassment" legislation, but shrug apparently not.

Harassment requires a victim. Yanow, someone being harassed.

---

Anyways, you contradicted yourself twice, and one of those times was the very same thing you pretended you weren't arguing for. That's just dishonest argumentation, meaning this discussion is pointless, so I won't engage you further.

Cheers.