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

The Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech

palladiummag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 182 posts

Re: The Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech

#51

Post by rossdavidh »

DenisM wrote: post #11

The articles contends the rich kids at Yale pretend to be poor to shirk the elite responsibilities, which then leads to deterioration of the elites. I find it doubtful that the kids have thought it through that far. A couple of more likely explanations come to mind: - Rebellious teenagers always want to establish independence from their parents. Giving up part of the money takes you part of the way there. - It's hard…

1) rebellious teenagers no doubt always want to establish independence, but they haven't always done it this way, so that can't be the explanation. 2) if there is any place on Earth where you should not have to pretend to be poor in order to have friends, it would be the Ivy League. Also, again, if this were the explanation it would always have been this way.

Re: The Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech

#52

Post by rossdavidh »

neilv wrote: post #14

One thing that struck me from the piece (what I could read, before switching to skimming) was the implicit acceptance of the outsized power of Yale people. It sounded like the concern was that they acknowledge and wield this power well. I didn't see a question of whether they should have this power.

No doubt they should not, but that would be a different topic, one which has been (and will continue to be) abundantly addressed, in this era and every other. Yet, there is always a ruling class, and their children don't always act this way. So, it is a worthy topic to consider: why this way, and why now?

To the question of "why does the ruling elite have so much power?", one could answer, "it was ever thus", which is hardly satisfying but is true. But to the question, "why do the children of the ruling elite pretend they are the oppressed?", such an answer is manifestly untrue. So, there is a question there that needs answering, which doesn't already have centuries of answers written.

Re: The Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech

#53

Post by nyxxie »

rossdavidh wrote: post #50
nyxxie wrote: post #48

I think the author is ascribing too much intent to a simple economy of shame that’s omnipresent in all classes; if people find out you have more than they do, they hate you. The author herself appears to be biased by this. She believes that the “rich elites” have a great burden of responsibility towards the world, which she justifies with shaky zero sum logic that suggests that because they have more, they necessaril…

Well, by that logic, it should always have been this way. And yet, conspicuous consumption by the children of the ruling class, is not an historically unusual event. Pretending you're poor when you're very rich, while perhaps not unprecedented, is at least not the norm. So I think an explanation is called for, and hers is at the very least quite plausible. Whatever the reason, it would have to be something that is no…

>Pretending you're poor when you're very rich, while perhaps not unprecedented, is at least not the norm. So I think an explanation is called for, and hers is at the very least quite plausible

Here's mine: social media and culture in general seeming to centralize around the internet places rich people in the same cultural environment as their poorer counterparts at a scale that is historically unprecedented. The elite have always been inaccessible, now they are within a stone's throw of us. American pop culture is disdainful (or at worst hostile) towards outwardly rich people, and has been legitimized by the popularity of the political concept of privilege. The rich want to participate in this culture but are surrounded by messaging telling them they're somehow lesser or a bad person for being rich. Cause, meet effect.

Re: The Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech

#54

Post by rossdavidh »

clairity wrote: post #13

i was rooting for some weighty insight but was disappointed by a lack of perspective and coherence. the author writes at length about what yale, and the problem, isn't and much less about about the consequences and potential avenues to shape them. she seems to lack enough life experience to put her critiques into a wider context that's relevant much beyond yale. for instance, the ivy league is viewed through the lens…

I got a different take out of that. What I got was: 1) the elite know that things are messed up 2) the adult elite have no coherent answers as to how to fix it 3) their children therefore are nervous about being identified as part of that elite. Perhaps they see pitchforks coming? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfor...

Re: The Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech

#55

Post by Dylan16807 »

nyxxie wrote: post #48

I think the author is ascribing too much intent to a simple economy of shame that’s omnipresent in all classes; if people find out you have more than they do, they hate you. The author herself appears to be biased by this. She believes that the “rich elites” have a great burden of responsibility towards the world, which she justifies with shaky zero sum logic that suggests that because they have more, they necessaril…

> She believes that the “rich elites” have a great burden of responsibility towards the world, which she justifies with shaky zero sum logic that suggests that because they have more, they necessarily took it from those who have less (her bulky villager metaphor).

A single person can only be so productive on a consistent basis. There's a threshold of wealth where you can say that on average 90% of the money is coming from the labors of other people.

Labor and trade are not zero sum. The decision of where the generated dollars go is zero sum.

> She might not be openly jealous, but she still seems to believe that her rich peers must somehow earn this wealth (an undefined and likely impossible undertaking), and writes about them with condescension when she sees they do not meet her burden.

Do you mean they can't 'earn' it in her eyes, or are you agreeing that a certain amount of wealth cannot actually be earned?

Ideally nobody would condescend here, and taxes would have taken care of things right from the start. But taxes in the US are a lot less progressive than they used to be, so they come nowhere near taking care of that burden on their own.

(Well, ideally ideally social services could be funded well without taxes at all, but that's not a real-world outlook. And income inequality would be fixed too.)

Re: The Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech

#56

Post by joe_the_user »

nyxxie wrote: post #48

I think the author is ascribing too much intent to a simple economy of shame that’s omnipresent in all classes; if people find out you have more than they do, they hate you. The author herself appears to be biased by this. She believes that the “rich elites” have a great burden of responsibility towards the world, which she justifies with shaky zero sum logic that suggests that because they have more, they necessaril…

I went to college in the Bay Area and to a small private college with significant portion of very wealthy. Some in the private college concealed their wealth, some didn't. The thing is, most middle or above folks with an once of sophistication can sense the trust fund kid a mile away - most working class can sense something too, just maybe don't know the middle-class from the trust funders. I'm shocked the author was shocked to discover someone, at Yale, who spent their time in self-absorbed, non-survival-oriented activity was very wealthy. I guess some at the Ivy League spend their time learning to act wealthy without realizing that's what they're doing (I think the 2% of actually poor who get into the Ivy Leagues tend to be "hard working rules followers", who by this tend to not notice the obvious about people).

But given the real wealthy folks signal who they are, whether they like it or not, all day long, the situation makes your point about "they have to conceal it to be treated as human" ring totally false. Nah, they can't conceal it, not to very many, and most know it.

I've met some who didn't know but they were sad and I assume there are others who go in for much deeper cover but that's a small minority.

Re: The Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech

#57

Post by selimthegrim »

rossdavidh wrote: post #51
DenisM wrote: post #11

The articles contends the rich kids at Yale pretend to be poor to shirk the elite responsibilities, which then leads to deterioration of the elites. I find it doubtful that the kids have thought it through that far. A couple of more likely explanations come to mind: - Rebellious teenagers always want to establish independence from their parents. Giving up part of the money takes you part of the way there. - It's hard…

1) rebellious teenagers no doubt always want to establish independence, but they haven't always done it this way, so that can't be the explanation. 2) if there is any place on Earth where you should not have to pretend to be poor in order to have friends, it would be the Ivy League. Also, again, if this were the explanation it would always have been this way.

Teenage rebellion is not a universal, it tends to be found in the so called WEIRD countries the most

Re: The Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech

#58

Post by sysbin »

DenisM wrote: post #11

The articles contends the rich kids at Yale pretend to be poor to shirk the elite responsibilities, which then leads to deterioration of the elites. I find it doubtful that the kids have thought it through that far. A couple of more likely explanations come to mind: - Rebellious teenagers always want to establish independence from their parents. Giving up part of the money takes you part of the way there. - It's hard…

I would say these rich kids haven't heard of noblesse oblige.

Re: The Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech

#59

Post by nyxxie »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #55
nyxxie wrote: post #48

I think the author is ascribing too much intent to a simple economy of shame that’s omnipresent in all classes; if people find out you have more than they do, they hate you. The author herself appears to be biased by this. She believes that the “rich elites” have a great burden of responsibility towards the world, which she justifies with shaky zero sum logic that suggests that because they have more, they necessaril…

> She believes that the “rich elites” have a great burden of responsibility towards the world, which she justifies with shaky zero sum logic that suggests that because they have more, they necessarily took it from those who have less (her bulky villager metaphor). A single person can only be so productive on a consistent basis. There's a threshold of wealth where you can say that on average 90% of the money is coming…

> Labor and trade are not zero sum. The decision of where the generated dollars go is zero sum.

Certainly, my point was that possessing a greater share of wealth is not the same as the completely unearned disparity in distribution of common resources in the author's hypothetical scenario. We live in a world of scarcity, so disparity when that scarcity is left up to market forces is to be expected and in fact could even be argued to be earned. This is completely different than this sort of village commune that the author envisions. Nevertheless, the author equates the two to justify her argument, which I believe is fallacious.

> Do you mean they can't 'earn' it in their eyes, or are you agreeing that a certain amount of wealth cannot actually be earned?

The former. This responsibility that the author posits her rich peers have is based on nothing other than her feeling that they didn't earn their position and aren't even using it properly, which will only go away after said peers do something that alleviates this feeling. What is that thing? Only the author knows. Maybe she doesn't even know, she just knows that she wants the rich people to fix it.

> they come nowhere near taking care of that burden on their own.

I don't believe it's fair that they even be under some sort of implied burden. Unless they are criminals, their family earned that wealth playing the same game as everyone else and have chosen to use it to ensure their offspring are comfortable. I see no problem in that.

Re: The Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech

#60

Post by shadowbanme »

taneq wrote: post #47
buboard wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, middle class struggle makes life more meaningful.

That is the first time I’ve ever seen those words used together in that order.

Maybe, but I’ve had similar thoughts.

For most middle class people like me, the compensation for getting older is that hey, at least you’re getting richer. I might be slower, uglier, and have much less free time than when I was twenty, but hey, at least I have nicer stuff and I can stay in fancy hotels.

If you have a Ferrari when you’re 20 then life is pretty much all downhill from there.

Post reply on HN