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

Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 474 posts

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#401

Post by nindalf »

It’s a bit disingenuous of the ACLU to claim that schools should stamp out cyber bullying and in the same breath claim that schools should have no influence on off campus activity. Guess what? The cyber bullying occurs off campus. And now, thanks to the ACLUs efforts, the bullying will be protected speech.

At least have a little honesty. The ACLU should be up front with their biases that they’re a civil liberties first organisation. They only care about those liberties, regardless of its effect on other matters. Don’t sit there claiming “yes we also care about cyber bullying” because your current work guts the only mechanism for curbing it.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#403

Post by watwut »

exporectomy wrote: post #309
watwut wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly, the most common use of Karen I have seen is women being assertive and actually right. Yes, sometimes it is in racist or exaggerating context. But, most often, Karen is used to shut up woman who don't want to be doormat or is telling you off for good reason.

You can respectfully communicate your feelings about somebody without being horrible and hurting people or losing control and getting laughed at. It's not easy but women shouldn't aspire to be bitches because they might succeed and then everyone suffers.

The goal of those encounters is not to communicate feelings. Typically, people you are interacting with don't care about them and nuanced explanation won't change anything.

The goal is and as when men do the same - make them stop or at least minimize. Or vent frustration, sometimes.

Respectfully communicating feelings about somebody being horrible and hurting people rarely achieves anything. Cause horrible people hurting people don't care about your feelings.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#404

Post by watwut »

em-bee wrote: post #384
watwut wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, he did not managed to endanger KKK power one bit. And way more people who socialize in KKK circles end up naturally moving toward racism and extremes of it. They change toward racism, because that is what choose to hear most of time. It so happens that these are quite aggressive when voice disagreements with them, so socialising with the requires you to pretend you agree, at least on the edges. It works like…

that is a rather defeatist attitude. just because one person won't have much effect at changing a large group of people, doesn't mean their effort is worthless. (besides, it is also not correct that he didn't manage to change anything. read the above linked wikipedia page. he dismantled the kkk in one state. when a new leader emerged, he converted that person too. if a few more people do that all over the US, keep it…

Looking into history to see what worked and what did not worked is not "defeatist". It is absurd however to take one outlier and then talk about it as if this was the way social issue were solved - ever. Sometimes it works on individual level, but acting like this is how things gets changed, no.

> pretending to agree does not make me believe what i pretend to.

It somewhat does. More importantly, as you pretend you agree, the people who happen to disagree will slowly move themselves out from your company, because listening to you agreeing is uncomfortable for them. And they get better treatment elsewhere.

Also the pull of extreme groups is not just rational where you point out flaws in thinking and logic will do rest. There is strong social (strong bonds to other extremeists) component and strong emotional component (it feels good to be superior, it feels good to see yourself as protector of race - a hero).

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#405

Post by Karunamon »

axiosgunnar wrote: post #212
eagsalazar2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a lot different than being "canceled". The school must abide by policies and incorporate student's right to free speech, access to education, and equitable access to related school services and programs (including cheerleading). Being "canceled" is a choice that private individuals and institutions make to not associate themselves with speech, actions, or views they find either objectionable or simply damagin…

> Being "canceled" is a choice that private individuals and institutions make to not associate themselves with speech, actions, or views they find either objectionable or simply damaging to their brand and business goals. Being "denied a wedding cake because one is gay" is a choice that private bakeries and institutions make to not associate themselves with speech, actions, or views they find either objectionable or…

Also worth noting that the baker in that case won because , in part, the gay couple were not denied service, they were denied a specific message. The baker was willing to sell them anything else.

Had that gone the other way, it would have had some icky implications for compelled speech/artwork.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#406

Post by KMag »

Igelau wrote: post #390
KMag wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without supporting justification, you literally said that only members of the baby boomer generation who also have lead poisoning would continue to act in such a shameful way after being rebuked. I'm not a Boomer, but I feel like sloppy reasoning and other prejudices should be resisted whenever they are encountered. Saying "only a boomer with lead poisoning would continue to act so shamefully" isn't conceptually diff…

> Does that make it more clear why that phrasing should be called out? You have successfully obscured the issue even further by introducing the irrelevant factor of race. > sloppy reasoning and other prejudices should be resisted whenever they are encountered Providing an excellent example in the process. If I seem as confused to you as you do to me, then maybe we have found some common ground.

> You have successfully obscured the issue even further by introducing the irrelevant factor of race.

I substituted one protected class for another, where it's more commonly seen as a necessary protected class. This is a pretty common device to illustrate bias in language.

Are you arguing that it's fine to make your statement about a generation, but not about a race? If so, why?

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#407

Post by carpedimebagjoe »

I'm on the side where the kids should be able to say anything they want if the schools weren't in the picture. Fuck censorship, fuck prior restraint, and fuck schools prying into the personal lives of kids off-campus.

You can't shout fire in a crowded theater.

If she's told she represents a school-sponsored club 24/7 it's one thing to make them look bad by mixing her brand and their brand, but it's another to have it be a surprise banishment or some random school official telling her what she can and can't say to her friends or publicly.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#408

Post by Talanes »

eloff wrote: post #344
hodgesrm wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The way it sits today, the majority of people are afraid to speak their thoughts for fear of workplace retaliation. I hear this argument regularly. Can you cite evidence showing it's actually true?

I've worked places with diversity and inclusion programs that I think are ridiculous. And I've heard of programs far worse. I smile and say nothing because it's not worth my job. I think there's a lot of people out there like that.

As tempting as it is, "I think a lot of people think like me" isn't really evidence.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#409

Post by carpedimebagjoe »

giantg2 wrote: post #283

I don't think schools should get involved in off campus speech or activities. However, we are seeing more and more of it. This case isn't even that extreme compared to others. There are people being suspended from actual school for non-threatening photos with guns or even just liking a photo of a gun. On the other hand, I don't see the problem with cutting a student from an extracurricular for actions that contradict…

Political correctness isn't about taste or decency, it's about control through pseudo-offense, imaginary "victims," and "microaggressions." This is manipulative browbeating by implicitly threatening people's standing in society by telling them what to think, what words are "correct" now, and what topics they can't talk about anymore, even as jokes. Oh and now, let's retroactively rehash the past, tell people how horrible they were in the present, and punish them too. Keep looking for people to punish, excoriate, banish, and crucify until there's no one left. After all, no crime is too small to not earn the instant death penalty.

George Carlin (RIP), Bill Maher, Jerry Seinfeld... sadly, I think they lost the war because there weren't and aren't enough comedians with enormous lower-middle orbs (female orbs run a little higher) to stand up or manspread against the tides of Karens, booers (that's not "boogers," although that would work too), shouters, and the rest of the heckler safety-pin brigade mob.

Re: Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

#410

Post by ihunter2839 »

Maybe it's just me, maybe it's just a snapchat "feature", but one of the first things that struck me was the idea that this young woman sent the rant out to something like 250 people, of which a nonneglible portion was from her school (and had additional ties to the cheer group).

Comparing this to my own experiences - I know I said plenty of things in high school which would have landed me in hot waters had they reached the wrong ears. But they didn't, and while there was certainly some luck involved, there was also discretion at play. I kept my personal opinions personal and limited to other individuals or groups that I could trust.

So I guess my question is - does discretion play a role? Is there a difference if I whisper to a friend that I'd love to kick somebody's ass or if I post the same idea to a public social media space where it can be seen by a larger audience? What if I yell it out real loud during a break? What then?

It will be fascinating to see how this case plays out, as I can see valid arguments on both sides of the table. Free speech is key, but if we want schools to have any chance of succeeding there must be a way to protect students who are being unfairly targeted.

Post reply on HN