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

Stanford’s war on social life

palladiummag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 402 posts

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#301

Post by mschuster91 »

femiagbabiaka wrote: post #189

What is the obsession with college campuses and what happens on them? I feel like there is a circuit of people obsessed with producing content claiming that random campus scandals say something about society at large.

> I feel like there is a circuit of people obsessed with producing content claiming that random campus scandals say something about society at large.

The people who organize the scandalized behavior used to be the ones that went on to the leadership roles of society and normalized that sort of conduct in their companies.

So yes, tackling the problem on the root was necessary, and we will see the fruits of that over the next decades as the "old guard" retires and workplaces will become at least somewhat better as a result.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#302

Post by fleetwoodsnack »

civilized wrote: post #103
julianeon wrote: post #19

I think I'm close to an outside observer - I didn't go to Stanford and don't have a dog in that fight, as the saying goes. I don't trust the conclusions of this article. It starts with a story about a frat which filled their building's first floor with sand, so much that they had to rent a bulldozer to relocate it to the campus lake. Then they call the Stanford admins killjoys for not supporting it. But... of course…

I don't think your disagreement with a couple points in the essay really merits a knee-jerk conclusion that the whole thing is untrustworthy. You didn't show anything the author said was dishonest or egregiously wrong. You just have your own ideas on a couple of particulars.

This article fails to provide some necessary context that is being brought up elsewhere in the thread.

KA, the house whose demise served as an emblem in this article for the demise of Stanford’s social scene: the house associated with the Brock Turner rape.

The mile-long lake whose recreational utility was neglected by Stanford administration: unnatural municipal lake whose dam simply stopped operating.

The author doesn’t have to be explicitly “dishonest or egregiously wrong” to warrant some skepticism on the part readers.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#303

Post by bongoman37 »

the_only_law wrote: post #182
TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s also something about dating. The kids I know in college right now have no interest in dating or love or romantic involvement. I don’t know how that applies here, but it’s a big change from when I was in college.

A little past college age now, but even people I know in their late 20s have given up on dating and such. I won't pretend to know all the reasons, but I find it funny how much every one I know hates dating apps for good reasons, but always comes back to them.

[dead]

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#304

Post by bmj »

jackcosgrove wrote: post #124

Sometimes it feels like we're living in the second Victorian age. Living sanitized lives and speaking sanitized language, with recurring bouts of moral panic. Even in the early 00s when I was in college everything seemed to have become lamer than it was just a decade prior. 20th century libertinism peaked in the 70s and has been in retreat since then.

20th century libertinism peaked in the 70s and has been in retreat since then.

This is certainly true, but it is also not the only source of the problems outlined in the essay (and by others in this discussion). It's this:

Stanford’s new social order offers a peek into the bureaucrat’s vision for America. It is a world without risk, genuine difference, or the kind of group connection that makes teenage boys want to rent bulldozers and build islands. It is a world largely without unencumbered joy; without the kind of cultural specificity that makes college, or the rest of life, particularly interesting.

And this isn't just university life. Read Matthew Crawford's The World Beyond Your Head and Why We Drive to get a sense of the ways that safety-ism is the new American way. As humans, we develop cognitively and emotionally when we are placed in risky situations (whether emotionally or physically). Perhaps it's college kids doing dumb things, or perhaps it's kids building bike jumps in the local park or homemade zip lines in the local park.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#305

Post by watwut »

lmm wrote: post #213
julianeon wrote: post #19

I think I'm close to an outside observer - I didn't go to Stanford and don't have a dog in that fight, as the saying goes. I don't trust the conclusions of this article. It starts with a story about a frat which filled their building's first floor with sand, so much that they had to rent a bulldozer to relocate it to the campus lake. Then they call the Stanford admins killjoys for not supporting it. But... of course…

> What kind of impact does dumping all that sand have? What about running the bulldozer over the Stanford campus? What if someone is injured by the bulldozer? I wouldn't trust teenagers renting an after-party bulldozer who never cleared that with anyone, never notified anyone, and have no proof of training. That's exactly the attitude that causes this problem - there's always a reason to say no. These are supposed to…

Now do the consent of house owner and especially lake owner. And also, just because you convinced groundskeeper does not mean the ground-owner have to be agree with it too. Acting like adults involves also NOT dumping your trash in an artificial lake. And yes, that sand was their trash.

Edited to add: That is what rubs me really wrong here. The only "crime" university committed here is that they did not treated the sand hill as special thing worthy of protection forever. Instead, they closed the lake due to salamanders which is hardly outrageous action. And then apparently later on did not kept lake during drought (and note that they did took some pro-salamanders actions even during that drought).

At no point is this the case of university ridiculously restrictive or doing something wrong. But, frankly, the entitlement in the article is astonishing. You dump your trash into lake and then have fun with it, that somehow means this should be treated as cultural monument worthy of forever protection.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#306

Post by galoisgirl »

rileyphone wrote: post #153
julianeon wrote: post #19

I think I'm close to an outside observer - I didn't go to Stanford and don't have a dog in that fight, as the saying goes. I don't trust the conclusions of this article. It starts with a story about a frat which filled their building's first floor with sand, so much that they had to rent a bulldozer to relocate it to the campus lake. Then they call the Stanford admins killjoys for not supporting it. But... of course…

If you actually read the rest of the article it makes some good arguments.

I like my articles like I like my women - truthful and not manipulative.

Manipulation makes me think that there isn't enough merit on its own.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#307

Post by speed_spread »

actionfromafar wrote: post #263
tomc1985 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does nobody tell them that they are being ridiculous?

They will just look at you with an expression of pity and slight disgust.

At which point you can laugh while pissing on their Ferrari

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#308

Post by galoisgirl »

asdff wrote: post #232
ketzo wrote: post #43

It is absolutely impossible to take this article seriously, because the author refuses to acknowledge the un-fucking-believably fraught legacy that the Greek fraternity system has, at Stanford and at every other school. > Driven by a fear of uncontrollable student spontaneity and a desire to enforce equity on campus Oh, yeah, Stanford’s really afraid of “student spontaneity.” They’re definitely not afraid of organiza…

These sort of incidents are possible in any student org or group of young people in college. Going after fraternities is just a knee jerk reaction because it seems right to go after fraternities given the notoriety we've given them in the culture, but I can tell you that some of the worst examples of hazing I've learned of when I was on college took place in orgs like the club rugby team. Those sorts of student orgs…

It's like mass shootings are possible in any country. Well, they are, The Onion is right that there is no 100% way to prevent this. However, all countries but one can prevent 99% of them.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#309

Post by car_analogy »

astrange wrote: post #205
car_analogy wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Multiculturalism does work. The way it works is, people with different cultures / wants / ideas form their own communities and mind their own business. You're describing nationalism.

Nationalism isn't capable of "creating a third community". You can't have an association of nationalists; they can't resolve their inherently opposing interests.

> You can't have an association of nationalists; they can't resolve their inherently opposing interests.

You can and you do - see for example the Visegrad group: https://www.dw.com/en/this-is-how-the-visegrad-group-works/a...

Or in fact the EU itself - an association of distinct national identities. But in a sort of reverse no true Scotsman fallacy, it is popular to ascribe outwardly hostile intentions to nationalism. If a country maintains its borders and national identity, but also peacefully coexists with its neighbors (as much of Europe and indeed the world does), then it's not "true" nationalism.

Re: Stanford’s war on social life

#310

Post by galoisgirl »

querez wrote: post #265
fallingfrog wrote: post #152

The only problem with this article is that it tries to tie the loss of culture and fun with increasing diversity or something. As if including black people is gonna make it less fun? No, the loss of fun is due to financialization and lawyers getting involved with everything and trying to make everything about maximizing profits and fear of lawsuits. Got nothing to do with equality. The DSA for what it’s worth, throws…

To be honest, I often felt that a lot of Diversity and Equity campaigns lead to more sterile environments: when I (Not American) joined my current (American) corporation, DEI training hammered down the point to cut out any type of joke and remark unless it was super sterile. This was definitely not something I was used to before. I can see that such things are a necessity unless you want to end up in litigation all t…

> because a joke or prank that might seem harmless to 99.9% of people will still offend that one outlier

Are you sure about that 99.9% figure? I think not.

Also part of the problem is that when you're that outlier, it's not for one joke, it's for a whole category of jokes. That gets tiring, to say the least.

Post reply on HN