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

Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

president.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 124 posts

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#31

Post by spywaregorilla »

roenxi wrote: post #13
spywaregorilla wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone you've just mentioned has a highly politically charged position, but is not associated with being a bad faith actor.

"In 399 BC, Socrates went on trial for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, and for impiety." [0] I dunno, that sounds like the sort of thing that might be considered bad faith. I suppose the exact charge might not have survived translation. How do we think about heretics who corrupt people in good faith? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates#Trial_of_Socrates

No, that would be heretical, which is a different concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#32

Post by akomtu »

tablespoon wrote: post #19

> We saw this last fall with the wide range of views around the Carlson lecture. If anyone else was wondering what was being referenced above, I'm guessing it's this: https://thetech.com/2021/10/14/carlson-lecture-cancellation : > Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) Department Head Robert van der Hilst canceled the department’s annual John Carlson Lecture due to controversy surrounding the invited speak…

"University of Pisa has canceled the Prof. Galileo's lecture on celestial bodies due to the controversy surrounding his views on heliocentrism, after continued protests by the students who reject the unholy idea that the planet they live on isn't the center of the Universe. Department of Heresy and Inquisition has temporarily suspended Galileo and referred him to Church."

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#33

Post by spywaregorilla »

jonemi wrote: post #14
spywaregorilla wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone you've just mentioned has a highly politically charged position, but is not associated with being a bad faith actor.

I think that’s the point. Who are examples of obviously bad faith actors who _everyone_ would agree are bad faith?

shrug. I'd rather people discuss whether claims are made in good faith and create standards of debate rather than try to prove that they're correct. Because ironically the latter just breeds bad faith rhetoric.

The worst pattern off rhetoric that is absolutely dominating public discourse is "You've been accused of doing X"; "Well yeah but my opponent did something vaguely similar, ergo it's ok"

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#34

Post by woodruffw »

roenxi wrote: post #13
spywaregorilla wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone you've just mentioned has a highly politically charged position, but is not associated with being a bad faith actor.

"In 399 BC, Socrates went on trial for corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens, and for impiety." [0] I dunno, that sounds like the sort of thing that might be considered bad faith. I suppose the exact charge might not have survived translation. How do we think about heretics who corrupt people in good faith? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates#Trial_of_Socrates

You can read the Apology yourself (in the original Greek, even), and see that is has nothing to do with “bad faith” in the way we understand contemporarily: “corrupting the youth of Athens” refers specifically to encouraging their atheism and lack of deference.

To his eternal credit, Socrates does not argue very well in his defense. But this does not amount to bad faith on his part.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#35

Post by jonathanstrange »

atq2119 wrote: post #27
jonathanstrange wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misunderstanding bad faith actors in academia. These are people not interested in advancing science and not interested in the truth. The examples you give of Socrates and Galileo are clearly examples of the opposite. As for Assange, Snowden, or "whiny pacifists" -- yes please keep them out of universities, and also don't forget to exclude any Trumpists, Steve Bannons, nationalists, individual anarchists, and m…

Universities should provide a broad education, and there are interesting and important experiences that could be shared by the likes of Snowden, even if it isn't strictly speaking their own scientific research. That said, the person must be able and willing to discuss a bigger picture than just their personal politics, which is why I specifically picked Snowden but excluded Assange, Trump, and Bannon in the above. Th…

I agree.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#36

Post by stickyricky »

RHSeeger wrote: post #23
yanderekko wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The words you use are dangerously vague and you aren't calling for observable, thoughtful standards. Which of course is arguably the point. There's just another type of "bad faith actor" who is lurking in the shadows with these arguments: Someone who wants to leverage censorship against disfavored viewpoints regardless of their truth value. Given the choice between "let everyone speak even if someone might be lying"…

> Given the choice between "let everyone speak even if someone might be lying" and "let only approved speakers speak even if the approval process may be corrupt", I'll take the former pretty much every time. While I tend to agree with this sentiment, it's worth noting that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to fight against lies and misinformation than it does to create them. As such, letting everyone say whate…

> it's worth noting that it takes orders of magnitude more effort to fight against lies and misinformation than it does to create them

How could this possibly be true. If that were the case then you could simply lie to a person until they accept a more reasonable position. Instead of using facts and evidence to support your position just lie to them and make stuff up. The fact that you cling to evidence in your arguments (I assume) means you don't really believe lying will sway people to your perspective.

> We've seen this exact thing play out on every social network.

We haven't. It may be true but that data is not available to us. These could be bots, they could be new converts (with the old ones de-converting), they could be paid propagandists, or trolls. It could just be the algorithm promoting people who create engagement. These people could be incredibly rare but incredibly prominent on the platform.

When are you going to be affected by this theory? Are you swayed by lies and misinformation? Do you cling to beliefs in the face of fact and evidence? Are you undeserving of the right to speak because of it? Why should you have been allowed to leave this comment? You have not been vetted to make these statements.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#37

Post by hirundo »

zajio1am wrote: post #28
makeworld wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the differences between these statements minimal. The former implies the latter very easily, making both dangerous.

I can see that difference between these statements can be minimal for collectivists, who consider benefit of society as the most important value. But for individualists, the former does not implies the latter. It is more like: All X are good for nothing leaches on society, but their individual rights and freedom are inalienable and that is more important that their negative effect on society.

People from the individualist perspective almost always argue for its overall social utility, that the benefits of invididual rights and freedoms have negative and positive social effects that net positive. I've never heard one (and I've heard many) argue that the net social effects are negative but that the policy is still preferrable.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#38

Post by nightpool »

zajio1am wrote: post #28
makeworld wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the differences between these statements minimal. The former implies the latter very easily, making both dangerous.

I can see that difference between these statements can be minimal for collectivists, who consider benefit of society as the most important value. But for individualists, the former does not implies the latter. It is more like: All X are good for nothing leaches on society, but their individual rights and freedom are inalienable and that is more important that their negative effect on society.

I can see where you're coming from theoretically, but at least in America, the vast majority of the people who complain about "leaches on society" are right-wing individualists. They see the undesirable elements as being supported by a welfare state and believe that without the welfare state, their "leaches" would die. It's a gross and dehumanizing view that absolutely abdicates any responsibility for society's role in supporting other people. So individualists can also believe that the two statements are identical.

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#39

Post by yucky »

tablespoon wrote: post #19

> We saw this last fall with the wide range of views around the Carlson lecture. If anyone else was wondering what was being referenced above, I'm guessing it's this: https://thetech.com/2021/10/14/carlson-lecture-cancellation : > Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) Department Head Robert van der Hilst canceled the department’s annual John Carlson Lecture due to controversy surrounding the invited speak…

I don't understand, if he wrote an op-ed uncovering racial discrimination in academia, why would people who are (presumably) against racial discrimination want to cancel his lecture?

Re: Proposed Free Expression Statement for MIT

#40

Post by tablespoon »

yucky wrote: post #39
tablespoon wrote: post #19

> We saw this last fall with the wide range of views around the Carlson lecture. If anyone else was wondering what was being referenced above, I'm guessing it's this: https://thetech.com/2021/10/14/carlson-lecture-cancellation : > Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences (EAPS) Department Head Robert van der Hilst canceled the department’s annual John Carlson Lecture due to controversy surrounding the invited speak…

I don't understand, if he wrote an op-ed uncovering racial discrimination in academia, why would people who are (presumably) against racial discrimination want to cancel his lecture?

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN