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

Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 906 posts

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#331

Post by specialist »

wcerfgba wrote: post #276
rhaksw wrote: post #173

Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways. For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' argu…

> Censorship is all these characters need to gain new followers. No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience. Not all ideological disputes are abou…

> they also need a platform

To your point, IIRC, the impact of deplatforming has been studied. Like when that troll Milo got bounced. It greatly diminished their reach and impact.

Sadly, some trolls (Alex Jones) have enough juice to spin off their own bespoke hate machines.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#332

Post by TylerE »

trention wrote: post #299
workingon wrote: post #282

Academic societies can have whatever ideologies they wish. Go present at a conference that doesn't have an ideology you don't have. That's true freedom. This is the same thing as Trump complaining about being banned from twitter. It's anti-capitalism and anti-freedom.

Can an academic society in the USA today have an ideology explicitly presented as "the advancement and preservation of the white race"? No? Then your whole argument falls apart.

Nothing stopping the American Nazi Party from holding a conference.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#333

Post by amanaplanacanal »

pessimizer wrote: post #312
workingon wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what a world where someone thinks getting banned from facebook is oppression

Yes. Imagine complaining about not being able to sit at a particular lunch counter, or getting the seat on the bus you want. I mean, dude, there are other seats and better places to eat. Why are you eating at diners anyway?

We have always made a distinction between things that are not the fault of the individual (skin color, gender, ethnicity) and things that are (speech and actions). Which seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#334

Post by specialist »

rhaksw wrote: post #173

Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways. For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' argu…

> As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' arguments.

In 1963, was there anyone in America left unaware of George Wallace's project to preserve white supremacy?

Why is a private institution obligated to signal boost a national leader who openly defies the law?

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#335

Post by ianai »

1MachineElf wrote: post #248
bluejekyll wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

>When one group wants to eliminate open society and civility, how is it possible to have an open and civil debate with them? In the US, there is not one group trying to do that, but a multitude of groups, some who are in power and some who are not, most of whom deny that they are trying to do what you charge them with.

No post body was provided.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#336

Post by phantom_of_cato »

wcerfgba wrote: post #276
rhaksw wrote: post #173

Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways. For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' argu…

> Censorship is all these characters need to gain new followers. No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience. Not all ideological disputes are abou…

> Not all ideological disputes are about rational argumentation, many are based in a fundamental misalignment of values.

On one hand, you are acknowledging that some values are not based on rationality, and on the other hand you think they should be imposed upon those who don't share them by censorship?

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#337

Post by specialist »

rhaksw wrote: post #185
kokken wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

The point is, countering negative ideas with suppression does not work . Countering speech with more speech is better. Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, may have put it best [1], > Host: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?" > Roger: "That's a classic argument you know, that's w…

[flagged]

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#338

Post by briantakita »

It comes down to first principles. Are we basing our values & worth on merit (being productivity or social impact & what defines productivity or social impact), equality, equity, classifications? What we base our values & worth will determine how the downstream systems are designed & what they optimize for.

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#339

Post by tomp »

varnaud wrote: post #297
tomp wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the correct answer to this is "provide free/subsidised schooling to exceptional people who cannot otherwise afford it". By the way, this is the meritocratic way because we're looking for best people , which includes identifying unrealized talent and then nurturing it. Instead, the SJW/ woke way is "reduce standards until everybody passes", literally https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-leftists-try-to-canc...…

>exceptional people Why would you only provide free/subsidized schooling to exceptional people. Why not all people? If you truly believe in meritocracy, wouldn't you want everyone to have a fair opportunity to prove themselves?

If resources are limited (and they're always limited) you invest into the highest ROI options.

Exceptional people have a chance of pushing society forward (i.e. creating more resources for the future... exponentially).

(But yeah in general I oppose age-segregated schooling, I think education should have "tracks" (math, physics, sports, music, etc.) and people should attend whatever "level" they're at in each track, in mixed-age groups. And make mostly free (but guided) choices regarding which tracks to put most effort in.)

Re: Mandated diversity statement drives Jonathan Haidt to quit academic society

#340

Post by busterarm »

pas wrote: post #171
busterarm wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want anyone I hire to be set up to be in a situation where they will surely fail, but that does seem to be where this is going. DEI seems to care about short term efforts/results but not long term. My team has huge demands put on it as a result of product development and most of the time we need to hire entirely self-sufficient people. That's simply not possible without a significant amount of in-field experi…

> DEI folks are getting exactly what they want in the end anyway. serious question: what do they want exactly? give money to disadvantaged folks? give them training? check quota boxes? do they personally care?

A staff that is both dependent on and united by having the same, consistent politics throughout the company (and all companies).

More eloquently put by this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33053801

Post reply on HN