71–80 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is why I said the student groups that retracted their statements should be spared How would being spared work though? Would the truck run the route again with crossed over, corrected names? What if someone was doxxed by mistake, run an apology list truck?
So if I was a former member of the KKK and someone published that they are the bad guy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if I was a former member of the KKK and someone published that they are the bad guy?
But what if you weren't a member and someone published it, are they the bad guy? Can they "un-publish" it?
(I hadn't heard about the letter in question, and, FWIW, I'm sympathetic to what I understand of multiple groups in recent tragedies. Am commenting on a separate topic.) Before globally-accessible campus newspaper Web editions, and especially before Twitter mobs, I had the impression that universities were a relatively safe space for dialogue, including on controversial topics with impassioned viewpoints. Are student…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an easy solution if a group does something you don’t agree with. Post your disagreement with the group and that you are leaving.
The groups I belong to do many things I wouldn't do. Some of them I'm sure I wouldn't do. As for others, I'm not sure as I don't have enough data and time to verify them. So you imply I should leave them all? In this case nobody could belong to any group because sooner or later any group can do at least one thing you wouldn't do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but why should people who never received the statements some group signed with which they were affiliated be fired from their jobs? This is beyond a free speech issue. You can't ask people to always know everything happening and raise their hand for the right thing at the right time.
>Ok, but why should people who never received the statements some group signed with which they were affiliated be fired from their jobs? Employers have the right to fire anyone for almost any reason in the US. That is a consequence of both freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Yeah, and that's a load of utter bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless of the circumstance, intimidation tactics like these undermine free speech.
I don’t agree. If you make public statements, you should be more than prepared for others to amplify your public statements with your name attached. The solution to speech you don’t like is more speech. This is the system working as intended. Free speech does not mean freedom from social consequences for expressing unpopular opinions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what if you weren't a member and someone published it, are they the bad guy? Can they "un-publish" it?
That’s not the case here. No mistake was made. And yes, typically you would issue a retraction or “unpublish” as you call it.
The article in question disagrees with that.
> “... I’m even more appalled since many of them had nothing to do with the letter,” Furman wrote.
I guess they'll have to drive the truck backwards, and with mistaken names crossed out? And if anyone was affected the truck driver will personally vouch for them in an attempt to reverse the damages.
>"Harvard Economics professor Jason Furman ’92 shared a similar statement on X, writing that he had been contacted by a student who had been doxxed despite no longer attending Harvard or affiliating with the co-signing group." Undeniable tragedy what happened, innocent lives lost and countless more will die in this war, but accusing and doxxing innocent people whose lives will be overturned seems like the wrong appro…
[flagged]
You must agree that getting more of these good and useful tools in play would be positive, right?
So who was it?
Statement here - no signatories showing. Twitter screenshot being passed around just shows a number of signatory organization names, although there has been a reference to a number of individuals that were signatories as well. Would be nice if the facts were clearer. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/10/10/psc-statement-...
(I hadn't heard about the letter in question, and, FWIW, I'm sympathetic to what I understand of multiple groups in recent tragedies. Am commenting on a separate topic.) Before globally-accessible campus newspaper Web editions, and especially before Twitter mobs, I had the impression that universities were a relatively safe space for dialogue, including on controversial topics with impassioned viewpoints. Are student…
Academia, especially humanities, has gotten amazingly intolerant of any divergent viewpoints over the past decades. Harvard is among the worst in this case. Try to get a marginally right wing personality to speak at Harvard. Students, encouraged by administrators, have increasingly turned on any thoughts that are even nanometers outside of the groupthink line. Professors are better, but they have less power.
For one reason, Lawrence Summers, quoted in the Crimson piece as "former University President", was actually very publicly forced out, over some things he said. I thought it was harmful for him to be speculating quite like he had done, but maybe administration and faculty didn't take the optimal lesson from that bad experience?
For another possible reason, Harvard is a unique global prestige brand, for the richest and most powerful, global is complicated and nuanced, the students tend to be very privileged and connected, and maybe Harvard has to be more globally diplomatic than most universities do?