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

A university president makes a case against cowardice

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 934 posts

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#581

Post by tacitusarc »

hellotheretoday wrote: post #383
immibis wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telling your employer you were a dick is extremism?

You can’t win with these people. They don’t care if they aren’t personally impacted. The “sjw boogeyman” that could theoretically impact their cushy livelihood matters more than the very real right wing government that exists right now and is disappearing people. But as long as they can still say the n word on twitter and call of duty everything will be okay. Who cares about those disappeared people anyway, they were…

I am terrible at following the news, so just for clarification: are you talking about deportations? Or is there something else going on?

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#582

Post by taeric »

disambiguation wrote: post #574
taeric wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You claim it is inverted. That is a hard claim, full stop. One that is, notably, not supported by any figures. I can largely agree that it, similar to other things, has become too expensive. I cannot agree that it is not worth it for folks that can do it.

You know it's kind of rude to dismiss someone when they clarify and then stuff words in their mouth? Totally inverted? Of course not. But there is a very real portion of individuals for whom debts exceed earnings and it is very much in the data. But if you want to ignore reality to win on semantics go right ahead. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-relationship-between-...

I'm not dismissing, I'm pointing out that you made a hard claim, even if you didn't intend it.

Again, I can agree if you are claiming it is of diminishing benefits. I'll go further and agree that there have been predatory practices to get people to take out loans they shouldn't take out. This is directly addressed by your source. Which, notably, still supports that people have higher incomes after graduation.

What I cannot at all agree with is it being "inverted." Nor can I agree that they are failing to educate people. By the stats I have seen, this just isn't the case.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#585

Post by calf »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #578

What bothers me the most about all these protests and going-ons at universities and colleges is that they are generally by 18-22 year olds who are pre-adults still in their formative years who still have a lot of learning and growing up to do.

What bothers me is the ageist assumption that "full-adults", say, boomers, are somehow more educated, less indoctrinated, or less prejudiced than young adults

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#586

Post by lelanthran »

saalweachter wrote: post #566
lelanthran wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's because the extent of the illiberal behavior of the radical left was yelling and "cancel culture" while the present behavior of the illiberal right is abductions and overseas slave camps. You can see why people might find having the two equated a little ridiculous, right? You are correct - one is objectively worse than the other. The unfortunate truth is that, also, one is a consequence of the other. Trump i…

Eh, you can prove anything but starting history at a particular point. For instance, "GamerGate", where a bunch of anonymous people on the internet tried to get a number of women in the game industry fired, predates "cancel culture" by a year or two. Or how the whole #MeToo movement was, you know, a response to powerful people abusing people in their power, and firing or otherwise limiting their careers if they resis…

> Eh, you can prove anything but starting history at a particular point.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything; I'm merely pointing out that while it is true that $BAR is objectively worse than $FOO, it is equally true that $FOO is a direct consequence of $BAR.

In my other response to another poster I pointed out that many of us on forums that effectively silenced opposing viewpoints reminded readers that it's best to refrain from going to extremes because the pendulum always swings back, and that is what we are seeing now.

In much the same way, I'll point out that the pendulum always swings back and we are going to see a return to the previous extremes when people get tired of this extreme.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#587

Post by lelanthran »

throwaway389234 wrote: post #575
lelanthran wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's because the extent of the illiberal behavior of the radical left was yelling and "cancel culture" while the present behavior of the illiberal right is abductions and overseas slave camps. You can see why people might find having the two equated a little ridiculous, right? You are correct - one is objectively worse than the other. The unfortunate truth is that, also, one is a consequence of the other. Trump i…

Free speech in the US is about not having consequences for what you are saying. In particular not having consequences from the government. Therefor you can only say that it is a legitimate consequence if you disregard free speech. Free speech in the US is about being able to be an asshole to 10%, 50% or 90% of the population without having to be responsible for what that part of the population does. And even more so…

> Therefor you can only say that it is a legitimate consequence if you disregard free speech.

I didn't say it was a legitimate consequence. I was aiming for "it was a predictable consequence".

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#588

Post by siliconc0w »

nosianu wrote: post #355
siliconc0w wrote: post #237

They could fight back with, "We will not accept students from politicians that support anti-education policies". Further they could kick out any students currently enrolled, "if they wrote a college essay promoting their anti-education values, we wouldn't have let them in - so they were clearly lying and we're just remedying that mistake"

> "We will not accept students from politicians that support anti-education policies" Given how many stories there are about children seriously at odds with their parents about political issues, I don't think that is a good idea. At all. Do you want to be judged by how your parents think or behave, or think that is acceptable?

This wasn't a serious proposal, I was mocking the cruelty and logic of the current administration.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#589

Post by lupusreal »

somedude895 wrote: post #473
g8oz wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government may be within its legal rights. As an expression of values however it's hard not to see the expulsion of these students as petty politicalized retaliation. The sort of thing you would see in an electoral autocracy as opposed to a liberal democracy.

If you're a guest, act like a guest. Anti-Israel protests are by extension a protest against the US foreign policy, so yeah... You protest your host in a violent and disruptive manner, you probably shouldn't have been allowed in to begin with.

Making America subservient to Israel's interests is anti-American. The fascist zionists play at being "America first" but this couldn't be further from the truth.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#590

Post by nradov »

wat10000 wrote: post #504
freedomben wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really don't see a problem with this? I consider myself more on the left, but this practice has always seemed highly antithetical to liberal values to me. If somebody in their off hours says something assinine, and telling (some might call that "snitching to") their employer in a public forum like Twitter (in a clear attempt to get a social media frenzy going to ultimately get them fired) is a good thing, then wo…

In a free country, private employers should be allowed to choose who they employ, with very narrow exceptions for discrimination based on race, religion, etc. In a free country, citizens should be allowed to read what other citizens write in public. Those both seem pretty obvious, but put the two of them together and it means people can lose their jobs or not be hired for stuff they tweet. How do you resolve that? IM…

Why should we make an exception based on religion but not on political viewpoint? That is logically inconsistent. There's nothing special about religion.
Post reply on HN