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

751–760 of 934 posts

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#751

Post by MPSFounder »

rayiner wrote: post #654
MPSFounder wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It absolutely is not. And your views are very concerning. Everyone residing in the US is entitled to the ammendments. That is exactly why Guantanamo bay was formed, as a matter of fact. What makes this so much worse is these individuals were not arrested for criticizing these United States, but for criticizing a hostile foreign nation, that just so happens to be the darling of billionaires of a certain faith, who con…

I’m not weighing in on the specific protests here—I’m actually not unsympathetic to your point about that. I’m talking about the general power of the government to decide what kinds of foreigners it wants to allow in the country. Do you think the first amendment means the government has to allow in immigrants that are Nazi sympathizers? What about Communists? Americans have free speech. But Americans can also decide…

Who is we in this regard? You and I do not decide on such matters (was there a survey or referendum?) I agree with your sentiment, but I reject that a select few (rich Jews like the Adelsons) get to decide who comes in by donating to a campaign and influencing intepretations for our ammendments. Let us apply this standard to everyone and block IDF soldiers alongside those individuals. Will this ever happen? I doubt it (Gal Gadot served in those armed forces for instance, and is a darling of Disney executives). The problem I have with this issue, is it is being weaponized by one group to subjugate another. I am not sympathetic to either sides (although as of late, I am much more sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, given they are victims of an oppression at the hand of a much more powerful entity, backed by powerful states that are losing the propaganda edge they have mastered for so long). I have an issue with the weaponization of free speech to advocate on behalf of one group that holds a lot more power in the US. That is not something I accept. Ultimately, you and I can debate this, but no effect will result from this. The Adelsons made donations to Trump explicitly because of Columbia's protests, and what they asked for was crystal clear: everyone (including citizens) must be deported or blacklisted from jobs for protesting against darling Israel. The deans of Harvard and Columbia were sacked. You see this as a free market or a lawful interpretation of Immigration. I see it as foreign interference with a cooperation from American traitors (like the Adelsons) and treason to American values. It is an anti-American initiative that prioritizes the wellbeing of Israel at the expense of American free speech and the well-being of students that chose to come here.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#752

Post by stale2002 »

wat10000 wrote: post #649
freedomben wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly agree with you. > 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? If the employer happened to see it, then yes I think that's well within rights. But I think having some random stranger see something and actively campaign against the employee to their employer is a little bit different. It'…

OK, it's bad behavior. Now what? That means nothing.

Harassment can be punished by the law. So that is the "now what".

No, freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can engage in serious harassment of people, their workplace, or their children or family.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#753

Post by widowlark »

hollerith wrote: post #553
wat10000 wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck that! We have this thing called the First Amendment. It applies to all people under the jurisdiction of the United States. There’s no exception for “guests.” Criticizing the government is a time-honored American tradition. Throwing people out for it is absolutely vile.

>the First Amendment . . . applies to all people under the jurisdiction of the United States. Not according to the Supreme Court it doesn't.

source?

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#755

Post by stale2002 »

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…

> Free speech in the US is about not having consequences for what you are saying.

If a mob harasses you, your friends, you family, your workplace and your children with mass amounts of harassment and death threats, I would say that the target of the harassment has had their rights infringed on even though it wasn't literally the government.

No, you cannot have a mob send mass death threats to people, stalk them, and harass them because you didn't like a tweet that they made a decade ago.

The person who called it "cancel culture" chose the wrong word.

They should have called it "death threat culture" or "illegal mob harassment culture", as that would really drive the point home about what the issue is.

But, of course, you don't care about that or what happens to people's families when they are targeted. Instead, the only thing people care about is "Oh, but what was in that tweet that they made 10 years ago? I need to figure out if their family deserved it!" ("it" being the death threats and harassment, of course)

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#756

Post by jltsiren »

Loughla wrote: post #201
chriskanan wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a super wealthy alum is a prerequisite for being a Trustee, and University Trustees are the group that University Presidents report to.

This is why I always have and always will prefer community colleges. Their boards are elected officials. Not perfect, but 1000 times better than just having wealth.

I prefer the way it used to be in Finland (and still mostly is). Board members are elected by the people affiliated with the university. Votes might be split 4:3:3 or 5:4:4 between professors, other staff, and students. Some board positions are representatives of the three internal groups, while the rest are outsiders. You get all kinds of interesting people from business leaders to activists to former national presidents in the board, while avoiding politruks elected or appointed by random outsiders.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#757

Post by MPSFounder »

trustinmenowpls wrote: post #706
salt-thrower wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is so out of touch I can only assume it’s being made in bad faith. Many of the pro-Palestinian protesters are also Jewish. Equating all Jewish people with Israel and Zionism is insidious and misleading.

> Many of the pro-Palestinian protesters are also Jewish Nearly every person who claims to be jewish, when pushed turns out to be "jewish" it's essentially a strange version of blackface and fairly bigoted.

Exactly. Most people of Jewish faith I have met puts the interests of Israel above those of the United States, because it is in their religion to return to the homeland. Look no further than Pelosi arguing that if the Capitol burned to the ground, as long as Israel prospers, elected officials will remain committed to Israel (and the crowd at that Jewish council cheered on). Btw, one cannot find this video anywhere anymore (you will find it on Facebook using Pelosi Capitol). I wonder why.... People advocating for Israel at this point are traitors to the United States and should be treated as such. When elected officials like Pelosi would rather the capitol burns to the ground but Israel prospers, I feel nothing short of dread. But students writting opeds opposing Genocide is the story...

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#758

Post by starik36 »

viccis wrote: post #711
trustinmenowpls wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone said they wanted another kistallnacht while holding torches and refusing to allow jews to walk down the street, would you know what they meant? Are they just talking about breaking some glass at a jewish wedding? Maybe they just want to go to one of those rage rooms? Just so we're clear, people are still losing their minds when someone "finds" a noose-like knot in the vicinity. There is no baily here.

You're still stuck on the bailey. Let's see the motte (in this case, some evidence of a pattern of calling for genocide of Jews at Columbia)

How about outright harassment of Jewish students at Columbia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_at_Columbia_Unive...

Does that qualify? No? Now replace Jewish with African American. Is that still OK in your book?

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#760

Post by stale2002 »

ytpete wrote: post #349
lelanthran wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom of speech necessarily implies that a group of people might team up and loudly announce that the people they don't agree with are incorrect and immoral and should be ignored or even ostracized. That's the price of freedom of speech, and it's a fair price. Sure, agreed. But groups and institutions taking even a dime of tax money should not get to place a thumb on the scales of those arguments. US universities…

What did US universities do to "silence all opposing viewpoints" on any issues? Did they kick students out of school because of their viewports? Claw back their financial aid? Get them deported? Physically harm them? I sure don't remember things like that happening in widespread manner to conservative students, let alone happening in a way that was organized top-down by the universities' leadership.

> Did they kick students out of school because of their viewports?

Yes actually! Almost every presigious/non public college has speech codes. And those speech codes have consequences. Up to, and including, expulsion if you keep breaking them.

Check out how well each college is doing here: https://www.thefire.org/colleges

Post reply on HN