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

771–780 of 934 posts

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#771

Post by dgfitz »

kristjansson wrote: post #742
nradov wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those situations aren't comparable. While I oppose bigoted behavior by US citizens, for better or worse they have an absolute and inviolable right to remain in this country. Aliens generally have no such right. Entering and remaining in the country is a privilege . I oppose arbitrary arrests and deportations conducted without due process, but in principle there's nothing wrong with holding aliens to a different stand…

> why should US citizens pay taxes to educate people who are apparently hostile to our fundamental values? Because that's where Americans come from - the educated and acculturated sons and daughters of immigrants who came bearing all manner of prejudice.

> Because that's where Americans come from - the educated and acculturated sons and daughters of immigrants who came bearing all manner of prejudice.

This is a phenomenal example of a non-sequitur argument.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#772

Post by paulryanrogers »

yieldcrv wrote: post #738
paulryanrogers wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if any party can do something you are afraid of, focus on the enabling factors that allows them to do that Perhaps you can enlighten me what these enabling factors are? Because I thought vigorous debate, a free press, and a balance of power between branches of government were the controls; not what enables problematic politics. Yet it would appear criticism is increasingly cause for expulsion, journalism seen as a…

> Perhaps you can enlighten me what these enabling factors are? Sure, yeah So both parties accept campaign donations and quid pro quo for the support of Political Action Committees that support them. Both parties are beneficiaries of a toothless Federal Election Committee enabling non-compliance with the stated regulations, with any remaining accountability existing upon shaky legal ground, completely nullified when…

All good ideas. Let's do them too. Instead of dismissing the differences between the choices we have today as inconsequential.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#773

Post by milesrout »

archagon wrote: post #642
rayiner wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

First, what is a "fact"? For example, is climate change a fact? Prominent members of the current administration do not seem to think so; they're basically a step removed from labeling it woke and DEI. As for things that aren't "facts," but are nonetheless extensively studied and have wide consensus: should universities, for example, teach that the Civil War was actually about states' rights and that slaves benefitted…

The issue isn't the universities teaching "woke facts" or something. I think most people accept that university lecturers should be able to use their judgement to decide what to teach. The issue is their conduct in engaging in racial discrimination. That is unpopular and unlawful.

The reason that it happens is that these institutions have been captured by a new ideology. Facts, evidence, reason: these don't matter any more. All that matters is conformity with the ideology that has no better name than "woke" (If I knew a better name I'd use it, because the term does upset people.) But the fundamental issue isn't the woke teaching, it is WHY it happens: the median humanities lecturer in the West is either far-left or completely incapable or unwilling to challenge far-left ideology.

A coordinate result is that they also use their judgement and teach a lot of woke rubbish. There is little internal pressure within the university not to teach courses with descriptions like this:

> This course examines the representations, contexts, and politics of gender, sexuality and the media. By interrogating the discourses of gender and sexuality as they are 'mediated' in a variety of forms (including television, film, popular music, social media, advertising), we will examine the construction and disruption of categories of gender and sexual identity, and their intersection with other identity frameworks.

If you talked this way in real life, you would be ridiculed and rightly so. Interrogating the discourses? Really? Construction and disruption of categories of sexual and gender identity?

Yet there are no classes taught by people with equivalently ridiculous fringe views on the other end of the spectrum. In fact, not even centrist perspectives are tolerated. Can you imagine a course at a public American university that looked at the development of gender ideology neutrally, covering founding figures like John Money and the cruel experiments he did on young boys?

The Overton window of the university barely overlaps with the Overton window of the real world.

Also I take issue with your 50% claim. I think it is likely that the vast majority of the public is opposed to using public money to teach far-left politics (Marxism, gender ideology, etc.) to young impressionable minds.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#774

Post by tashi »

jgalt212 wrote: post #629
dfxm12 wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think this?

Because it's a transcation and there are two parties to the transaction. And for these transaction to occur in a repeated fashion neither side should feel they are being taken advantage of.

One of the problems with trying to apply the Objectivist view to a situation like this is that often experts need to tell their patrons true things they don't want to hear. I'll leave any sociological or economic examples aside and say, to pick a couple that Ayn Rand herself didn't believe, that smoking causes cancer and air pollution is bad for the human body. If the patron doesn't want to believe this new fact they have been told, they might feel taken advantage of. They might feel that if a science department got public funding only to come to those conclusions, that the scientists should be fired.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#775

Post by jart »

eszed wrote: post #458
jart wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60% of the US workforce these days is white collar, and it's one of the great illusions of our time. Most of these jobs only exist to keep busy the 60% of the US workforce that has a degree. In the 1940's about 30% of the US workforce was white collar and only 5% had degrees. What caused this change? It's probably because blue collar workers made so much money and had so much leverage that businesses shipped all thei…

"White collar" labor, in a service / knowledge economy doesn't mean "not making real things". Most (?) people on this board do something software or science or product related. Software is real, even if it's intangible. Research is real, even if it's inscrutable. Heck, Design is real, even if it's ineffable. (Yes, yes, there's vapor-ware, and useless products, and certainly "fake jobs". Those existed in the '40s, too…

A lot of white collar work is just larping as the 1%. It's due to the over-manufacturing of elites. Roles that exist to keep people busy while confering illusory social status aren't very useful to society. Freedom and usefulness comes from humility and devotion to others. For example, you don't need to be in the 1% to have financial independence. You just have to not spend money on things that cargo cult the 1% like a fancy home, fancy car, and fancy dress, since that's a weakness in yourself that the 1% exploits to keep folks dependent on paychecks. Refusing to covet what the 1% has is how you act like a true 99%er. Not through politics, but by changing what's in your heart.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#776

Post by bluGill »

noworriesnate wrote: post #669
slg wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you define which speech is speech worthy of protection and which speech is a consequence of speech and therefore not worthy of protection? For example, imagine some CEO says something politically objectionable, as is their right granted by allowing free speech. Do I have the right to protest or boycott their company as part of my free speech rights or would that be illegal because I'm rendering a consequence f…

This is a good question that would require a long debate to answer, but the answer obviously is neither of these two extremes: - Every entity except the US govt is allowed to enforce consequences for speech - there should never ever be any consequences for any speech ever

Fire in a crowded theator is the type of speech often used as an example serious terrorism plans should be stopped before they turn into acts.

i don't know how you enforce the above though.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#777

Post by milesrout »

xracy wrote: post #603
milesrout wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They talk about identity politics all the time. It is us vs them on everything. Worker vs employer is the quintessential example. Two groups that in the real world must work together, and do. But in the mind of the political left they are not just people that occasionally have adverse interests but mostly shared interests (my success is yours). No, they are sworn enemies.

I don't think you know what "identity politics" are, which is kinda funny to me. I would love to have discussions where identity politics meant "Worker vs Employer". Worker vs Employer aren't actually 2 groups of people, unless you really consider corporations as people.

Well firstly, bodies corporate are obviously legal persons and nobody with any clue disagrees with that. But that isn't what I am talking about.

Every company has a board of directors who are natural persons, and ownership eventually is traceable back to natural persons, and their officers are natural persons. Grouping people up doesn't make them unpersons.

Worker and employer not your preferred languahe? Call it worker and manager, worker and executive, worker and CEO. Whatever you want. But the sentiment is very real. It is about treating the workplace as an antagonistic, conflict-driven, zero-sum environment. If I win, you lose. If you win, I lose.

I don't think that is how real workplaces actually work. I like my employer and I like my boss. Without them, I'd be out if a job. Without me, they'd be out of a worker. I don't think we have opposing interests at all.

It is definitely identity politics. It is the original identity politics: Marxism. The proletariat against the bourgeoisie and all that rubbish.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#778

Post by Ray20 »

wat10000 wrote: post #660
nradov wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The historical answer is because Congress wanted to be sure that employers could fire Communists for being Communists. Of course, that's not my view. I think political affiliation should probably be protected, but it needs to be very narrow. You shouldn't be able to be fired for being a Republican. But if you post "Gay people should be executed," you shouldn't be able to hide behind "I'm a Republican, that's a politi…

But if it is political/religious view? I don't quite understand how we can draw a line here. In general, belonging to a religion or political movement literally means that the subject has a set of certain explicitly stated views.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#779

Post by bluGill »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #513
vimax wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the side that complains about A and complains about B, and complains that constant polarizing rhetoric has been ratcheting up to get us from the less bad A to the very bad B?

Ah yes, it is the left's fault the right is spiraling the country into despotism. Feeling a lot of "Why do you make them hit you?" energy in this thread.

It is everyone who kept on the path instead of saying 'I don't care what you say I'll defend your right to say it'. If you can't allow someone else to say things you don't like you are at fault - it doesn't matter how good hou think you are.

Re: A university president makes a case against cowardice

#780

Post by bluGill »

anigbrowl wrote: post #652
emptysongglass wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The problem with such reflexive absolutism, as I've pointed out many times, is that you end up advocating for the speech rights of people who are advocating for genocide. I shouldn't need to point out that killing people also terminates their speech rights and that advocacy of genocide is thus an attack on free speech. You do not have to defend the free speech rights of people who are themselves attacking free speech…

If you don't feel bad about it you are not a defender of free speech. Eventially a line must be drawn and you have to not allow things. However it should make you uncomfortable no matter how bad thone things are.
Post reply on HN