Regarding the Compact • Hacker News Board

Re: Regarding the Compact

#161

Post by thaumasiotes » Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 3:31 AM UTC

runako wrote: post #157

thaumasiotes wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is possible to be independent while also accepting grants from the USG. There's no contradiction there. The point of independence is that the Institute gets to determine how it runs its affairs. That hasn't been true for many decades. Accepting grants means being subject to a host of legal requirements tied to various different pieces of civil rights legislation.

The thing about that legislation is that since it is the law of the land, it applies whether or not an institution receives a grant.

Not at all. It applies only to institutions that are funded by the government. Receiving grants has been characterized as accepting government funding, which is strange on the fundamentals - those grants notionally represent the government paying for work it wants done.

Also characterized as accepting government funding is admitting students who get student loans from the government. This goes well beyond "strange on the fundamentals" - that money is notionally given to the student, not to the school.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#162

Post by necovek » Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 3:51 AM UTC

nis0s wrote: post #123

necovek wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, it mostly speaks to the fact that I've been indoctrinated through my upbringing, education and environment that this is the "true" enlightenment. Even for people on the "other" side, they ask the same questions and they see the hipocrisy (it's not hard to see how capital corrupts) and get stuck. This is why morality moves in cycles even in the Western world: morality is a human construct created through r…

I think people often conflate morality with mores. Morality is timeless (it’s always been unfashionable to kill someone, to lie, to display envy, and so on), while social mores can fluctuate with changing political, cultural or philosophical view points. On top of that, sociopolitical self-preserving interests can muddle the discourse on what is moral or not, which is what you’re saying, more or less. The point being…

> it’s always been unfashionable to kill someone, to lie, to display envy, and so on

Even if we restrict ourselves to recorded human history, there are plenty of examples where killing in particular and imposing one's will by force more generally was glorified.

This is really a very modern development (last hundred years?). Just look at how women have been treated 50 years ago as the "weaker sex" (and to an extent, still are today).

But going back to morality of the Western world, how does that compute in terms of recent excursions in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria... All exceptions needed in the last 20 years?

My point is that I subscribe to the notion that "morality" has been developed as a human, reasoned construct to help with self-preservation when cohabiting in large social groups (aka civilization) — I am outright disagreeing with you. Compare with the "morality" of humans brought up outside society (kids lost in woods and similar). Too many counter-examples throughout history to consider it innate, IMO.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#163

Post by nis0s » Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 4:18 AM UTC

necovek wrote: post #162

nis0s wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people often conflate morality with mores. Morality is timeless (it’s always been unfashionable to kill someone, to lie, to display envy, and so on), while social mores can fluctuate with changing political, cultural or philosophical view points. On top of that, sociopolitical self-preserving interests can muddle the discourse on what is moral or not, which is what you’re saying, more or less. The point being…

> it’s always been unfashionable to kill someone, to lie, to display envy, and so on Even if we restrict ourselves to recorded human history, there are plenty of examples where killing in particular and imposing one's will by force more generally was glorified. This is really a very modern development (last hundred years?). Just look at how women have been treated 50 years ago as the "weaker sex" (and to an extent, s…

The simplest living beings have some idea of self and other, and life and death, and so understand, even implicitly, what it means to be killed and dying. So a primal impulse to fight back kicks in whenever something feels mortally threatened.

Bacteria might not be able to communicate that they don’t like being killed, but I don’t think their view of it changes despite that lack of ability to communicate. More complex and conscious organisms, like monkeys, take offense to lies and deception. Or dominant animals with higher-level cognition might punish members of their groups who display jealous traits. Who taught these animals human social mores? No one, they’re going purely off instinct.

There are primal instincts which drive some of these behaviors which have absolutely nothing to do with human culture or society. To paraphrase what I’ve already said, morality doesn’t change, but only how you think of it does. Humans are the only animals who elegantly communicate their selfishness about moral behaviors, and get away with it.

And I don’t get the point of the rest of your post about the Middle East, but I am going to leave it at that.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#164

Post by necovek » Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 6:41 AM UTC

nis0s wrote: post #163

necovek wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s always been unfashionable to kill someone, to lie, to display envy, and so on Even if we restrict ourselves to recorded human history, there are plenty of examples where killing in particular and imposing one's will by force more generally was glorified. This is really a very modern development (last hundred years?). Just look at how women have been treated 50 years ago as the "weaker sex" (and to an extent, s…

The simplest living beings have some idea of self and other, and life and death, and so understand, even implicitly, what it means to be killed and dying. So a primal impulse to fight back kicks in whenever something feels mortally threatened. Bacteria might not be able to communicate that they don’t like being killed, but I don’t think their view of it changes despite that lack of ability to communicate. More comple…

Only one paragraph was about the Middle East, where "Western" morality is on full display, mostly to show that there is no one true goodness anywhere.

You seem to be using a definition of morality that's a lot narrower than what we generally call moral and morality: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...

I don't think your examples show morality at work, but I already realised we disagree on this topic, and I am sure you'll interpret the dictionary definitions differently too.

Thanks for the discourse and enjoy the day.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#165

Post by rickydroll » Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 10:28 AM UTC

Volundr wrote: post #131

dem_bones_ wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the rest of the paragraph prior to the sentence you quoted? Any use of lawful force has to be justified by prevention of the violations described thus: > Signatories acknowledge that the freedom to debate requires conditions of civility. Civility includes protections against institutional punishment or individual harassment for one’s views. Universities shall neither support nor permit a heckler’s veto t…

> Misbehaving children need to dealt with too, within the bounds of what is allowed by law. Otherwise, what, you want a loophole for them to get away with all of the above? Heckling is not against the law last I checked.

At first, I thought it was a protected form of speech. TIL, I was wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto

Re: Regarding the Compact

#166

Post by desselc » Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 10:32 AM UTC

baked_beanz wrote: post #60

clessed wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

More Republican politicians have been convicted of sexual misconduct in bathrooms than trans people. Perhaps we can start with the real issue, and ban them from public bathrooms first? Remember, facts don't care about your feelings! Source: https://www.complex.com/life/a/amanda-wicks/republican-legis...

Bathrooms aren't segregated by the political party one might belong to, so really your comment is an irrelevant aside.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#167

Post by desselc » Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 10:35 AM UTC

joshuamorton wrote: post #74

clessed wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the policy of MIT or any other institution states that certain spaces are designated as single-sex only, then no, people of the opposite sex do not have the right to use these spaces. I don't expect people to have a problem with understanding this, in practice. It's really not that difficult to understand what sex you are and where you're allowed to be. Children learn this quite early on. (Edit: My account is now…

> If the policy of MIT or any other institution states that certain spaces are designated as single-sex only, then no, people of the opposite sex do not have the right to use these spaces. Correct, but this is not MIT's policy today, responding to your edit, I do not believe your understanding of title IX is correct, See [0]. >I don't expect people to have a problem with understanding this, in practice. It's really n…

Regarding Title IX, there are still cases working their way through the courts, so we will have to see.

I would be very surprised if colleges letting males enjoy women's locker rooms, and therefore not providing women any single-sex place to change, isn't ruled as being sex discrimination.

Keep in mind this issue is about privacy and dignity and safety for women, not about giving men whatever they want whenever they want.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#168

Post by desselc » Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 10:39 AM UTC

mirabilis wrote: post #80

clessed wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the policy of MIT or any other institution states that certain spaces are designated as single-sex only, then no, people of the opposite sex do not have the right to use these spaces. I don't expect people to have a problem with understanding this, in practice. It's really not that difficult to understand what sex you are and where you're allowed to be. Children learn this quite early on. (Edit: My account is now…

How do you propose preventing situations such as these? “The couple said they were in the women's lobby bathroom when a male security guard came in and started banging on the stall doors. Baker said she was in one of the stalls while Victor waited for her near the sinks… Baker was born a woman and identifies as a woman.” [1] “Gerika Mudra, 18, went to dinner in April with a friend in Owatonna, about an hour south of…

Those already very rare instances will become even rarer when males stop insisting they have a right to access women's spaces based on supposedly womenly thoughts in their minds.

Thankfully, this fad is on the way out, and with it, the overvigilance that has led to unfortunate misunderstandings like you mention in your comment - none of which are justification for males to impose themselves on female spaces.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#169

Post by DrewADesign » Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 12:55 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #132

DrewADesign wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That feels oversimplified. A lot of people would think people that oppose Nazis are the ones with the ideological problems. Who defines what a problem is in our society? The majority or some skewing of it. This is the problem that politics is supposed to solve, and then the problem that the electoral college was supposed to safeguard against. How do we avoid the tyranny of a demented majority? Aligning to a specific…

> A lot of people would think people that oppose Nazis are the ones with the ideological problems. Who defines what a problem is in our society? The majority or some skewing of it. This view presupposes there are not moral facts.

Provable moral facts have nothing to do with this because humans aren’t philosophically consistent, and societies are ruled by humans. Defining them and getting enough people to agree to those definitions to enforce them is the problem democracy is supposed to solve, but in the end, flawed leaders will be ruling a flawed populace. No matter how cut-and-dried those moral facts are through rigorous philosophical analysis, societies always navigate through the lens of perception, which can be swayed.

Re: Regarding the Compact

#170

Post by desselc » Sat, Oct 11, 2025, 1:36 PM UTC

bmandale wrote: post #86

clessed wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonetheless, even in cases where someone has managed to somewhat disguise themselves as the opposite sex - or think they have done so - they will still be expected to respect boundaries, and stay out of spaces designated for the opposite sex.

Respecting boundaries means not concerning yourself with the genitals of a person merely trying to use the bathroom. You cannot enforce a policy regarding someone's sex without inspecting their genitals. How is that respecting of their boundaries? How does that lead to a person feeling safer in the bathroom?

Why are you people who insist on male incursion of female spaces so obsessed with "genital inspection"? No-one is asking for this strawman.

Your assumption seems to be that if no-one physically stops these men, they can and will do what they like, with impunity, and that there's no chance of them simply respecting women's boundaries. Is that what you mean?