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

The Rise of the College Crybullies

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: The Rise of the College Crybullies

#21

Post by laughinghan »

malandrew wrote: post #5
orionblastar wrote: post #3

Just the same social justice warriors who attack tech companies and want more females and minorities in STEM, but they don't take STEM classes they take classes in the liberal arts instead. I encourage females and minorities to take STEM classes for STEM jobs and challenge themselves. Calling racism or sexism esp when almost none exists, there has been no evidence of racism on MU campus for six months. http://www.the…

I like the litmus test that only someone with a github profile with projects of their own and commits to any projects in broad use are privvy to an opinion about tech culture. When I see an SJC opinion on identity politics and tech, my first instinct is to check github to see if the author has ever contributed to open source or has any sizable projects of their own published. I'd guess that 99 times out of 100 they d…

By "an SJC opinion" do you mean "[wanting] more females and minorities in STEM"? How about these loudmouths, who include the creators of Django and NPM? http://osfeels.com/speakers

Feel free to do your reflexive dick-measuring against my GitHub profile, too. (I checked out yours. Are you a serious contributor to anything with >50 stars?)

Re: The Rise of the College Crybullies

#22

Post by DanBC »

otterley wrote: post #20
gozo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're the one not responding to my arguments, how am I the one being obtuse? How is excluding people you think are intolerant any better then they excluding you for thinking you are intolerant? How is calling people "crybullies" and implicitly "indoctrinated" instead of reviewing and arguing against their arguments being tolerant? How is it not you that don't tolerate people when you think it's a good idea to try to…

> How is calling people "crybullies" and implicitly "indoctrinated" instead of reviewing and arguing against their arguments being tolerant? By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job. > I think everyone has the right to campaign for their cause regardless if that cause is to stop someone else from doing something. I think it's up to the…

> By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job.

Does institutional racism and sexism and homophobia - which prevent some people even getting a job - count?

Re: The Rise of the College Crybullies

#23

Post by otterley »

DanBC wrote: post #22
otterley wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is calling people "crybullies" and implicitly "indoctrinated" instead of reviewing and arguing against their arguments being tolerant? By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job. > I think everyone has the right to campaign for their cause regardless if that cause is to stop someone else from doing something. I think it's up to the…

> By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job. Does institutional racism and sexism and homophobia - which prevent some people even getting a job - count?

In many cases, sure, they do. It's pretty much the textbook definition of intolerance. But this is not the issue before us.

Here, the students were admitted, presumably with knowledge of these facts, and don't yet have a credible claim to any effect other than hurt feelings.

Re: The Rise of the College Crybullies

#24

Post by gozo »

otterley wrote: post #20
gozo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're the one not responding to my arguments, how am I the one being obtuse? How is excluding people you think are intolerant any better then they excluding you for thinking you are intolerant? How is calling people "crybullies" and implicitly "indoctrinated" instead of reviewing and arguing against their arguments being tolerant? How is it not you that don't tolerate people when you think it's a good idea to try to…

> How is calling people "crybullies" and implicitly "indoctrinated" instead of reviewing and arguing against their arguments being tolerant? By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job. > I think everyone has the right to campaign for their cause regardless if that cause is to stop someone else from doing something. I think it's up to the…

> The issue is that speech is now being suppressed in higher education settings -- a place where (otherwise lawful) offense is expected to be tolerated -- by students who don't respond to offense with the sort of counterargument you're proposing. Instead, they are making demands for resignation or other forms of retribution, and these are starting to bear fruit.

Yeah, there's not much point in continuing this discussion. I don't see how you can in one sentence claim that "(otherwise lawful) offense" should be tolerated, but in the next say that calls for resignations or retribution (like boycotts) shouldn't be? Those aren't normally unlawful. Isn't that literally "lawful offence except those I disagree with like calls for resignation"?

Re: The Rise of the College Crybullies

#25

Post by gozo »

otterley wrote: post #23
DanBC wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job. Does institutional racism and sexism and homophobia - which prevent some people even getting a job - count?

In many cases, sure, they do. It's pretty much the textbook definition of intolerance. But this is not the issue before us. Here, the students were admitted, presumably with knowledge of these facts, and don't yet have a credible claim to any effect other than hurt feelings.

The argument in the top of this thread was that people who are sensitive to certain things should be filtered out of the admissions process based on that. I don't see how that isn't institutional discrimination.

What if it included writing an essay on "why bullying nerds are good for them" and people who've been bullied couldn't do very well on that assignment, because they obviously took offence, is that not discrimination?

Re: The Rise of the College Crybullies

#26

Post by otterley »

gozo wrote: post #24
otterley wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is calling people "crybullies" and implicitly "indoctrinated" instead of reviewing and arguing against their arguments being tolerant? By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job. > I think everyone has the right to campaign for their cause regardless if that cause is to stop someone else from doing something. I think it's up to the…

> The issue is that speech is now being suppressed in higher education settings -- a place where (otherwise lawful) offense is expected to be tolerated -- by students who don't respond to offense with the sort of counterargument you're proposing. Instead, they are making demands for resignation or other forms of retribution, and these are starting to bear fruit. Yeah, there's not much point in continuing this discuss…

It's not about disagreement. It's about the institution. If you don't agree with one of the main purposes of the institution -- to inculcate tolerance of differing views -- don't go there.

Meanwhile, the rest of us think this institution as it stands today still provides an incredibly valuable function in society. We make better decisions as a result because we're able to digest more opinions without vomiting all over ourselves.

Re: The Rise of the College Crybullies

#27

Post by otterley »

otterley wrote: post #23
DanBC wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job. Does institutional racism and sexism and homophobia - which prevent some people even getting a job - count?

In many cases, sure, they do. It's pretty much the textbook definition of intolerance. But this is not the issue before us. Here, the students were admitted, presumably with knowledge of these facts, and don't yet have a credible claim to any effect other than hurt feelings.

Re: the above post:

> I don't see how that isn't institutional discrimination.

Discriminating against people who get offended isn't unlawful. Not every instance of discrimination deserves to be righted. (If I kick you out of my perfume store because you smell like a distillery, the law does not, and should not, protect you.)

> What if it included writing an essay on "why bullying nerds are good for them" and people who've benn bullied couldn't do very well on that assignment, because they obviously took offence, is that not discrimination?

No, it is not. Again, there's no right to be protected against assignments that conflict with your upbringing. (In fact, one of the main goals of higher education is to make you see things from other points of view, even if they disturb you.) If you were offended by it, you'd be well off to still do the assignment but provide a strong counterargument instead.

Re: The Rise of the College Crybullies

#28

Post by DanBC »

otterley wrote: post #23
DanBC wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By "intolerance" I mean "having consequences beyond having people disagree with you," for example, making you lose your job. Does institutional racism and sexism and homophobia - which prevent some people even getting a job - count?

In many cases, sure, they do. It's pretty much the textbook definition of intolerance. But this is not the issue before us. Here, the students were admitted, presumably with knowledge of these facts, and don't yet have a credible claim to any effect other than hurt feelings.

> and don't yet have a credible claim to any effect other than hurt feelings.

You appear to be saying that it's okay for people to call black colleagues niggers, and for the college to do nothing to support that black student because fuck them, hurt feelings, and that the long history of brutal racist treatment of black people in America should be ignored by any black people when someone calls them nigger.

Is that what you're saying? Because I can't find another interpretation.

Re: The Rise of the College Crybullies

#29

Post by [deleted] »

otterley wrote: post #26
gozo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is that speech is now being suppressed in higher education settings -- a place where (otherwise lawful) offense is expected to be tolerated -- by students who don't respond to offense with the sort of counterargument you're proposing. Instead, they are making demands for resignation or other forms of retribution, and these are starting to bear fruit. Yeah, there's not much point in continuing this discuss…

It's not about disagreement. It's about the institution. If you don't agree with one of the main purposes of the institution -- to inculcate tolerance of differing views -- don't go there. Meanwhile, the rest of us think this institution as it stands today still provides an incredibly valuable function in society. We make better decisions as a result because we're able to digest more opinions without vomiting all ove…

[deleted]

Re: The Rise of the College Crybullies

#30

Post by drumdance »

gozo wrote: post #14
otterley wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not being intentionally obtuse. How would you design a system that is supposed to foster debate and differing opinions such that people don't shut it down because they cannot tolerate those differing opinions?

You're the one not responding to my arguments, how am I the one being obtuse? How is excluding people you think are intolerant any better then they excluding you for thinking you are intolerant? How is calling people "crybullies" and implicitly "indoctrinated" instead of reviewing and arguing against their arguments being tolerant? How is it not you that don't tolerate people when you think it's a good idea to try to…

He's tolerating your argument right this moment. He's not agreeing with you, but he's not asking you to be fired or kicked out of this forum either.
Post reply on HN