251–260 of 370 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Folks always make this argument which this kind of thing comes up. Just because you as a private entity can limit free speech, doesn't mean you should . Censorship is generally a bad idea, and I as a private entity can be upset at Harvard for doing it.
How do u deal with hate speech
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You defeat bad arguments with good arguments. By the way this is the ONLY way. Silencing those you disagree with will only enrage and mobilize those people, and those people vote. Hence, Trump.
I would argue that Trump is a manifestation of the exact opposite, that no matter how good the argument is, it won't beat a bad one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You defeat bad arguments with good arguments. By the way this is the ONLY way. Silencing those you disagree with will only enrage and mobilize those people, and those people vote. Hence, Trump.
I would argue that Trump is a manifestation of the exact opposite, that no matter how good the argument is, it won't beat a bad one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"People worried about womens' rights in the early 20th century should have realized that Harvard was a private university. If I held a party at my house and didn't want to invite you because you were a woman, you'd get laughed out of court if you tried to sue me over it. People should be allowed to organize under whatever principles they want to organize under. Disallowing Harvard to use whatever criteria they want t…
I specifically noted the civil rights exception in my comment.
Free speech has historically been considered an extremely important right. In fact, free speech is a civil right--one of the originals. Why shouldn't it be included under your civil rights exception?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, that there are times, places, and contexts on how to use free speech. If you knowingly and publically associate your name with something offensive, there could be private consequences. Facebook is a public forum that happens to be visible to harvard staff. Students should know this.
> If you knowingly and publically associate your name with something offensive But the article says it was a private group chat, not public.
I mean, c'mon. Just because something says "private" doesn't mean it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We punish speech all the time, in certain limited and well-defined ways, and is not particularly controversial. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... . Threatening someone with bodily harm can be punished, as can libel. These don't cover this particular case, but your statement is vague enough I think this response is warranted. In general, it's important to note that the separate…
I agree that I could've been more clear in my prior comment. Here's one in which I more precisely formulated the argument I'm trying to make here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14489045
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "rejection by widespread parts of civilized society" is a clear statement that I support both. Let me be explicit: racists and sexists should find it impossible to maintain a social and professional life, until they stop being racist and sexist. (And in the process, that also improves social and professional settings through their absence.) That's not a violent action, that's a highly effective non-violent ac…
Well, yes, certainly social and professional exclusion of one's political opponents has some historical evidence for its efficacy as a tactic, at least in the short term. Those of us who have qualms around consequentialism find this efficacy not reason enough to regard such behavior as exemplary of virtue. Those who do not have such qualms might be well advised to consider, from a utilitarian perspective, the ultimat…
Framing bigots as "political opponents" has some efficacy as a tactic too, given people's allergy to politics. It's sad that this has, especially recently, become equated to politics. "How should we organize government", or "are certain functions better handled by government" are reasonable questions of politics. "Should we treat some people as less than other people" is not a question of politics, it's a question of humanity, that should be orthogonal to politics. It's possible to be toxic anywhere on the political spectrum, and it's possible to be decent anywhere on the political spectrum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "rejection by widespread parts of civilized society" is a clear statement that I support both. Let me be explicit: racists and sexists should find it impossible to maintain a social and professional life, until they stop being racist and sexist. (And in the process, that also improves social and professional settings through their absence.) That's not a violent action, that's a highly effective non-violent ac…
lets have a more realistic conversation about the consequences of shunning and ostracizing people, even if those people are noxious (in some way). does it really work? it seems to work in-so-far-as it purges specific communities of specific people. it doesn't remove those people from larger society and it most certainly doesn't change their mind. it makes them feel aggrieved to the point where they lash out with redo…
I'll take that; that's progress. If the only effect is to improve such communities, that's a good enough reason. And if we can get people to stop making "but free speech!" arguments against it, and start talking about free association, it'll have a much more widespread effect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm probably around the same age you are, and I have to disagree with you that these kinds of jokes are harmless. For one thing, cultures like this do provide safe havens to people who actually hold bigoted views 'sincerely'. I've been in IRL conversations that ran along these norms, and it was a really uncomfortable experience, especially as a member of a favorite 4Chan target group. It became fairly obvious over th…
To your first point: It's certainly immoral to be a true bigot, but it's more immoral to silence dark humor simply because of the one individual who believes it. In fact, I would argue that attempting to stifle these individuals is what amplifies their tendency to hold bigoted views. For example, if you're in an in-real-life group conversation and you're all friends and you're roasting another friend for something he…
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good meme as much as the next millenial. But there are memes and there are memes. You seem to be implying that "beep beep lettuce" and Pepe wearing a Nazi uniform are equivalent to one another. And yes, by the definition of "dark comedy" we're using here, it is lazy. Everyone knows where the boundaries of generally accepted good taste are. There's no skill or wit involved in breaching them. You mention Dave Chappelle elsewhere in this thread; if you look at him, or Mel Brooks, or other 'great' dark comedians, all of the shock there is in the service of making some larger point about society. And sure it doesn't always work, but by your own argument there's not even a semblance of that kind of intent in 'dark meme comedy'. If all a joke is trying to do is give its audience a fleeting thrill of transgression, that's a pretty low form of humor.