Live data from Hacker News

The latest campus cancellation is different

theatlantic.com

261–270 of 520 posts

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#261
post #3

How do we neuter the power of Twitter mobs? Seems like they can bully and intimidate any organization from universities to corporations to GitHub projects to kowtow to their demands. Their demands are usually to fire, boycott, or boot people with opinions that run afoul of the mob. Not a healthy precedent to set. We will regret this later if we continue down this path.

Two things: We probably only hear the stories where they succeed, or nearly so, which may be anywhere from almost all the attempts to only a tiny number. Second, if this is a which hunt, then we should treat it as such and immediately lob accusations at those who start the accusations.

So having a list of people who called for witch burning and distributing social opprobrium might help.

Make the only cancelling appropriate be for cancelling cancellers. So focus cancel energy on itself.

Personally, I will review job applicants social media history and if there is any “Reeeee” I take that into account as part of reference checks and whatnot.

It seems like someone posting “I’m an MIT alum and I demand this speaker be cancelled” would reflect as lack of critical thinking and reasoning.

I fear that this leads to islands of organizations where there are groups that don’t like this Twitter mob tactic and groups that do. God help those in orgs that think Twitter mobbing is a good thing.

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#262
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have any power, other than to annoy the institution. The only power here is the power that MIT has over the people they book to speak, and since MIT doesn't want to be annoyed, they canceled the speaker. The problem with cancel culture is a problem with bad employment law, and a problem with cultural institutions without any core ethical beliefs.

The paradox of ethical relativism. Seems to run parallel with the paradox of tolerance.

I agree. Absolutionistic ethics, of which I am a proponent of, would largely throw out “the paradox of tolerance”.

Cancel culture serves to highlight the inevitable orthodoxies that arise from proponents of “the paradox of tolerance”. Ultimately people need to ask themselves, “By what standard?”

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#264
post #6
post #3

How do we neuter the power of Twitter mobs? Seems like they can bully and intimidate any organization from universities to corporations to GitHub projects to kowtow to their demands. Their demands are usually to fire, boycott, or boot people with opinions that run afoul of the mob. Not a healthy precedent to set. We will regret this later if we continue down this path.

> How do we neuter the power of Twitter mobs? Stop listening to them? EDIT: That's especially effective since the Twitter mobs keep moving targets every couple of weeks anyway. They don't have any patience.

Exactly. To quote Dave Chappelle, out of context to avoid further debate...

"...they dragged me on Twitter. Well I don't give a fuck because Twitter isn't a real place."

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#265
At what point should this kind of social media bullying be considered as actual harassment? I personally cannot see the difference with the brigading 4chan or some toxic Reddit communities do to attack people. This type of attack always seem wrong, should not be given any weight or power, or tolerated IMHO.

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#267
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the problem is that prestigious institutions are run by bureaucrats wearing its skin. For example this article says "MIT buckled", when in reality some campus admin buckled because to them it's not worth risking their comfy job over a speaker. The bureaucrats have no skin in the game, they don't benefit from thinking about long term damage to MIT or society in general. From their perspective it's logical to bow to Tw…

According to the upstream article posted in a sibling comment [1], the decision was made by the department head for EAPS, themselves a scientist AFAICT [2]. That doesn't necessarily change anything (and I'm not weighing in here), but given your assertion it seemed worth pointing out. [1]: https://orgchart.mit.edu/node/6/letters_to_community/importa... [2]: https://eapsweb.mit.edu/people/hilst

Most department heads are administrators doing subpar research and collecting money on both sides.

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#268
post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is largely a labor law issue. Twitter mob is not just cause for terminating the employment of someone. Using anti-defamation laws against individual bullies is another possibility.

In general, in the US, there doesn't need to be a "just cause." Someone has become a headache or embarrassment for us--for whatever unprotected reason--is sufficient.

It is much more complicated when someone is tenured, and there was a reason academics were protected by that (but it is thinning now).

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#269
post #144

> John Carlson Lecture As a disclaimer I am against any censorship of academia and think that even Charles Murray should be allowed to speak at a university (assuming he is invited by an academic department or student group) and that the university should never have veto power. However, I think the example in the Atlantic is actually more mild than past cases: the John Carlson Lecture is a general audience talk that…

> In this light, the cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos who was invited by the College Republican club is much worse.

This isn't how I remember it. Milo thrived off of these confrontations and being "cancelled," but what really made him drop off were his comments on pedophilia. Being hounded by students legitimized him in his followers mind.

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#270
Actually it's not different. University lecturers have been protested or cancelled for decades for reasons unrelated to their topic, usually due to political beliefs or corporate interests that clashed with students' ideals. "Cancel culture" is specifically about "personal" societal reforms, which is what makes it different than the older complaints about general politics.

Back in the day it was "edgy" to protest or cancel a speaker due to their support of the Vietnam war. People were just as angry (or more so!) at Vietnam protesters as people are today about "cancel culture" protesters, and vice versa. At the time, it was those young freaks with the long hair who were clearly nuts and extremists and going to erode the country's moral decency. Counter-culture folk in the 60's and 70's were a tiny but vocal minority of young people who were largely put down for their radical views about war and the environment. It's only in hindsight that protesting the Vietnam war seems socially acceptable.

Post reply on HN