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

The latest campus cancellation is different

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 520 posts

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#451

Post by prepend »

tomerv wrote: post #309
prepend wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seemed like the nazi reference was appropriate though. In this case, the university system in Germany was ruined by a move away from merit toward an incorrect and abhorrent philosophy. I think that doesn’t mean that affirmative action = nazism. It means that focusing on things other than merit has negative consequences and should be avoided. A recent comedy, Death of Stalin, points this out on the micro level when…

It doesn't really matter if the nazi reference was appropriate or not, using nazism as a comparison point is taboo for any kind of serious discussion. Once you compare anything to nazism you pretty much forfeit the discussion, even if it's a valid comparison.

I don’t agree with this at all. I’m not a fan of castostrophizing, but when the analogy is relevant, it should still be used.

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#452

Post by akomtu »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #340
umvi wrote: 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.

Are these "mobs" organized (which by definition flirts with not being a mob)? Or do they manifest and are fed by the algorythm? Or a bit of both? The point being, there seems to be a steady stream things that get a free pass. On the other hand, seemingly random - and often less impactful - things / people get canceled. Mind you, the media is often guilty of the same disconnect. But they too are driven by engagement a…

There are a few rich people who's sponsoring this by running "open foundations" that donate (or not donate) to universities and legislatures. MIT's got addicted to recurring donations, so the big contributors can tell MIT how to run things. Same story with mob leaders who are in it for the money. The rank and file mob members do it for free, though (for feeling being right and being part of something big and important).

If the end beneficiaries change their mind, or find another hobby, this "movement" will fold overnight without donations.

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#453

Post by rscoots »

morelisp wrote: post #449
rscoots wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was rate limited. You brought up timeframe (and many other conditions) as a rebuttal to the author. I'm just pointing out that you can't be sure that any of those considerations even entered the minds of MIT's admins. I hope we can at least agree that this opaqueness is an issue and could inspire future, less-careful censors.

If you're taking a position of absolute radical skepticism, you should be asking the same questions of Mounk's claim to know MIT's exact conditions, not using such hearsay as your own argument's starting point.

Glad you agree you and Mounk have both made assumptions u can't back up.

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#454

Post by wussboy »

klyrs wrote: post #355
bluescrn wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media has completely transformed this type of protest. People who have nothing to do with the university can now join a 'cancel mob' to attack a political opponent on the other side of the world.

Oldsters remember when this was a slower process, where people would write angry letters. They would undertake letter-writing campaigns, persuading others to take up the literary torch. They'd write to newspapers and magazines, where "free speech" was subject to the gatekeeping editor. Shorter screeds would appear in classified ads, again, to be censored if the editor didn't want to print what you had to say. It's fa…

Yes, it was slower. And that slower speed gave more time for people to reflect, to calm down, to see if their moral passions had longevity. I think social media has perfect “outrage” because it can be so immediate. There’s no time for cooler heads to prevail. And we are the worse for it.

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#455

Post by wussboy »

umvi wrote: 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.

Neuter Twitter.

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#456

Post by geofft »

iammisc wrote: post #156
pessimizer wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that there's a subconscious belief that US institutions should be loyal to the white race, especially as expressed through the American spirit of our forefathers and their ideals of fair play, and that any cancellation based on expressing the same racial beliefs as the country was built on is basically sedition as a prelude to white liquidation. Some white people feel like they're going to be forced out of th…

There's also a conscious belief on behalf of immigrant families like my own that the reason we came to this country is for the free speech, so when we see American institutions that do not seem to care, we wonder if America actually lives up to its promises.

I'm a child of immigrants. I grew up watching my non-white parents adopt white mannerisms and cultural norms, join a white church, live in a white neighborhood, etc. in a very racially diverse town because any other choice would put them at a disadvantage. My complaint is not that this country fails to live up to its promises, my complaint is that the promise itself is twisted.

There are many ways you can value "free speech." This author has a particular one in mind, and thinks that everyone should agree with that specific interpretation. I, too, value free speech, and an introductory step there is that people can and perhaps should have different opinions on what exactly that means. As an extreme example, if one person, motivated by a desire to uphold free speech, says that invited speakers may use racial slurs because words shouldn't be censored, and another person, motivated by a desire to uphold free speech, says that speakers may not use racial slurs because they insult people for who they are which is antithetical to meaningful debate, both of those views seem to me like they are valid approaches to "free speech."

What I object to is the view that exactly one of those interpretations is right and that there must not even be debate about it. It's a short step from there to saying that certain racial slurs or (less egregiously but more insidiously) stereotypes or assumptions are within the bounds of free speech and other ones are not, that certain attacks are noble and others are blasphemous, etc.

That's the road that gets us to calls to cancel e.g. the 1619 Project from people who two minutes earlier were complaining about "cancel culture." That's how we get the fundamental dishonesty that makes a lot of people feel like "free speech" is a tool of white supremacy or whatever - because an actual illiberal approach to society is being called "free speech" and nobody is willing to call it what it is.

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#457

Post by geofft »

aisengard wrote: post #155
version_five wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with your premise (as a libertarian) But re: > I don't see any way to cancel Twitter mobs that doesn't itself uphold cancel culture and destroy liberty. You'll see many people here are suggesting that we just don't listen to the "mob". That would be a way to "cancel" them that is completely compatible with liberty.

Okay, but people clearly do want to listen to the mob. Is the suggestion to cancel those people? It's hilarious that the pure libertarian approach is literally "do nothing".

I'd say ironic, more than hilarious.

The libertarian approach absolutely does lead to progressivism because people, broadly defined, want progressivism. You have to take a narrow subset of society for the libertarian approach to be genuinely popular, or you have to abandon the pretense that you're optimizing for the good of all people. Don't take my word for it, listen to one of the most successful libertarians in recent history:

https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/educatio...

> The 1920s were the last decade in American history during which one could be genuinely optimistic about politics. Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians — have rendered the notion of “capitalist democracy” into an oxymoron. [...]

> The critical question then becomes one of means, of how to escape not via politics but beyond it. Because there are no truly free places left in our world, I suspect that the mode for escape must involve some sort of new and hitherto untried process that leads us to some undiscovered country[...]

Thiel goes on to detail how his only hope of accomplishing libertarian ideals is by escaping to either cyberspace, outer space, or the sea, leaving behind all those people who if asked by libertarian means would reject his ideals. (And he's gone on to invest in companies like SpaceX that are working on bringing this plan to fruition.)

The whole reason you get articles like this is because libertarianism can't survive on the merits, and so (apart from Thiel's approach of escape) they have to argue that people aren't playing by the rules, that somehow universities do not have the liberty to rescind invitations or that if they do it's because they're bad people. But they are playing by the rules and they're exercising their liberties.

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#458

Post by angelzen »

wayneftw wrote: post #211

Where is the mob though? The 2 tweets referenced by the article had a total of 138 likes between them. Searching twitter for Dorian Abbot, I couldn't find much else.

Dorian Abbot has his own account of the situation. One of the document he links is a dozen different MIT associates and alumni tweeting in support for the talk to be cancelled.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/mit-abandons-its-mission-an...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13Xd01jH1UAJ4yQ2Xt5pyOFwjRcy...

Please also note Dorian express wish:

> I forgive the activists who led the campaign against me. Please do not attack them personally. They are fish swimming in a sea of moral confusion. Some of the responsibility for their behavior rests on their elders, who have not helped them form properly.

https://twitter.com/DorianAbbot/status/1444335909244129286

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#459

Post by birtoise »

umvi wrote: 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.

Maybe there’s no way to do it. Perhaps Twitter and other social networks were designed this way specifically to be immune to social control (and by consequence, to exerce social control) over well-established institutions.

Re: The latest campus cancellation is different

#460

Post by WalterBright »

akomtu wrote: post #430
WalterBright wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a person physically prevented me from going to the restroom, I'd press kidnapping charges.

It's not gonna work. Those who organise this activity have enough influence to convince AG to ignore your case.

I'd politely ask the person holding me prisoner for his name, and if he doesn't step aside I'll inform him that I'll be charging him with kidnapping. Regardless of what the AG does.

After all, what do you think will happen to you if you hold someone prisoner?

Post reply on HN