[HN Gopher] A movement that cannot be criticized cannot achieve ...
___________________________________________________________________
A movement that cannot be criticized cannot achieve positive goals
Author : exolymph
Score : 213 points
Date : 2021-04-06 23:50 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (whitehotharlots.tumblr.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (whitehotharlots.tumblr.com)
| lawwantsin17 wrote:
| if you can't criticize "the boogie man left" then what is this
| piece but evidence against it's main point. have you been
| cancelled yet? it's all a smoke screen by the right. Twitter
| doesn't cancel things, the people's history get them fired. For
| fucks sakes. We're supposed to be intelligent and we're getting
| swindled by a smoke screen? IN 2121? After a pandemic and a con
| man president? THIS misdirection is what you choose to write
| about?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think there is a distinction between holding the belief that
| `racism exists and is evidentially relatively prevalent in day-
| to-day life` and the `set of beliefs associated with
| corporate/academic D&I training`, which include many of the
| things criticized in this article. They also tends to be class-
| blind.
|
| Where I think this article goes wrong, however, is when by
| conflating the two. The "Left" is a broad category. Certainly,
| some might conflate criticism with "violence", but I think it is
| a markedly _conservative trend_ to try to conflate corporate D &I
| training with the Left writ large.
| poormystic wrote:
| This post works for me. Why has it been flagged? Is this an
| example of self-fulfilling prophecy?
| sleepysysadmin wrote:
| Right now nobody can discuss politics. Where there was once a
| chance to influence or change a mind that's impossible now. For
| that very same reason that's why the source of political
| knowledge is comedians ONLY.
|
| From the left-wing mass media you have your typical comedians
| like stephen colbert. In the podcast scene you have folks like
| Joe rogan. On the right wing you have folks like steven crowder.
| They are all comedians.
|
| Only comedians are allowed to criticize or discuss politics.
| Which is only true in the USA. Outside the USA? Hell Canada just
| to the north actively fines comedians for jokes. RCMP arrest book
| authors. Canada once had a ton of fantastic comedians but they
| have basically been forced to leave the country.
| throwaway823882 wrote:
| _" Again, none of what I have described is an exaggeration"_
|
| But it could well be a selective presentation of the evidence in
| order to make your case.
|
| There's a reason journalists are at least supposed to _attempt_
| to show the other side: so the reader doesn 't get snowed, and
| the writer can keep some small measure of objectivity. Since that
| hasn't happened here, one should assume this portrayal is not
| accurate.
| prepend wrote:
| Based on reading the court docs [0] OP's account doesn't seem
| selective. There's audio of the event that led to the complaint
| and it sounds spot on to how it was described in the blog.
|
| The court docs include lots of info but we'll need to see the
| end result. But it seems like the blog post is accurate and UVA
| is being totally stupid and will waste a lot of money losing
| this case.
|
| [0] https://casetext.com/case/bhattacharya-v-murray
| throwaway823882 wrote:
| First off, does every court case's records show 100% the true
| story? If this were true, wouldn't every court case in
| history be completely incontrovertible? I could be wrong, but
| I'm pretty sure that just because it's been through court
| does not mean that the whole story is evidenced in court
| record. But IANAL.
|
| Second, the article goes into things that happened _after_
| the audio confrontation, and it 's claimed that those are the
| things that led to his dismissal. I would want to know more
| about those things, and not just whatever evidence has been
| accepted by the court, or the interpretation told by this
| article.
| prepend wrote:
| I don't think anyone is claiming it's 100% true or
| complete. But there is literally audio recording of the
| precipitating event that led to the court case.
|
| We probably will never know everything. But from what we
| know now, that's helpful for forming opinions.
|
| The case wasn't dismissed, and it was explicitly not
| dismissed and continues. 3/4 counts were dismissed. But one
| was not, thus its continuing.
|
| It's inaccurate to say that the case was dismissed.
|
| And of course we want to know more, that's a given. But in
| this situation we already know a lot.
| [deleted]
| mc32 wrote:
| So much for intellectual curiosity and finding answers to open
| questions in academia.
|
| This is a sad turn of events where asking for evidence is
| evidence of maliciousness rather than revealing fraud or
| vacuousness on the side of the person making the claims. If
| someone makes a claim they certainly should be capable of
| response. And the institution using outrageously euphemistic
| language when calling for discipline. What fragile institutions.
|
| This is terrible and taking us to nowhere fast.
|
| Even victims of rape and assault are called as witnesses and
| aren't spared, but here, questioning a poor argument is grounds
| for discipline because it called into question the basis for an
| ideology with weak underpinnings.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt. The outcome is
| slightly mischaracterized with regard to who's in agree about the
| facts. There's clearly some unresolved issues about what exactly
| happened as the brief makes clear.
|
| Exactly what was said at the hearing following the event was not
| recorded and the events following are a he said, she said
| according to the judges opinion.
|
| I believe there shouldn't have been a hearing in the first place.
| If it's true that he was argumentative and disrespectful towards
| those in authority that's always a good way to get yourself in
| trouble regardless if you're right or wrong.
|
| My thoughts are that there probably shouldn't have been a hearing
| and that he handled it poorly even though it shouldn't have
| happened. Should that be blamed on "the left's" intolerance? Idk.
| Blikkentrekker wrote:
| > _The hardest part of talking about malignant trends on the
| broad left is that, well, you're not allowed to talk about them.
| It's no exaggeration to say that criticism has become fully
| conflated with violence. If you attempt to engage critically with
| a left-liberal writer-regardless of how thorough and respectful
| you may be, and regardless of how powerful, public, or insulated
| the subject of the criticism-you will be accused of dismissing
| and erasing the writer, of inciting violence against the writer,
| and of committing some form of genocide against whichever
| identity groups the writer belongs to._
|
| Such boogyman victim complex that also only singles out only one
| particular ideology, showing it's colors, most likely.
|
| Yes, I've certainly engaged those too absorbed in politics to be
| able to handle criticism, whatever the political allegiance might
| be, but most persons are far more reasonable than what the
| article makes anything out to be.
|
| A minority of persons does what the article describes, and this
| certainly isn't isolated to this so-called "broad left". -- that
| the writer singles out that alone is reason to be suspicious.
|
| > _You'd think a group that obsesses over power differentials and
| their own marginalization would have some grasp of this.
| Regardless of which side you fall into with this particular
| culture war, it should fucking terrify you that a movement that's
| been tasked with addressing pressing social problems is designed
| in such a way that any substantial criticism is met with
| aggressive punishment._
|
| Many groups obsess over power differentials and everyone who
| argues politics from such "groups" seems to consider himself the
| victim and oppressed. They all have their cherry picked
| statistics to show it, and they all ignore the statistics of the
| other side and the statistics deal with matters that are so
| divergent from one another that it's really impossible to tell
| who has it "worse", but all are convinced it is they.
|
| This isn't isolated to the so-called "broad left"; this is a
| function of special interest group politics.
|
| Also, it has to be said, I estimate a 95% chance this article is
| both written by someone inside of the U.S.A., who also failed to
| even consider that a world outside of the U.S.A. exists when
| writing it. -- it carries the stench of this style.
| someelephant wrote:
| People with ptsd will find many comments or behaviors aggressive.
| All the training in the world won't take away that persons pain.
| Sadly, the people with ptsd will still have it even if a hundred
| people are punished after interacting with them.
| beervirus wrote:
| People who self-diagnose / pretend to have ptsd will pretend to
| find many comments or behaviors aggressive.
| someelephant wrote:
| Perhaps I'm naive but I think few people pretend to have that
| kind of pain. They do indeed have it. It might not arise from
| a truly traumatic experience but when somebody is under
| stress they do often react badly to people seen as threats.
| And people under stress see threats everywhere.
| Causality1 wrote:
| The fact it's so difficult to differentiate between the mission
| statement of an informal group and their actual behavior only
| adds to the problem. Maybe a group behaves well in your locality
| but badly in someone else's. How are we to tally up thousands of
| incidents and say "Oh ok this group has a 90% positivity rate so
| you should feel friendly towards them."? It's impossible.
| enw wrote:
| Why was this flagged?
| beervirus wrote:
| Because words are violence now.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Politics is generally off topic. Things that are likely to give
| rise to flame wars are also generally discouraged.
|
| You may agree or disagree on whether this particular one is
| worth discussing, but that's probably the general idea behind
| the flagging.
| quelsolaar wrote:
| I dont know. Maybe someone is trying help prove the point of
| the article?
| rvz wrote:
| One reason is that it encourages wrong-think in healthy
| discussions. /s
|
| Questioning why something is flagged is also against the 'HN
| Hivemind'. Now get in line. /s
| beej71 wrote:
| Probably because it's quite arguably not hacker news.
| enw wrote:
| HN has always been about a wide variety of topics.
| beej71 wrote:
| While true, I'm pretty sure this falls in the gray area.
| Lots of people are here to get tech and cool geek info.
| d3nj4l wrote:
| It's user flagged, not mod flagged.
| mssundaram wrote:
| How is the difference indicated?
| [deleted]
| jshmrsn wrote:
| It's seems like there's a gap in this story, at least as it's
| presented by the article. The article says he was baited into a
| meeting, and then two weeks after the meeting was when the real
| trouble began. Did he in fact say something genuinely
| unconscionable during that meeting? If so, saying you were
| "baited" isn't automatic immunity.
|
| So much of what the article says makes me want to pick up the
| pitch forks, but it's also clear this article has an anti-left
| goal in mind, so I'd like to understand more before letting
| myself get emotional about it.
|
| I say it has an anti-left goal, because it's framing the issue of
| community ostracization on the basis of different beliefs as a
| specifically left issue. Go try talking about the benefits of
| socialism in a far right community and see how that goes.
| spoonjim wrote:
| You do realize that the point of the follow up meeting is to
| bait the heretic into saying something truly unconscionable?
| It's like trying to get bitten by a dog so you can put it down:
| punish it for something non-transgressive, confusing them;
| threaten severe consequences, scaring them; and then initiate
| conflict to extract the maximally emotional response.
| angry_octet wrote:
| I agree, it is framed as a problem with Left thought, but all
| movements have their sacred cows and dogma. Except I don't
| think nuanced criticism of Trump economic policy is going to
| result in anything more than being called a soy boy -- they are
| insensitive to criticism like that.
|
| In contrast, academia has long and twisty schemes of thought.
| But previously if you were 'wrong' you just didn't get any
| grant money or significant publications and pretty soon you had
| to leave (if you didn't have tenure, but even if you did you
| could lose students, lab/office space, favourite subjects).
|
| Now, having divergent opinions can result in something akin to
| bees ejecting an intruder from the hive. I don't believe that
| this particular case is representative though; far more often
| it seems like nothing is done.
| maroonblazer wrote:
| I thought Scott Lilienfeld spelled out very clearly the problems
| with microaggressions in his paper "Microaggressions: Strong
| Claims, Inadequate Evidence". It's behind a paywall but the gist
| can be read here: https://aeon.co/essays/why-a-moratorium-on-
| microaggressions-...
|
| In the paper he suggested areas for further study that could
| affirm the idea, but I've not seen any, based on the Google
| Scholar search I set up.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| This is petty identity politics framed as a criticism of petty
| identity politics.
| EarthLaunch wrote:
| Yes, it's a low quality article. I agreed with the title, but
| after reading it decided not to upvote. When I returned to read
| comments, it's flagged.
| ta20210405 wrote:
| No, it's a high quality article. I agreed with the title, but
| after reading it decided to upvote. When I returned to read
| comments, it's flagged.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| Don't you think your mocking the parent's words is petty?
| That's the kind of attitude I was criticizing.
| mvzvm wrote:
| Why was this flagged @dang?
| [deleted]
| subroutine wrote:
| Top post on hn with 0 comments; seems fitting given the topic.
|
| edit: welp, this comment is now completely irrelevant.
| shard972 wrote:
| dang banned anyone with an original opinion from the right
| under the guise of civility
| dang wrote:
| Ideologues of every flavor say that - they just swap in
| $hated-object to complain about. The irony is how isomorphic
| all these enemies are.
|
| Plenty of examples at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870, and there are
| a lot more where those came from.
| unanswered wrote:
| And yet he hardly needs to given that any such opinions will
| be flagkilled in seconds. It's pure spite.
| PurpleFoxy wrote:
| This is why I view HN via a telegram bot that posts the top
| links. Let's me see what was flagged.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| You can also turn on "showdead" in your profile settings.
|
| I always browse with showdead on.
| gcannonkjp wrote:
| Is that why every RMS post gets nuked from orbit no matter
| the comment count?
| arolihas wrote:
| RMS?
| gcannonkjp wrote:
| Richard M. Stallman
| arolihas wrote:
| That's a little harsh. Politically charged arguments are just
| not in the spirit of HN in dang's opinion
| beaconstudios wrote:
| I agree with the idea of having a space where we aren't
| constantly culture warring, but you have to bear in mind
| that if you ban political speech then you still inherently
| permit status quo political speech. And the status quo here
| is California liberalism.
| dang wrote:
| Nobody has banned politics on HN. There are a zillion
| explanations of this at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange
| =all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
|
| Tedious, eternal flamewar is another matter. The point of
| HN is to have a place on the internet that isn't
| dominated by that.
|
| As for "the status quo here is California liberalism",
| everyone thinks HN is dominated by the other side. The GP
| made the opposite claim (see
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26732300). In both
| cases it is imaginary.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| I know you don't ban politics, that's why I chose the
| specific phrase "culture warring" - I think its a good
| policy. I think my phrasing after that point was just bad
| though as I didn't mean to b expand that scope to
| political speech in general.
|
| Could well be confirmation bias on my part that this
| place seems to skew Californian in politics.
| mlthoughts2018 wrote:
| Posts that masquerade as "legitimate dissenting opinions
| just not getting a fair shake from the left by golly" but
| which really seek to undermine structures by which
| systemic racism can possibly be called out and held
| accountable for harm (like the framework of
| microaggressions) deserve to be flagged and shut down.
| They don't serve any free speech or intellectual honesty
| purpose to preserve discourse and the psychological
| safety to disagree, and they are roundly disingenuous
| tools for filibustering actual legit discourse and
| progress. It's just taking crass tools of hate groups and
| dressing them up with five dollar words and armchair
| discussion of academic freedom of expression, when really
| it's just hostile noise jamming against progress.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| You have no idea what systemic racism is, or what it
| means for it to be systemic, or how to solve systemic
| problems. Most of the social justice arguments I've seen
| about it also have no idea about how to deal with
| systemic problems.
|
| Just thought I'd address that part. Everything else you
| wrote is word salad.
| mlthoughts2018 wrote:
| sounds suspiciously actually like _you_ don't know what
| systemic racism is...
| beaconstudios wrote:
| "no u" isn't a very good comeback.
|
| Systemic _anything_ is that thing perpetuated through
| systemic effects. In the case of racism it's a structural
| effect that lasts long after the prolonged and
| intentional oppression of certain minority groups. Things
| like a lack of generational wealth, de facto segregation,
| racial profiling in policing and so on.
|
| The thing with systemic effects in general is that
| they're not perpetuated intentionally, but are emergent
| properties of relationships within a complex system.
| There are ways to unpick and understand why these
| problems are occurring and prevent their continuation,
| but I'm sorry to say that I'm just not seeing that coming
| from the progressive movement at the moment. I care
| deeply about systems theory and its applicability in
| solving some of our pressing social problems, but I'm not
| seeing its use in social activism. Instead the tactics of
| corporate D&I seem actively designed to look good while
| not really doing anything. Same with microaggression and
| unconscious bias training; all they're going to do is put
| well meaning people on the defensive when interacting
| with marginalised people for fear of saying something
| offensive, and that's not going to help anybody.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > a lack of generational wealth, de facto segregation,
| racial profiling in policing and so on.
|
| That's what's always bugged me about people saying
| "systemic racism". They never could tell me _what it is_.
| You are the first person I have read who can actually say
| something concrete, something I can actually understand.
|
| I had assumed that, because nobody could actually say
| what it _is_ , that it was just a nebulous term being
| tossed around to make whites feel guilty. Now I'm going
| to have to re-think that.
|
| So, congratulations. You made me think. That's about the
| highest compliment possible on HN...
| beaconstudios wrote:
| Thanks, I'm glad I could help.
|
| FWIW sometimes I'm not sure that the people using the
| term know what it means either. They often use it but
| then the attempted solution is basically to call out
| perceived racism in individuals, which will obviously do
| nothing to help these problems. The root self
| perpetuating problem is the poverty trap, combined with
| the racial aspects of segregation and profiling.
|
| Systemic solutions would be things like investing more
| into inner city schools than the national average,
| targeted educational and entrepreneurial assistance for
| enterprising people from poor black backgrounds (I have a
| sneaking suspicion that many of the current progressive
| outreach programs are taken up by already-middle-class
| black people, which doesn't help solve the problem, but I
| hope I'm wrong) and other measures designed to provide
| ladders out of poverty to a large number of people at
| once. You basically need to provide elevated
| opportunities.
| mlthoughts2018 wrote:
| That you feel you are identifying solutions, or even a
| definition, not understood or pursued by people creating
| things like microinequity training, just reveals your
| ignorance.
|
| I think my earlier comment which you described as a "no
| u" comeback was actually really apt and crystal clearly
| accurate based on your follow-ups.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| You have not provided any evidence for this claim. And in
| fact, the very concept of "microinequity" (whatever that
| might mean) is at the opposite end of the spectrum from
| anything _systemic_.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| K
| tpoacher wrote:
| > Instead the tactics of corporate D&I seem actively
| designed to look good while not really doing anything
|
| You just described the Shirky Principle :)
| dang wrote:
| Flamewar comments and personal attacks are not cool and
| will get you banned here, regardless of how right you are
| or feel you are. Please review
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use
| HN as intended.
| arolihas wrote:
| I'm inclined to agree with you, but my sense of the
| status quo here is more libertarian than anything else.
| Might be confirmation bias.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| I think some of the older membership is libertarian. I'm
| from the UK and my impression of California politics is
| that there's a strange mix of libertarianism, liberalism
| and leftism but that all three have strong socially
| liberal characteristics.
| el-salvador wrote:
| I expect many comments here will be made using new accounts.
| subroutine wrote:
| imo hn is fairly moderate when it comes to social issues. I
| think the user base (being mostly tech/eng/stem ppl) approach
| social issues with a similar logical approach they use in
| their most aspects of their work/lives; sometimes they/we can
| be critical to a fault (but I'd take that over left/right
| political extremes any day).
|
| Am I totally off? I'm interested to hear how others would
| rate hn on a scale of 1-10 (lower = more liberal).
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Collectively, HN is more classically liberal than anything.
| There are some strong leftists and some strong
| libertarians, but generally Marx or Ayn Rand aren't
| regarded too highly. Centrist liberal enlightenment values
| are much more en vogue; think Biden, Macron, Trudeau,
| Merkel, The Economist, free markets but some government is
| useful, climate change is real. Generally anti-trumpism but
| also anti-"woke"/left.
|
| A 1-dimensional scale is missing quite a lot in terms of
| politics. But if you mean classically liberal, it's a 2 out
| of 10. If you mean US liberal-conservative politics, it's a
| 3 out of 10.
| subroutine wrote:
| I tend to agree with your assessment; 'classically
| liberal' is a good way to put it.
|
| > free markets but some government is useful, climate
| change is real, anti-trump, anti-woke.
|
| yep that describes me. However as a 'classical liberal' I
| personally like Obama's politics over Biden, Macron,
| Trudeau, and Merkel. Also I enjoy reading both Marx and
| Rand.
| [deleted]
| verdverm wrote:
| non-non-coiners should give this a read and reflect too
| vinay427 wrote:
| > The problem is that he attempted to question the ideological
| firmaments of contemporary anti-racist training. These firmaments
| are protected with aggressive viciousness precisely because they
| cannot withstand scrutiny. Had Bhattacharya merely scoffed at
| them, or even if he had been outright condescending and
| dismissive, he probably would not have received such a severe
| punishment. The problem was that he was right, and his accusers
| knew it.
|
| This line of reasoning doesn't seem logical to me, but perhaps
| someone can explain it to me. I don't see how responding with
| "aggressive viciousness" leads to a conclusion that one knows
| their position doesn't make sense and that they are in the wrong.
| This reminds me of reasoning I might associate with a children's
| playground: "you got mad when I said it, so the rumor must be
| true!"
| strangeattractr wrote:
| No that's not playground reasoning. If someone points out a
| contradiction in your reasoning and your only response is to
| label their pointing out of a contradiction 'dangerous', you
| are quite literally showcasing the hollowness of your argument.
| vinay427 wrote:
| Someone choosing to respond by labeling a contradiction as
| "dangerous" does not mean there is no proper response, and
| certainly doesn't (to me) literally showcase the hollowness
| of an argument. I genuinely don't understand this reasoning,
| which to me seems like a massive leap.
| strangeattractr wrote:
| I'd just like to clarify - you are saying their inability
| to produce a counterpoint is irrelevant to their argument
| because there might exist a possible counterpoint not yet
| articulated that validates their argument?
| vinay427 wrote:
| Essentially, yes. In other words, I wouldn't endorse
| their line of argument or discussion, but I also wouldn't
| use it to dismiss the point being argued.
| strangeattractr wrote:
| How would you dismiss points being argued if not on the
| ability of their proponents to argue them?
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| On their merits? Participants in a debate are not avatars
| of their side of the argument. One guy fails to make a
| counterpoint, ok. Doesn't mean he's wrong.
| strangeattractr wrote:
| How do you evaluate the merits of an argument?
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| Critical thinking, reasoning skills, historical and
| subject knowledge. I'm sure you could think of more
| techniques if you put your mind to it.
| strangeattractr wrote:
| No those are just tools, you evaluate an argument based
| on the chain of reasoning from premise to conclusion.
| Critical thinking is how you produce an apparent
| contradiction in an argument. Once you put this to the
| person articulating an argument, given all arguments are
| articulated by people, and they cannot provide a
| counterpoint to make the chain of reasoning logically
| sound. You have to reject that argument or else there is
| no point in arguing - there are no grounds to reject an
| argument.
|
| That it is possible there exists a potential argument
| that links the premise to the same conclusion doesn't
| save the particular argument presented. Being right for
| the wrong reasons is still being wrong.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| What one party may characterize as an "inability to
| produce a counterpoint", another party may characterize
| as "unwilling to waste time arguing with some moron who
| doesn't understand the self-evident point".
|
| There are 100 other possible explanations, but I think
| anyone can agree that not replying to every
| "counterargument" in a social setting doesn't mean that
| someone is wrong.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I think they are talking about sea-lioning
| (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning)
|
| Requiring someone to always respond fully to any
| challenge with evidence, no matter how many times the
| same points are made or how irrelevant the dispute is to
| the substance of the issue, is unreasonable.
| ihumanable wrote:
| There's that quote of disputed origin that goes "the
| absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
|
| The author of this article would like the reader to draw
| the conclusion that the Adams camp responded with
| "aggressive viciousness precisely because they cannot
| withstand scrutiny."
|
| The author could be right, could be wrong, responding
| with "aggressive viciousness" doesn't really tell you
| anything about how well someone could support their
| position, it really only tells you that the person didn't
| and instead resorted to "aggressive viciousness."
|
| Now we could infer that if you have good reasons for your
| positions you need not resort to "aggressive viciousness"
| and could instead use less aggressive non-vicious
| reasoning to support your position. Is that inference
| valid? I don't know, I don't particularly have a dog in
| the fight.
|
| If I call your mom an idiot and you say you'll knock my
| block off for doing so, I could rightly say you responded
| with "aggressive viciousness." That doesn't really
| bolster my claim that your mom is an idiot nor does it
| imply that you could not support with evidence the case
| that your mom is not an idiot. The analogy here falls a
| bit flat because something like "your mom is an idiot" is
| rather inflammatory and so a strong visceral reaction
| makes sense in that context, where in the drawn out
| academic setting that is referenced in the post there
| would be ample time to make a calm reasoned case.
|
| So should you draw the inference the author wants? That
| the actions outlined are "aggressive viciousness" and
| that they are that way because the "firmaments [...]
| cannot withstand scrutiny." That's up to you. Does it
| follow from a purely logical set of reasoning, not
| really, which to the author's credit they readily admit
| by labeling this section "Now for conjecture:"
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| No, people can be right and still be dismissive.
|
| If someone comes to me and tells me 2+2=5, and I say "no,
| dummy, get out of here", that doesn't make them right.
| Sometimes people don't want to have to deal with nonsense.
| prepend wrote:
| What if you say "2+2=5" and someone comes up and says
| "respectfully it seems 2+2 should equal 4" and rather than
| engaging in a discussion you have them kicked out of
| school, that probably means your argument is not sound and
| is not defendable.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| I agree. Being dismissive doesn't mean you're right,
| either. It would be quite foolish of me to claim
| otherwise.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| See also https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/some-principles-
| and-obs...
| mssundaram wrote:
| Thank you for that, great read
| mlthoughts2018 wrote:
| woof, more like white hot garbage
| mvzvm wrote:
| "it should fucking terrify you that a movement that's been tasked
| with addressing pressing social problems is designed in such a
| way that any substantial criticism is met with aggressive
| punishment. "
|
| Couldn't agree more. As someone very liberal that is also
| exhausted of wokeness, of the constant normalization of racism
| against whites, and against asians (as model minorities), this
| hits the nail on the head.
| lawwantsin17 wrote:
| Anyone who says something should terrify me is trying to
| terrify me and should be ignored.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| But can you accept the criticism that you just might be trying
| to silence criticism yourself?
|
| (Especially when you level charges with no proof, or use tiny
| examples as a counterweight to actually big problems. One of
| your points is valid, most are not a real thing.)
| silicon2401 wrote:
| Same; the worst about this, imo, is the duplicity and
| hypocrisy. So many people today are using the very tactics that
| they criticize: division, judgment, hatred, prejudice,
| exclusion, so on and so on
| aksss wrote:
| ...Violence
| mvzvm wrote:
| The silencing of dissenting voices
| mlthoughts2018 wrote:
| What terrifies me are the people shooting and killing asians,
| cops shooting and killing black people, white evangelicals
| choosing to believe in QAnon over vaccine science...
|
| Maybe after we get a break from widespread hate groups SHOOTING
| AND KILLING THESE PEOPLE ON A PRACTICALLY WEEKLY BASIS AT THIS
| POINT, TRYING TO LITERALLY RAM OPPOSING POLITICAL PARTY BUSES
| OFF THE ROAD, AND LITERALLY PERPETRATING INSURRECTION AGAINST
| THE CAPITOL THREE MONTHS AGO AT THE EMPHATIC BEHEST OF A
| SITTING PRESIDENT then I can crack open a cold one, sink back
| in my recliner and _merely_ be "fucking terrified" of some
| overblown depiction of over reaching in the name of political
| correctness.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Honest question: Do you think the current deplorable spate of
| attacks against Asians is being driven by wokeness?
| mc32 wrote:
| What do the FBI stats say compared to other groups. I imagine
| we have stats that will tell us what's happening. Who's
| commuting what and where.
|
| NYC has stats on these crimes. NYC is also progressive and
| yet has a lot of this kind of crime.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| You can be progressive in one place while not solving the
| big systemic issue in another.
|
| Stats are just numbers. If you police one area much more
| strongly, you will get higher numbers. Same when people in
| that area are poor, you would get more property crime.
|
| The fact that the numbers stay high point to a failure of
| policing as the correct approach. More of a failed approach
| apparently does not fix it.
| mc32 wrote:
| These are crimes reported by victims so I think it's not
| the same as buying weed or knocking a bodega and getting
| caught.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| Indeed, but even responsiveness to reporting depends on
| kind of policing, and the kind of victim. You get very
| different responses, that even not including the social
| bias for reporting certain crimes by specific people, and
| whether vigilantism is seen as the answer, or silence -
| with reporting seen as waste of time.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Does the FBI publish stats on whether the attacker was left
| or right?
| spoonjim wrote:
| Honestly: I believe that the spate of attacks against Asians
| is being spurred by the news coverage of it. The media
| created a narrative of Asian American hate crimes, which did
| exist, but the "trend" they created increased the intensity
| of it. Just like school shootings or celebrity suicides, the
| news coverage fuels more of the same.
| undoware wrote:
| What I find worrisome about this piece:
|
| 1. it at no point mentions what the fellow is actually alleged to
| have said. I'm sure I could find out with a few clicks, but
| what's up with that?
|
| 2. This is mostly an anxiety-rant about an entire political
| movement-of-movements that, for the most part, has nothing to do
| with the specifics of this anecdotal case.
|
| How is this front-page HN material? Sample size?? Connection with
| something other than ~feelings~ to leftist tendencies more
| generally? Like, IDK, this does not seem up to our normal burden-
| of-proof standards.
|
| Not to put too fine a point on it, I think _we_ are showing our
| bias, allowing mediocre content that we like here....for
| ~reasons~.... to bubble up without due scrutiny. Wisdom-of-crowds
| requires a wise crowd. I doubt ours here.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > it at no point mentions what the fellow is actually alleged
| to have said
|
| Did you not read the article? It has extensive quotes.
| unanswered wrote:
| This is HN, "don't read TFA" is rule #2.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Honestly this Bhattacharya fellow seems either monumentally
| stupid or monumentally brave. In today's left-aligned milieus
| like academia, challenging whatever is coming out of the racial
| outrage industry is like spitting on Kim Il-Sung's statue in
| Pyongyang.
| Epenthesis wrote:
| The case was filed more than 2 years ago, but I can't find any
| follow ups.
|
| Does anyone know if there have been more recent developments? t
| the very least, has UVa issued a response of any sort?
| prepend wrote:
| I found this case from March 31st. [0] UVA filed a motion to
| dismiss all four counts, judge dismissed three and refused one,
| so it's carrying forward.
|
| Seems weird that the state attorney general is defending the
| university. Is that normal?
|
| Also this was a second year med school student and the
| "professional conduct complaint" was filed by a professor. So
| these are all adults, not kids involved.
|
| [0] https://casetext.com/case/bhattacharya-v-murray
| d3nj4l wrote:
| I looked it up, and there's been a motion to dismiss that was
| partially granted, but the case is still ongoing as far as I
| can see.
| beervirus wrote:
| >[flagged]
|
| Well that's pretty on-message. Well done, thin skinned HNers.
| dgfitz wrote:
| Flagged. How predictable.
| mlthoughts2018 wrote:
| Thankfully this getting flagged is still routine. Can you
| imagine how sickening a place this would be if this kind of
| post didn't get flagged? It's horrific, yet parading around as
| if it was merely legit discourse that is snubbed unfairly by
| the left.
| the_optimist wrote:
| This is simply the best kind of humor: ambiguous parody
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| _If you attempt to engage critically with a (specific person)
| regardless of how thorough and respectful you may be....(etc etc
| -- it won 't go over well).
|
| Conversely, if you don't provide specifics, you'll be accused of
| making stuff up._
|
| This is an issue I have thought a great deal about. It isn't
| peculiar to any particular issue. I think it is a product of the
| internet age, where we can talk about and also talk with
| virtually anyone on the planet in real time.
|
| I have wrestled with this a lot because I find social stuff
| interesting. If I talk about a particular person in order to have
| a concrete example, I'm in danger of doing real harm to that
| person. If I don't cite a real world example, people may not
| believe it or may not be able to comprehend my point.
|
| One of my solutions is I talk about myself a lot. The result: I
| get accused of being a narcissist and attention monger who "makes
| everything about me."
|
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| tim333 wrote:
| >The hardest part of talking about malignant trends on the broad
| left is that, well, you're not allowed to talk about them.
|
| Personally I'm exposed to loads of talking about malignant trends
| on the broad left, or at least the woke bit. Maybe it's just who
| I follow on twitter etc but I see far more criticism of woke than
| I see actual wokeness. Titania McGrath (satire) is quite funny if
| you enjoy jokes about that.
| https://mobile.twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath
| GoodJokes wrote:
| The author also doesn't provide much insight into patterns of
| behavior either. That being said, everything that is written I
| agree with...but I also still have no faith in the full details
| of the situation.
| SkipperCat wrote:
| This whole article reads like a Kafkaeque horror story. Such a
| shame that this is what parts of the social justice movement have
| become. I say "some parts" because it is a subset. There are lots
| of people in the progressive movement who are not this crazy.
| And, in the same manner, there are conservatives who disavow
| QAnon and it ilk.
|
| Still, sadly there's too many on either side... Hopefully the
| pendulums will swing back to the center.
| tryonenow wrote:
| QAnon is fringe. Social Justice is mainstream progressivism.
| There is no QAnon equivalent to diversity and inclusion
| policy/training in industry or academia. It is not socially
| acceptable to discuss QAnon except critically. There is no
| comparison here, this is the thrust of the social justice
| movement, and even if one accepts that a minority of
| progressives believe in this sort of extremism, the unfortunate
| fact is that it is being forced into society from the top down,
| with training, quotas, "mental health," and the like.
| SkipperCat wrote:
| A majority of social justice is mainstream progressivism.
| $15/hr min wage, higher taxes on the 1%, etc. But there is a
| subset of the left which has gone nuts. This article is a
| prefect example of it. And the fringe left doesn't have to
| mirror QAnon, but if they're both espousing their own
| "truths" without the scrutiny of facts, then they're both
| wrong.
|
| Totally agree with you on your statement "There is no QAnon
| equivalent to diversity and inclusion policy/training in
| industry". The private sector is a lot more grounded than
| academia. Mostly for the better, sometimes for the worse.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-07 23:03 UTC)