4 ms·

"It is simply incredible to see anyone criticized for having a strong commitment to the freedom of speech." That's because you ignored the word "ideal". It's n

by gozo 11y ago

"It is simply incredible to see anyone criticized for having a strong commitment to the freedom of speech." That's because you ignored the word "ideal". It's not saying he can't have a commitment to freedom of speech. It's saying that he can't excuse not taking the students concern seriously because of it. Just because I like to promote e.g. human rights doesn't mean it's appropriate to troll every military thread on HN about it. Anyone can hold stubborn views and it's fine to do so, unless it's actually your job to takes peoples concerns seriously. > When students tried to tell him about their painful personal experiences as students of color on campus, he responded by making more arguments for free speech. It’s unacceptable when the Master of your college is dismissive of your experiences. [...] We are supposed to feel encouraged to go to our Master and Associate Master with our concerns and feel that our opinions will be respected and heard. [...] He seems to lack the ability, quite frankly, to put aside his opinions long enough to listen to the very real hurt that the community feels. He doesn’t get it. And I don’t want to debate. Cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ayaleherald.com%2Fop-eds%2Fhurt-at-home%2F&oq=cache%3Ayaleherald.com%2Fop-eds%2Fhurt-at-home%2F&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.976j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ayaleh... It's almost never about opinions in these cases, but about trust. If you're unrelenting now, what says you want be that when I have some other concern?

nosuchthing 11y ago
And I don’t want to debate. The sickening part of political discourse is how often people will eagerly explain their beliefs without any willingness to listen, investigate, or understand other perspectives.
- zyxley 11y ago
  In the particular context given, it seems more like an attempt to say "I will not submit to sealioning under the flag of reasoned debate". Mind you, that's not saying that the perception of sealioning is necessarily correct, but it certainly reads to me like the perception is there.
  - ryandrake 11y ago
    I was not familiar with the term "sealioning" until I looked it up[1]. Frankly it sounds like an name you call your opponent when your not-so-well-thought-out ideas can't withstand debate or criticism. A: I think the moon is made of cheese. B: Why do you think that? Do you know of any evidence? A: Sea-lioning! I will not debate you!! 1: http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/
    - zyxley 11y ago
      It may not apply in this case, but it's absolutely a real thing. It's a method used by a lot of "polite" internet harrassment and forum trolls, for example, by demanding that people re-justify themselves on things that have already been discussed to death. An example in practice is the talk page for Gamergate on Wikipedia, where organized brigades of trolls spent so much time re-asking the same questions over and over that at least for a while (I haven't checked if it's still the case) the mods there started topic-banning anyone who posted something already answered in the FAQ on the page.
      - 13thLetter 11y ago
        > It may not apply in this case, but it's absolutely a real thing. No, it really isn't. Here's the real backstory of "sealioning": Group A made some assertions. Group B refused to accept their assertions. Group A decided that what was called for was yet another in a long list of mechanisms for dismissing and invalidating criticism. And here we are. You can't just wave a hand, or a rhetorical gimmick lifted from a webcomic, and make your critics go away. They will never go away. There are still people who think that the earth is flat or that vaccines cause autism or that GMOs are dangerous. If you hurl abuse at them and find tricks like the "sealioning" accusation to dismiss them, you're just sinking below their level and making them look like the rational ones. A better policy: let the fools ask their foolish questions. If you are right, you have nothing to fear, and all the fools will accomplish is inadvertently help you educate the onlookers.
  - hsod 11y ago
lloyddobbler 11y ago
> We are supposed to feel encouraged to go to our Master and Associate Master with our concerns and feel that our opinions will be respected and heard. What's missing: "Respected and heard" does not necessarily equate to "agreed with." It seems more like these students are pissed that the Master is not agreeing with them, but instead is respecting and hearing their opinions while agreeing to disagree.

by gozo 11y ago

nosuchthing 11y ago

And I don’t want to debate. The sickening part of political discourse is how often people will eagerly explain their beliefs without any willingness to listen, investigate, or understand other perspectives.

zyxley 11y ago
In the particular context given, it seems more like an attempt to say "I will not submit to sealioning under the flag of reasoned debate". Mind you, that's not saying that the perception of sealioning is necessarily correct, but it certainly reads to me like the perception is there.
- ryandrake 11y ago
  I was not familiar with the term "sealioning" until I looked it up[1]. Frankly it sounds like an name you call your opponent when your not-so-well-thought-out ideas can't withstand debate or criticism. A: I think the moon is made of cheese. B: Why do you think that? Do you know of any evidence? A: Sea-lioning! I will not debate you!! 1: http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/ http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/
  - zyxley 11y ago
    It may not apply in this case, but it's absolutely a real thing. It's a method used by a lot of "polite" internet harrassment and forum trolls, for example, by demanding that people re-justify themselves on things that have already been discussed to death. An example in practice is the talk page for Gamergate on Wikipedia, where organized brigades of trolls spent so much time re-asking the same questions over and over that at least for a while (I haven't checked if it's still the case) the mods there started topic-banning anyone who posted something already answered in the FAQ on the page.
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      > It may not apply in this case, but it's absolutely a real thing. No, it really isn't. Here's the real backstory of "sealioning": Group A made some assertions. Group B refused to accept their assertions. Group A decided that what was called for was yet another in a long list of mechanisms for dismissing and invalidating criticism. And here we are. You can't just wave a hand, or a rhetorical gimmick lifted from a webcomic, and make your critics go away. They will never go away. There are still people who think that the earth is flat or that vaccines cause autism or that GMOs are dangerous. If you hurl abuse at them and find tricks like the "sealioning" accusation to dismiss them, you're just sinking below their level and making them look like the rational ones. A better policy: let the fools ask their foolish questions. If you are right, you have nothing to fear, and all the fools will accomplish is inadvertently help you educate the onlookers.
- hsod 11y ago

lloyddobbler 11y ago

> We are supposed to feel encouraged to go to our Master and Associate Master with our concerns and feel that our opinions will be respected and heard. What's missing: "Respected and heard" does not necessarily equate to "agreed with." It seems more like these students are pissed that the Master is not agreeing with them, but instead is respecting and hearing their opinions while agreeing to disagree.