4 ms·

> Perfectly-well-meaning people, while supposedly building a bright tomorrow, create hell. Just like the 1950s Czechoslovakia. University execs scared not to ca

by rdancer 11y ago

> Perfectly-well-meaning people, while supposedly building a bright tomorrow, create hell. Just like the 1950s Czechoslovakia. University execs scared not to cater to idiotic demands, public shaming, double-speak, government-sanctioned kangaroo courts. After WWII, the Czechoslovak communists were faced with the problem of replacing the management of literally the whole country's public sector, as well as the newly nationalized formerly private sector, with people loyal to the new Republic. This meant no Nazi or Western collaborators, this meant purges. A lot of good people were chewed up, some died in prison or were executed. In the universities that had been closed since shortly after the beginning of the war, the students were allowed to take over, and run the administration, and later conduct the purges. This gave tremendous responsibility to people who had no qualification, no training, no life experience; and also tremendous power to people who by bribery or false testimony leveraged the system for personal gain or revenge. These drumhead hearings were not dissimilar to the Title IX hearings that take place on the campuses today. Here also are people with inappropriate training, perjury is rampant, the verdict is swift, but can it really be called just? Read Kundera's The Joke[1] (also a 1968 movie), for a good illustration of the absurdity of it all. The protagonist sends a letter to his girlfriend with a joke regarding something or other. She finds the joke offensive, shares her concern with some of her colleagues, a hearing is called, and our protagonist finds himself kicked out of the university, and branded politically unreliable. This means he can barely get the worst of jobs, and will in fact be forced to work in a penal colony for a few years. Never having been convicted of a crime, never having been given the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. Because of a joke. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joke_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Joke_(novel)

defen 11y ago
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Since this is the internet I'll note that I'm being sarcastic, and attempting to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of such a statement, which we hear all the time when these sorts of things happen.
- gliese1337 11y ago
  Uh, yeah, actually it does. Not all consequences, but some very specific and very important ones. That's the entire legal definition of "freedom of speech"- that actions actions cannot be taken against you to restrict your freedom to say what you want, nor to punish you after the fact. When such restrictions or punishments are in place, you are not, in fact, free to speak. Now private universities, for example, not being governmental institutions, are not required by the constitution to guarantee free speech rights within their domain. But there are good reasons why that right was encoded in the constitution to limit the power of our national government, and they apply just as well to the governing bodies of universities and other private institutions.
  - dmix 11y ago
    Universities and private institutions lack the check on that power that the government has with the judicial system. So even a policy of ardent free speech in these institutions would be on weak ground without a system to accuse or appeal misjudgment by the power holders. The best system they have is public discourse... the media or internet, But modern corporate media, much like University administrators, have demonstrated to be extremely unwilling to offend anybody. They rarely take a strong stances towards freedom of speech, preferring to appease via resignations and public apologies. Additionally if Reddit is any indication the internet is not a great place for thoughtful political discussion.
- rdancer 11y ago
  I'm afraid sarcasm is often lost on our more zealous comrades.
  - gliese1337 11y ago
    sarcasm is often lost on our more zealous comrades. While this is often true, in this particular case I don't think you can blame "our comrades", regardless of zealousness, for that. This is simply not an effective deployment of sarcasm. The effectiveness of sarcasm depends on the audience's ability to discern that what you say is obviously ridiculous or otherwise at odds with what you really think. When it is not reasonable to expect that your audience can make that deduction, you have failed at using sarcasm. This is much easier to accomplish in person, where body language and vocal inflection add to your meaning, and thus sarcasm must be used more sparingly and skillfully in written media. It is also much easier when you have a well-known reputation, especially concerning the topics you wish to satirize. A relatively anonymous text-based forum such as HN is thus one of the most difficult places to effectively deploy sarcasm. In this case, the poster did not establish his true feelings ahead of time, nor engage in sufficient hyperbole to make the statement clearly ridiculous, nor even employ quotes to distance the words from his own opinion. No, he simply made a statement that is completely plausible to interpret as his genuine opinion, given how common such statements actually are. This does nothing to demonstrate the "intellectual bankruptcy" of such a statement. It's just sloppy rhetoric. If you know before you post that you're going to have to explain how you didn't really mean that, and we're supposed to take it as sarcasm, then maybe try a different rhetorical tactic, because you have already admitted failure at this one.
angersock 11y ago
well yes but was it a racist joke?
hackuser 11y ago
> These drumhead hearings were not dissimilar to the Title IX hearings that take place on the campuses today. To make such an extraordinary stretch; you need to provide some serious evidence or to redefine 'not dissimilar'. ISIL kills innocent people, the US executes innocent people, therefore, by the same definition, the two justice systems are 'not dissimilar'. But they are very dissimilar.
- rdancer 11y ago
  Let's see: An extra-judicial hearing, in front of a panel of laymen with no training, rampant perjury without consequence, guilt standard nominally preponderance of evidence — but in practice it depends because of all the above. I'd say they're more than similar, no stretching needed.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    Those are assertions, not evidence. Also, we don't know much about the thing you're comparing it to.
onnoonno 11y ago
Add to this that maybe in former times you could change places and start anew. With privacy being dead, that's not possible anymore... Chilling effects on a huge scale. Things are getting weird.

by rdancer 11y ago

defen 11y ago

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. Since this is the internet I'll note that I'm being sarcastic, and attempting to demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of such a statement, which we hear all the time when these sorts of things happen.

gliese1337 11y ago
Uh, yeah, actually it does. Not all consequences, but some very specific and very important ones. That's the entire legal definition of "freedom of speech"- that actions actions cannot be taken against you to restrict your freedom to say what you want, nor to punish you after the fact. When such restrictions or punishments are in place, you are not, in fact, free to speak. Now private universities, for example, not being governmental institutions, are not required by the constitution to guarantee free speech rights within their domain. But there are good reasons why that right was encoded in the constitution to limit the power of our national government, and they apply just as well to the governing bodies of universities and other private institutions.
- dmix 11y ago
  Universities and private institutions lack the check on that power that the government has with the judicial system. So even a policy of ardent free speech in these institutions would be on weak ground without a system to accuse or appeal misjudgment by the power holders. The best system they have is public discourse... the media or internet, But modern corporate media, much like University administrators, have demonstrated to be extremely unwilling to offend anybody. They rarely take a strong stances towards freedom of speech, preferring to appease via resignations and public apologies. Additionally if Reddit is any indication the internet is not a great place for thoughtful political discussion.
rdancer 11y ago
I'm afraid sarcasm is often lost on our more zealous comrades.
- gliese1337 11y ago
  sarcasm is often lost on our more zealous comrades. While this is often true, in this particular case I don't think you can blame "our comrades", regardless of zealousness, for that. This is simply not an effective deployment of sarcasm. The effectiveness of sarcasm depends on the audience's ability to discern that what you say is obviously ridiculous or otherwise at odds with what you really think. When it is not reasonable to expect that your audience can make that deduction, you have failed at using sarcasm. This is much easier to accomplish in person, where body language and vocal inflection add to your meaning, and thus sarcasm must be used more sparingly and skillfully in written media. It is also much easier when you have a well-known reputation, especially concerning the topics you wish to satirize. A relatively anonymous text-based forum such as HN is thus one of the most difficult places to effectively deploy sarcasm. In this case, the poster did not establish his true feelings ahead of time, nor engage in sufficient hyperbole to make the statement clearly ridiculous, nor even employ quotes to distance the words from his own opinion. No, he simply made a statement that is completely plausible to interpret as his genuine opinion, given how common such statements actually are. This does nothing to demonstrate the "intellectual bankruptcy" of such a statement. It's just sloppy rhetoric. If you know before you post that you're going to have to explain how you didn't really mean that, and we're supposed to take it as sarcasm, then maybe try a different rhetorical tactic, because you have already admitted failure at this one.

angersock 11y ago

well yes but was it a racist joke?

hackuser 11y ago

> These drumhead hearings were not dissimilar to the Title IX hearings that take place on the campuses today. To make such an extraordinary stretch; you need to provide some serious evidence or to redefine 'not dissimilar'. ISIL kills innocent people, the US executes innocent people, therefore, by the same definition, the two justice systems are 'not dissimilar'. But they are very dissimilar.

rdancer 11y ago
Let's see: An extra-judicial hearing, in front of a panel of laymen with no training, rampant perjury without consequence, guilt standard nominally preponderance of evidence — but in practice it depends because of all the above. I'd say they're more than similar, no stretching needed.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Those are assertions, not evidence. Also, we don't know much about the thing you're comparing it to.

onnoonno 11y ago

Add to this that maybe in former times you could change places and start anew. With privacy being dead, that's not possible anymore... Chilling effects on a huge scale. Things are getting weird.