26 ms·

The Yale Problem Begins in High School

• Nickersf 11y ago
  Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers has done some interesting research, and given many eye opening talks regarding this matter. Reading this article made my morning. It's time we step back and reevaluate the way we are raising the youth. This war on boys is wrong, and could have disastrous effects on our society in the future.
  • dudul 11y ago
    Agreed. It is baffling to me that nobody seems to seriously consider that this war on men/boys is what creates this weird and uncomfortable social dynamic. Masculinity is not something to be feared or ashamed of, teaching that is what creates dysfunctional men.
    • kod 11y ago
      No, social norms that - you're not allowed to show emotion (unless it's anger) - you must get all of your emotional needs met through first your mother, and then your girlfriend / wife are what creates dysfunctional men.
      • Retric 11y ago
        As a tall, large framed man, I often get very strong negative reactions when I am physically fit. And I mean fit not weightlifting bulk. Keeping short hair and a clean shave while swimming regularly is a very utilitarian choice, but you get even stronger negative reactions. The way out? Growing long hair transformed rather negative skin head connotations with a far more teasing Fabio. Our culture really looks down on the strong male archetype. PS: Don't believe me? Try growing a natural aka full beard.
        • thomnottom 11y ago
          As someone with a full beard, a father who wears a full beard, and several friends with full beards, what is the problem with them?
          • Retric 11y ago
            For one thing it lowers the bar before people think your indigent. Depending on industry it can often make it harder to find a job. On the whole it's generally viewed as a low status symbol. Granted this is mostly from the east coast of the US (DC). And having a styled bearded seems to make a large difference.
            • thomnottom 11y ago
              All I can say is that I and my friends in the NYC and Philly region working (mostly) in pharmaceutical and financial industries do not generally experience this. But obviously that would be anecdotal.
              • moistgorilla 11y ago
                > financial Isn't finance the place where being clean shaven is almost necessary if you want to succeed?
                • remarkEon 11y ago
                  -> almost necessary Required. I'm in graduate school right now and you won't get a call back for 2nd rounds if you have a beard. It's some sort of irrational proxy for discipline.
              • Nadya 11y ago
                This is going to sound worse than I mean it to be, but I'm not familiar with NYC. Is Philly a "hipster" region? A full (groomed) beard in SanFran will be seen completely differently than full (groomed) beard in Los Angeles. You'll fit right in with the SF hipsters but you'll be seen as a bum/idiot in LA. There is a drastic difference in perception against say.. the Dollar Beard Club [0] and "manly-men" beards. The difference in perception is a source of comedy [1]. The source of this perception difference is that people "allowed" to grow beards for work were/are typically blue-collar workers. Blue-collar work is associated with those of lesser intelligence (sorry to any hard working blue-collars out there....) while white-collar professions are seen as "more intelligent" and have typically required being clean shaven. As it follows, facial hair = blue collar worker = less intelligent. That's just how things are currently. Obviously this is changing, but more-so in "hipster" areas where people do white-collar work and grow their beards out. As the requirement/stigma against facial hair dies out. [0] https://www.dollarbeardclub.com/ https://www.dollarbeardclub.com/ [1] http://www.primalunleashed.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/10458871_10152170006550108_7588909318375872464_n.jpg http://www.primalunleashed.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/...
      • AngrySkillzz 11y ago
        It could be both; that when young men have "traditional masculinity" exposed as bullshit (which I agree with) and pulled out from under them, they have difficulty understanding themselves in a world without such a framing device.
        • ps4fanboy 11y ago
          That statement is no more ridiculous than calling femininity bullshit, why are you so hateful.
        • remarkEon 11y ago
          What is "traditional masculinity" and why is it bullshit? I ask because it seems this is going to end up as some kind of no-true-scotsman.
          • thelastguy 11y ago
            "Traditional masculinity" is the kind of masculinity that have enabled humanity to survived for millions of years. It includes traits such as: - Protecting women and children - Not crying when a tiger attack - Attacking the tiger instead, and to do so, requires - Forming a group of hunters, to go and kill that tiger, aka leadership - This also requires some amount of muscles, and aggression - because you can't kill a tiger with love and passivity - Declaring war on other men who want to rape your wife and daughter - Not wanting to, but having to fight wars against other group of men who want to rape your wife and daughter - Letting your son fight, and practice fighting with friend, so that they can defend themselves against enemies, who want to rape your wife and daughters, and... tigers, who wants to eat your wife and daughters - Also, if a tiger attacks, the brother has to save the sister, and if necessary, sacrifices himself to make sure the sister survives - Most important of all, a guy must be able to acquire resources in some form (food, woods, money, cows, etc) to provide for his family (without complaining, whining, crying, or any other emo bullshit that doesn't help him in his goal of acquiring resources) - etc. etc. You know. The traditional traits that a woman look for in a man. Obviously, as we have found out, these traits are bullshit and toxic and men MUST get rid of these traits that helped humanity survived for millions of years, because, like they said, they're all toxic.
      • FilterSweep 11y ago
        You're oversimplifying "social norms" to the point where you completely neglect the emotional outlets that males DO use. Outlets (like male-only spaces for one, or sports, for another) that have been demonized by those same people who create this generalized talking point. Many of our boys have lost that outlet. Or don't even know it exists anymore.
      • Cthulhu_ 11y ago
        And the current anti-men fad the article speaks about is only enforcing that, only extending it with "You're not allowed to have an opinion because you are a (white) (non-transsexual) (straight) man. The SJW movement isn't making the world a better place, it's trying to take political correctness to its extremes, which is its own form of oppression with the side-effects of people in certain demographics becoming afraid to speak up (see article).
      • forgottenpass 11y ago
        [...] are what creates dysfunctional men. Even if we posit what you say is true, there are no alternate expression and communication toolboxes presented as a set of life skills. The only thing society has offered are signals that society wants men to cry more, and only in the situations they're socially cued to cry. The comment you're replying to says "Masculinity is not something to be feared or ashamed of, teaching that is what creates dysfunctional men." What other impression do you expect men to get when they're told the problem with masculinity is that it's too masculine? For them to act LESS stoic? Is society going to accept with open arms an entirely new form of expression? Especially when the people who fancy themselves able to understand the problems with masculinity cue men to be more stoic while pretending to want the opposite. (The more degenerate form of it from people that get all their philosophy from blogs with Fox News levels of bullshit even has a cute little hastagh for it #MasculinitySoFragile)
        • vlehto 11y ago
          There was recent article on some big media house about transplant uterus implanted into woman. And she delivered a healthy baby. There was some hint that completely artificial uterus could be possibility in the future. The shitstorm from women was huge. "Think about the children not adopted." It's illogical argument, made for logical reasons. Young women are potential mothers, then they are mothers, and then they get to be grandmothers. That's their special value to society and their privileges are based on that capability. When someone hint's about losing that special status, women get really defensive. It's easy to joke about fragility of masculinity, when status of femininity is hard coded to bodies of women. Women talk about femininity a lot, but they have not had to really question it yet. That being said, humor seems to be so integral part of masculinity that it's only fitting to laugh about it.
• sremani 11y ago
  The Intolerance of the those crusading against Intolerance is funny until it is not.
  • lexcorvus 11y ago
    It's also a lie. Try engaging the "I'm only intolerant of intolerance" crowd on, say, climate change, abortion, or the death penalty. It takes tortuous logical contortions to frame any of these issues in terms of "intolerance," and yet you'll likely be met with vitriol nonetheless.
    • nonsenselies 11y ago
      It's even more dishonest to take all of the opinions held by individuals of some ill-defined cohort, and pretend that any inconsistencies between different individuals means that all members of the group are irrational and should be ignored.
      • brightball 11y ago
        It is dishonest but it's how political conversation has worked for a while now. 1. Create a label. 2. Demonize that label. 3. Associate people with that label. That is the extent of political conversation. You see it pop up whenever you try to have a discussion on a topic and people start lashing out at things you haven't even thought about much less discussed. They're not having a conversation with you, they've having a conversation with a caricature.
      • lexcorvus 11y ago
        ill-defined cohort The group I mentioned is precisely defined, and 100% opt-in—it's the set of all people who say "I'm only intolerant of intolerance." all members of the group are irrational and should be ignored Are you accusing me of thinking that? Because I didn't say that, and I don't think that. Reread my comment: saying "you'll likely be met with vitriol" implies that the converse—that you won't be met with vitriol—is also possible.
• mariodiana 11y ago
  > Alumni should take it into account before writing any more checks. This is the key takeaway for anyone interested in getting this nonsense to stop.
• wcummings 11y ago
  I don't think college students being involved in radical politics and protests against their school is a new trend.
  • dudul 11y ago
    But colleges buying into their craziness and lunacy is.
    • dragonwriter 11y ago
      > But colleges buying into their craziness and lunacy is. No, its not. On either left-wing or right-wing causes.
      • Cthulhu_ 11y ago
        Yes it would be. Imagine the outcry if a school hung up a sign going "No blacks allowed".
        • gph 11y ago
          Sort of like the Governor of Alabama saying exactly that on the footsteps of the University of Alabama?
  • avn2109 11y ago
    I didn't downvote you, but I think other people are because the article's central thesis is that this social phenomenon is at its core neither radical politics nor anti-school protests. Rather, the article claims that it's merely a new coat of paint on the same old gang bullying/identity politics/being mean to outsiders to increase one's own social status.
    • RodericDay 11y ago
      That's how those movements were portrayed back in the day, too.
• purplerabbit 11y ago
  Thank you so much for posting this. It articulated a lot of the angst I was feeling in college that I felt like I couldn't express without sounding insensitive or offensive.
  • fleitz 11y ago
    Sometimes it's best to be insensitive and offensive.
• zekkius 11y ago
  I find the underlying premise of this article and the claim that there is a "war on boys" absurd. It's a old argument from the same old set of people who have the same old intolerant (and dying) paradigm. Not sure why it is on HN at all as the content has nothing to do with tech...
  • dudul 11y ago
    Did you read the article? It answers your question and demonstrates that it is not a fallacy.
    • WaxProlix 11y ago
      I read the article but don't see exactly that myself (not OP) - would you be willing to pick out a few salient parts?
  • ccernaf 11y ago
    I'm pretty disappointed in the article and the comments, and how like Reddit this website is turning out to be. I'm not going to make any judgements (though I really really am), but this same article has been posted to 10 subreddits, among them such gems as: SJWsAtWork, ThisIsNotASafeSpace, sjsucks, and sjwhate.
    • realityking 11y ago
      How is the fact that the article has been posted to less than agreeable subreddits an indication of it's quality or the validity of the arguments and opinion in it?
      • rewqfdsa 11y ago
        Besides, what makes those subreddits "less than agreeable"? I think they're important. Social justice is cancer.
        • rmxt 11y ago
• jseliger 11y ago
  I've taught at two colleges and based on my (purely) anecdotal experiences and attention to the climate, I'd say that the number of students and faculty interested in stifling or censoring ideas is small but also very, very noisy. They also have no sense of humor and college administrators as a group have no sense of humor or perspective, and they're chronically worried about accusations of indifference or insensitivity (which are themselves as good as convictions). There is a strong economic and career incentive for administrators to take everything seriously and to keep their heads down as much as possible. Brew this up and one gets a majority of students who are reasonable but a small minority who drive all the discourse. I don't teach at Yale and have never taught at Yale or schools with similar cultures, so I can't speak to the environment there, but William Deresiewicz did, and his book Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life came out of that and I recommend it. His book A Jane Austen Education (http://jakeseliger.com/tag/a-jane-austen-education-how-six-novels-taught-me-about-love/ http://jakeseliger.com/tag/a-jane-austen-education-how-six-n...) is also very good, even for someone like me who does not love Jane Austen. Edit: Also, almost all of the censorship calls and nasty behavior / comments came from students on the left. Vox's "I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me" (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid) is congruent with my experiences.
  • douche 11y ago
    Yup, that parallels my experience pretty closely, as an undergraduate at an Ivy League college that was in the news recently. There might have been about a hundred people on campus that were actively interested in protesting things (what things?, all the things). For the most part, everybody else is there to go to class, learn, do their own thing, and drink too much beer on the weekends/Wednesdays/Mondays, etc. This vocal, seemingly-permanently-aggrieved small subset of the population seemed to stir up almost all of the controversy, and seemed hell-bent on ruining everybody else's good time at every opportunity. Increasingly, they seem to be succeeding; I'm glad I graduated when I did.
    • mrtron 11y ago
      This might be the first time I have seen someone from an Ivy league college not mention the name (intentionally). Why not just say X/Y/Z?
• tosseraccount 11y ago
  Look how Silicon Valley folks treated Brandon Eich when he made a donation to the majority side in a California proposition. It's not just academia where you can't speak freely.
  • dragonwriter 11y ago
    The fact that other people are free to speak against you does not mean that you can't speak freely. Free speech does not mean freedom from having your speech acts criticized (quite the opposite; it includes freedom of others to criticize your speech acts.) And, yes, it means that your speech acts may affect your ability to hold a job where you are one of the major public faces of an organization (such as its CEO) and are not capable of dealing with the PR resulting from the association of those speech acts with a public face of the corporation (the same as it would if you couldn't deal with any other PR issue affecting the corporation, even if it wasn't resulting from your speech acts.)
    • dudul 11y ago
      [Edit: the parent was edited after my comment, making it off-topic.]
    • DrJokepu 11y ago
      This is a frequently repeated argument and I find it less and less convincing. It is true that America's constitution only guarantees the congress will not abridge the freedom of speech. However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice; a right that is not codified by the constitution because it's simply irrelevant to a constitution. It seems to me that it's up to all of us to tolerate non-extreme dissenting voices, even if we disagree with them.
      • dragonwriter 11y ago
        > However, an argument could be made that in a free society there's a fundamental right to have a dissenting opinion or voice Of course, there is a fundamental right to have (and express) a dissenting opinion or voice. There is also a fundamental right to have (and express) displeasure with an opinion or voice, whether dissenting or not. And there is no fundamental entitlement to a job whose responsibilities include managing the public image of a corporation, and if you are unable to do that in the real circumstances and public image problems the corporation faces, whether or not your own speech acts are the source of that PR problem, you shouldn't expect to continue to have that job.
• lumberjack 11y ago
  These people act this way because they are elitist. They think they know what should be better than anyone else and therefore there is no need for debate or for rights like free speech. I find that quite ironic because presumably, these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. But maybe there isn't so much of a contradiction. They are simply more elitist than they are anything else. They don't really stand for equality because they do not possess the humbleness to bring themselves to the level of the common person. They believe themselves to be intellectually and morally superior to the common Joe. And yet they want to dupe the common Joe into thinking that they will safeguard his interests while at the same time thinking so poorly of him!
  • Cthulhu_ 11y ago
    > these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. Might as well call them extreme-left, which is just as bad as extreme-right and the extreme ideologies that come with it. The left / right spectrum aren't polar opposites either, but it tends to be horseshoe-shaped, so you'll find some ideas that are dangerously close to those on the other side (#KillAll(White)Men is literally calling for ethnic / gender purging. Somehow it's not causing as much as an outrage as #KillAllJews would).
    • TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
      Still recommended reading: http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians... The key takeaway isn't so much that the left/right spectrum is a horse shoe, but that in fact there are (at least) two independent axes, and authoritarian attitudes don't necessarily correspond neatly to left/right distinctions. Although the book spends a lot of time looking at authoritarians on the far right, there's an interesting and useful coda about left wing authoritarians. I've found it much more useful to ignore the traditional spectrum and look instead at the degree of scorn, hatred, support for social violence and exclusion, and/or support for direct physical violence. Non-authoritarians don't support harm of others. Even revenge is uncomfortable. Authoritarians make a point of conspicuous identification with power and authority - however defined - and reliably support verbal, social, emotional, and physical violence. Self-identified political groupings are much less relevant than tone and behaviour.
• peter303 11y ago
  Poorly written article. Title undefined until last paragraph.
• richard_mcp 11y ago
  I was originally going to lump this article in with other "men's rights movement" stuff until I saw the author was Jonathan Haidt. I had the honor to take Psyc 101 with Prof. Haidt years ago at the University of Virginia. He was a wonderful teacher who expected the best out of his students. He struck me as a very intelligent man who had put a lot of thought into both what he taught as well as his opinions. When he bring up his own beliefs in class he was very open to letting others voice dissenting opinions. More importantly, he always seemed willing to consider alternative views. I know this is all anecdotal, but I put a lot of trust in his opinions and pay attention when he says something. Unrelated, but he gave a great Ted talk in 2008 about the difference between liberals and conservatives: https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind
  • derptron 11y ago
    "I was originally going to lump this article in with other "men's rights movement" stuff" What?
    • richard_mcp 11y ago
      Normally if I read an article about the men's right movement, it ends up being slightly malicious or dismissive of other movements like feminism. I don't disagree with a lot of their points, but there often seems to be a thread of misogyny just under the surface which makes me less likely to take them seriously.
      • rewqfdsa 11y ago
        > it ends up being slightly malicious or dismissive of other movements like feminism When feminiism has become a movement against truth and against half the population, what do you expect?
        • TeMPOraL 11y ago
          Niceness, community and civilization. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/02/23/in-favor-of-niceness-co...
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• balls187 11y ago
  South Park's Stunning and Brave did a great take down on this intolerance of intolerance culture that is growing among US youth.
  • dudul 11y ago
    The whole season of South Park so far has been amazing. They've been spot on at describing the neo-fascism implemented by so called "liberals".
  • rglover 11y ago
    Came here to post this as it's hands down the most brilliant indictment of this culture I've seen to date: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXF8MIG_HQI
• bwanab 11y ago
  Prof. Haidt was also the co-author of this piece in The Atlantic Monthly: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/greg-lukianoffs-story/399359/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/greg-luk...
• at-fates-hands 11y ago
  The one thing that perplexes me more than anything is nobody ever thought free speech allows us to monitor the people who have radical ideologies and ideas that threaten our country. When you silence opposition simply because it offends somebody or some group, you lose the opportunity to monitor these people and their ideas. I want to know if there's skinheads who want to start a race war or the black panther party leader who advocates violence against non-whites. Sure it's offensive to me, but I want to KNOW these people are out there and know what they're thinking.
  • CM30 11y ago
    This is one of the reason governments and police forces aren't trying to complete wipe terrorists groups and extremists off the internet. Because if their posts are publically viewable, then it's easier to watch what they're up to and stop anything dangerous occurring as a result. If they take them down, then these people simply go 'underground' and becomes it a lot more difficult to check whether they're planning anything. Of course, there's also a downside (that a certain few people might be inspired or encouraged by extremist content they see online), but it's better for security to let such people give themselves away before anything can happen.
  • pasquinelli 11y ago
    "The one thing that perplexes me more than anything is nobody ever thought free speech allows us to monitor the people who have radical ideologies and ideas that threaten our country." you really are perplexed if you think no one's ever thought of that. i remember john stossel making that case, oh, 15 years ago. i'm sure it wasn't an original thought then either.
• ossreality 11y ago
  I love that this side never gets flagged off the front page. I also love that there is absolutely no mention of the content that led to a student asking if the content was meant to excuse rape. Boy gee, I sure wonder why that was left out. And holy shit do I love that every single last person I've seen whining about safe spaces have been straight white men that have never had to seek out such a space in the entire god damn lives.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• holmak 11y ago
  The concept presented here of "seeking justice by appeal to the majority" reminds me of the Twitter phenomenon in which people learned that the only way to get customer service from Google/Ubisoft/Bank of America/(insert giant faceless company) was to tweet a grievance publicly. It seems to work well, at least in a few high-profile cases. At least, it worked a few times when private requests failed. Perhaps people are learning by example? The old-fashioned ("culture of honor/dignity"?) style of one-on-one negotiation is often futile when you are dealing with a company.
  • CM30 11y ago
    Well yes, they're learning by example. People are getting fired or ostracised by mobs on sites like Twitter based on things like this. It's an unfortunate pattern where instead of countering arguments or having a debate, a lot of people (especially in these SJW groups) tend to try and destroy someone's livelihood instead. And because a lot of companies seem to care more about their 'reputation' then any sort of principles, you end up in a situation where people are too scared to talk out in case a social media mob destroys their life.
    • thelastguy 11y ago
      It's the classic witch hunt mob. Girl A: I like apples. Girl B: I don't like what you're saying. Hey everybody, she's a witch! Mob deals out punishment. You can clearly see that the mob is being played, being used like a pawn, by Girl B. The mob doesn't actually benefit form this. Girl B benefits from this because she got rid of her competitor. The same way those students protesting are being used by the person at the top. The students don't actually benefits. Meanwhile, the person calling the mob to action is actually the person that benefits (law suit settlement, patronage, donations, government funding, etc).
• alexandercrohde 11y ago
  Thank you for posting this article. I've often felt the "walking on eggshells" phenomenon you describe, but I've never even felt able to call it out without risking being labeled an "enemy" of a cause. Seems you found a great way to do so.
• econnors 11y ago
  As a student at Dartmouth, I find this article to be extremely accurate and representative of the culture I've encountered amongst the protests here and (through conversations with friends) at other places across the country. As a white male, my friends and I are too intimidated by the Black Lives Matter protesters and their actions to try to initiate any sort of discussion on the matter in fear that we'll only provoke more anger and protest.
  • flopto 11y ago
    If people are angry about X and you go up to them and try to tell them how much you like/support X, isn't that what you'd expect? To make people want to engage you in a thoughtful discussion, it's important to demonstrate humility and open-mindedness to their opinions.
    • troisx 11y ago
      I'd say that the BLM people have almost no humility or open-mindedness.
    • remarkEon 11y ago
      I recently tried to engage a BLM protester about the issues, hoping to have a thoughtful discussion about some policies and ways forward to improve the situation. 3 paragraphs latter, I was being told that my white privilege should exclude me from even participating in the discussion, let alone informing decisions about policy - ostensibly because I do not have a shared experience of discrimination. Disclaimer: I'm a white male from the midwest.
• aikah 11y ago
  An excellent article. I hope people actually read it instead of dismissing it because someone influential on twitter doesn't like the fact that it doesn't fit a specific narrative. I'm glad academia is starting to wake up on that very specific issue. Good luck to its author, he is going to need it, because some people will be out eager to destroy his career.
• coreyp_1 11y ago
  This directly relates to us in tech. Specifically, there is a huge push to reach out to women and girls in CS. I am not opposed to females in CS at all. I will encourage males and females alike to pursue it, because I see CS as the great equalizer; the only thing that matters is what you produce. What I can't stand are these "Women in technology" conferences and workshops to "close the (gender) gap". Why? Because if you focus on one group, then you are actively not focusing on another. Given the dichotomy defined by their stated purpose, they are actively dismissive of men (boys). That is wrong. I don't care about the men/women ratio. People will choose whatever path they enjoy and want to work at. I do care very strongly, though, about treating people equally. If I say this publically, then I, too, will be ostracized. That is why this article is so very important!
  • chrisdbaldwin 11y ago
    Look into the gender paradox.
  • bobwise 11y ago
    Do "Women in Tech" conferences and workshops help to close the gender gap by actively working against the legacy of a male-dominated industry, the same way affirmative action works against the historical disadvantage of minorities?
  • vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    I see CS as the great equalizer; the only thing that matters is what you produce. Say's law does not apply to CS, which is largely a demand-side field with strictly ordinal utility functions and evaluation criteria that are not necessarily technical. As such, what you produce is not innately "the great equalizer".
    • coreyp_1 11y ago
      I'm not referencing Say's law. I'm referring to the very real phenomenon that I experienced as a freelancer, in which nobody cared to know anything about me other than whether or not I could get the job done. It was about skill. And, since many of my jobs were entirely remote, I assume that they never knew my gender (or whether or not I was wearing pants on Friday, but that is another discussion). In the Open Source community, most interactions are online through forums, issue queues, etc. Gender is rarely implied. In this situation, all that matters is what you produce. In academia, publishing does not rely on gender. Many times, the reviews of your work are double-blind, so that there is no identifying information at all. Therefore, I stand behind my statement, that CS is the great equalizer, and the only thing that matters is what you produce.
• daveguy 11y ago
  It is strange to me that the SJW-callers seem to be the most vocal and active group trying to bend speech and criticism to their own idea of "right".
• guelo 11y ago
  All you white men are so upset that you can't offend people anymore without being told to fuck off. Boo hoo.
• lanny 11y ago
  While I agree with most of the article, the author tries to politicize it at points, which I think is a mistake. This is not an issue of liberals trying to silence opposition, indeed when we see the most vehement efforts at shaming differing views the language is not ideological but personal: "X was hurtful" "He/she felt threatened". I'm a true blue leftist not long out of a famously liberal liberal university and I would have raised my hands on the eggshells questions. I vividly recall a student proposing a test on candidates' general positions at polls and being literally shouted down before he could finish speaking. Despite its ugly history in the US it's not of liberals vs conservatives, at least not in the way we use those terms in the US. We have a problem with limiting discourse in schools but trying to shoehorn it into the usual political framework frankly alienates those of us in the left who are having to choose between apologizing for zealots on our side of the spectrum or aligning with groups that seem to inevitably take on repulsive undertones of intolerance and a whole other host of positions that have nothing to do with our own beyond being marginalized by the same extremely vocal group.
• genericresponse 11y ago
  Just for everyone's awareness, there is a broad astroturf and professional political push that has been happening for over a year by FIRE, a right leaning think tank. This is a concerted effort to bring controversy around campus free speech into the news. My perception is that this is an effort to weaken student's ability to speak freely, but is coded as a "free speech" issue. Similar to how many churches coded marriage equality as trampling on their freedom of religion. Just to remind everyone how free speech works: You are free to say whatever you want. I am free to choose to speak out against you or even pull my support from you if I disagree with what you say. My freedom extends to let me voice my opposition to you just as loudly as you voice your opinions. That is not censorship.
  • marknutter 11y ago
    Ah, so it's a conspiracy. Gotcha.
  • Jtsummers 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Individual_Rights_in_Education#Public_universities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_for_Individual_Righ... A summary of some of the universities and cases they've dealt with. They seem to be fitting their self-described role of a civil liberties group more than your ascribed role as a "right leaning think tank". Civil libertarians fit on both ends of the traditional right/left spectrum, see the ACLU for another group that ends up (not always, but at least on many issues) on both sides of the left/right spectrum in an effort to defend civil liberties.
  • nerfhammer 11y ago
    I don't think Jonathan Haidt is an astroturfer.
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  • blhack 11y ago
    >FIRE, a right leaning think tank. Okay, I am sorry for the language, but this is absolute horseshit. They're a civil liberties advocacy group, similar to the EFF, or the ACLU. Here is a talk given by Steven Pinker about FIRE, what they do, and why freedom of speech is important: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdFI6Sda0k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcdFI6Sda0k
• Aqueous 11y ago
  as long the definition of the word 'safety' has been expanded to include removing any risk of emotional distress from day-to-day life, we might as well call the current campus climate 'unsafe' for anyone who doesn't hold the prevailing views. i know i certainly didn't feel 'safe' to express the occasional disagreement with the majority opinion while at wesleyan, even though i was 99% in agreement with those prevailing views. i felt paranoid about (either accidentally or deliberately) saying the wrong thing and therefore provoking mob justice. 'walking on eggshells' was an understatement. that paranoia felt more than justified when people who had expressed contrary opinions were the subject of campus-wide mockery, derision, and ostracism. being reflexively deferential to every conceivable sensitivity causes us to disproportionately look out for the safety of some at the expense of the overall atmosphere of civility, dignity, respect, and yes, 'safety,' of the campus. it really hit home when recently Wesleyan's campus newspaper lost a good portion of its funding because it dared to publish an op-ed criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement on effectiveness grounds [1]. After all, students no longer felt "safe" knowingly attending the same school as someone who disagrees with them (rightly or wrongly). i am completely embarrassed. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-is-flunking-out-on-college-campuses/2015/10/22/124e7cd2-78f5-11e5-b9c1-f03c48c96ac2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-speech-is-flunk...
• waylandsmithers 11y ago
  This drove me out of the humanities completely when I was in college. The topic of discussion in a class freshman year was whether natural selection still or ever applied to humans. I said no, because decisions on how many kids you have tends to vary from culture to culture, and I mentioned specifically Catholicism and the 1 child law in China. And I was called racist. Never got accused of being racist in Calc.
  • GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
    What does the 'one child' law have to do with natural selection, and how does your answer relate to the prior 50 years of life in China.
• ericjang 11y ago
  Meta: In the last few weeks I've noticed that articles about the recent college protests trending up on HN, only to be flagged and vanish. I'm struggling to understand why these articles should be flagged and removed, rather than downvoted or debated in the comments. Thoughts?
• obrero 11y ago
  It's difficult for me to twist my head around this as I plow through it. "The Yale problem" - like most people of the world, I can't conceived of what a Yale problem is, other than that Yale attendees are too privileged. Apparently the author feels they're not privileged enough. I'll get to that...our victims, according to the author, are heirs who go to presumably some $40,000 a year high school, "an elite private high school". Then he goes on "I had a conversation with some boys who attend one of the nation’s top prep schools, in New England. They reported the same thing: as white males, they are constantly on eggshells". Oh the humanity! Born to the manor white boys can't hear this sleazebags speech, the response to which were according to him "so you think rape is OK?" The people who put these teachers in are the parents. Because they don't want their kids who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths to be complete insufferable brats incapable of holding together the family dynasty. The attitude of most people in the world (including myself) is those of the Bolshevik soldiers who emptied their guns into the Tsar and his family. This is what we think of these parasites. This guy is doing battle against the last modicums of self-restraint this class of people have imposed on themselves. I also see the majority of HN is going for this born to the manor white boy as victim turn. Well, most of the founders like Gates, Zuckerberg, Systrom etc. went to these elite private prep schools, we're just the programmers slogging dozens of hours a week of work to enrich them and their investors. And the horrors they had to hear someone talk about the rights of women, and blacks and such back in their school days. These things turn around, thank god. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood, and hopefully I will still be alive to witness that.
  • ps4fanboy 11y ago
    Are you suggesting that people should be marginalized because they are white and male? How is this not hate speech?
• matthewowen 11y ago
  I have extremely mixed feelings about all of this. On the one hand, I think the whole point of university is debate, discourse, critical thought. The apparent trend away from liberalism is very distressing. On the other, I sympathize with the notion that liberalism can often be a way for the privileged to entrench their privilege, and that unprivileged voices don't benefit from it equally. If you're black and you believe that black americans are owed reparations, you probably can't say that freely without expecting some negative repercussions in your future life: you'll be judged and categorized, marked as "uppity". Liberalism doesn't exist in a vacuum: we have to take into account other societal truths when we're evaluating its effects. I don't have a great handle on how to reconcile all of this.
• leroy_masochist 11y ago
  For a while now I've thought that 4-year residential college is a dying model. Here's how I view the value proposition of college and how it is being replaced by tech: * Validation of raw talent by a third party (admissions office) --> can be done by technology today in ways impossible 10 years ago and hard to imagine 30 years ago * Socialization around other people in the top decile (or higher) of book-smarts --> can largely be done by online communities (not a full replacement for interpersonal interaction but better than what was available before) * Access to top-tier employers who didn't have time to look through every candidate out there, so economized their recruiting efforts at places where smart young people are concentrated --> this model made largely obsolete by internet * Access to lots of obscure books at college library --> made completely obsolete by internet * Access to great lectures --> made obsolete by internet / MOOCs * Access to a diversity of opinions, the exposure to which will make you a better and more informed person --> these days only applicable if you come from a very sheltered conservative background....otherwise college just reinforces existing biases If I had to choose between two candidates with the same proficiency in a testable skill set (JavaScript, GAAP accounting, laying brick, whatever else), at this point I'd probably prefer someone who spent four years working on a fishing boat, or trying to make it as a musician, or on a church mission, or hiking the PCT / CDT / AT, or in the Marines, or something else challenging, over someone who went to an elite undergrad institution. They just seem more and more like indoctrination mills that crank out entitled little whiners. //grumpy old man rant over
  • enjo 11y ago
    If I had to choose between two candidates with the same proficiency in a testable skill set (JavaScript, GAAP accounting, laying brick, whatever else), at this point I'd probably prefer someone who spent four years working on a fishing boat, or trying to make it as a musician, or on a church mission, or hiking the PCT / CDT / AT, or in the Marines, or something else challenging, over someone who went to an elite undergrad institution. I reach the exact opposite conclusion. Give me a student who has spent four years learning how to learn. Someone who has had forced exposure to a whole lot of different disciplines. Who was forced to study things they don't much care about, because the value in doing so is so high. Spending four years pursuing a passion, or working on a boat.. is.. great I suppose. But a well-rounded college graduate is something the tech crowd really doesn't value enough these days.
• ps4fanboy 11y ago
  HN suffers from this problem, and I have found it increasing over time. Sometimes I am afraid to upvote certain stories or comments as I fear the hidden moderators can see what people are voting on and punish them accordingly. I know that this is irrational but still those feelings creep in. Every time the hate mob takes someone down professionally and the more ridiculous the circumstances the more people self censor. The silent majority is the biggest political and social problem of our time. People forget that far left political movements have been just as bloody and hateful as far right. This stuff is dangerous.
  • untilHellbanned 11y ago
    very important comment. Should get more notice.
  • siberianbear 11y ago
    Actually, as soon as I saw the original post, I wanted to say exactly what you said. (and actually, I didn't because I know that HN is mostly a politically-correct crowd) HN does suffer from leaning to a 'politically correct' narrative. As a technologist, I absolutely love debates about (for instance) whether a startup should adopt Scheme or Haskell as a competitive advantage. But any kind of debate that veers off the liberal politically-correct agenda on HN gets downvoted or hellbanned into oblivion. What you've said is absolutely true: "The silent majority is the biggest political and social problem of our time." HN, despite its enormous contribution to Silicon Valley, is a blue-pill population. Kudos to you for saying it. The emperor wears no clothes.
  • steve-howard 11y ago
    I've never liked appeals to a "silent majority" because it groups everyone who doesn't make their voice heard into a vague group that's assumed to be on the same page. I'm generally silent on these issues, for example, but my stance isn't as simple as "I disagree with those stupid college kids" or "all of you people are so privileged and ignorant." You definitely got at the thrust of the issue, though. I don't really want to present an opinion that's going to trigger an avalanche of hate that might not even relate to what I'm saying. I don't post the vast majority of the comments I start typing.
• thegayngler 11y ago
  I guess you could argue the up/down voting on this forum is a question of group think or bulling type of behavior.
  • thelastguy 11y ago
    It's a type of group think. BUT, it is NOT a type of bullying. Bullying requires that people shame/harass/doxx the op. Which they do not. Compare to the universities, where students bullies other administrators to fire other administrators for defending freedom of speech.
• msie 11y ago
  I liked the following comment. The speaker himself is probably biased as to what happened to him: As a student of ‘centerville high school’ as well, I can assure you this comment is completely true. While multiple questions were phrased as attacks towards Haidt personally, many of them were completely rational. In response to one question (about his annoyance towards people who are pushing women to be in more stem positions) he stated a very vague position on how women, no matter their environmental conditions in childhood, are still predisposed to not be in stem positions (genetically). This was not the only ‘sketchy’ point he made. The question about his condoning of rape, while completely unnecessary, was founded on his insensitivity towards the subject (which continued into many subjects, including race and gender). His careful picking of data allowed his points to made clearly and succinctly in his mind. Questions that were too long or that had follow ups were completely ignored. In response to one of the first (albeit angry and unnecessary) questions, Haidt’s response was to tell the audience that in order to fully look at an argument, one had to look at both sides, something I (as someone who did believe in a large amount of what Haidt was saying) had to scoff at. His entire argument was founded on the idea that everyone being free to say whatever they want is the best thing possible for American schools, while being politically correct in all scenarios is the worst thing possible for American schools. Obviously there are positive and negative aspects to both. This completely contradicts his belief to look at both sides of an argument dispassionately, not to mention being hard, as students who do care about their education, to listen to. Haidt’s talk was difficult to listen to. Even though I believe in almost all of his points (despite being part of many, although not all, of the minority groups mentioned) his inability to speak to us effectively (in a way that didn’t seem like he condoned rape) made it so that his argument was not relayed to us clearly. His blatant misunderstanding of his audience put him in the position to be attacked. One can say that he did that on purpose, to prove his point about shaking those who do walk on eggshells. But that doesn’t work. Telling defensive people their wrong doesn’t work. Sorry.
• 1812Overture 11y ago
  One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention is that this sort of walking on eggshells culture tends to build higher walls around the privileged and powerful group. How often do you think these privileged rich white boys go on to become employers and refuse to higher someone from an out group (consciously or unconsciously) due to fear that the slightest misinterpreted off hand remark could bring hell down on them, but if they hire the other privileged white guy they can comfortably be themselves without risk. I think even if you have the most leftist SJW views and objectives, you have to see this as counter productive.
  • vlehto 11y ago
    I'm pretty sure some leftist SJW really can't see this as counter productive. It's not just employment, this shit cuts through everything. I can't imagine how this crowd could side with the white supremacists knowingly. But then there is Slavoj Zizek, who agrees with you and me. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nd6rg http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2nd6rg
• eecks 11y ago
  Does this stuff happen outside of America? It's all very crazy.
• erikpukinskis 11y ago
  There's nothing wrong with what is being said here. Except that there are just as many "climate" issues that woman and people of color have to face, if not more. This person is cherry-picking discussions about race and gender and saying "it's horrible that climate issues are making it difficult for these white/male students from participating" but the same level of outcry doesn't exist even though in almost every other field you can say the same kind of thing: "it's horrible that climate issues in computer science are making it difficult for these students of color" and the same people are silent. And I realize I am doing a form of derailing right now, because the matter at hand is white boys being heard. But we're actually talking about white boys being heard during advanced discussions of race and gender. And honestly I feel a little bit the same about it that I feel about girls being heard during advanced discussions of parallel CPU architectures. I wish there were more women who were in those discussions, but I don't think the solution is "just let them participate even if what they say is totally ignorant". Frankly, most white boys are not skilled enough to participate in discussions about race and gender. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with them, the pipeline is just letting us down completely. Most of us get almost no education in race and gender, while girls and people of color get it for free just because of their gender or race. The solution in my mind is the same as the solution to getting more women and other disenfranchised groups into computer science. Everyone just needs to take a little bit of responsibility for the part of the pipeline that's one step upstream from them. You can't just have boys who have never thought about what colonialism actually feels like diving right into university-level gender politics classes. But as a university professor I think you can support summer programs for teenage boys to help them do really basic level gender analysis stuff so that when they do get to college, they can actually participate meaningfully with the girls, and not be seen as second-class citizens just because they have less direct experience. We shouldn't think of these boys as "bad gender theorists" we need to broaden our understanding of what gender theory is, and make sure we are creating opportunities for disenfranchised novices to get involved. But this naive affirmative action approach OP is advocating, of "just make sure the boys participate equally" is not taking the problem seriously. Proper affirmative action requires you to get in and take responsibility for your recruitment process and the social issues surrounding it.
  • vlehto 11y ago
• l33tbro 11y ago
  My stock retort always is "Well, I find your narrow-mindedness offensive". Questions, logical and calmly asked, also swiftly dismantle those flapping on about misplaced social concerns. Almost feel sorry for them, like these views are thinly-veiled insecurities about some aspect of themselves or trauma experienced.
• thucydides 11y ago
  This article Haidt links on the sociology of the new culture of victimhood is very insightful: http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-from/ http://righteousmind.com/where-microaggressions-really-come-...
• z3t4 11y ago
  The problem is that this also goes on in adulthood and even in board meetings. Even if you have the majority on your side they will sit quietly and watch you take a beating! Then think about what happens if you try to have a discussion about something that is not "politically correct". The problem with not allowing discussion about extreme topics is that the extremists will end up only discussing among themselves. And that's where it can become dangerous.
• pedro_delfino 11y ago
  Great post. We have the same thing in Brazil. But I am unsure with this problem really starts in high school. Actually, I think this problem starts on Facebook...