6 ms·

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 r

by 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
    The extreme of both sides of this debate, as illustrated in your post and in the actions of the most egregious student complaints at Yale, lack the nuance needed to find a healthy compromise. Those subreddits are "less than agreeable" because they advocate outlandish responses to perhaps slightly less outlandish beliefs.
    - rewqfdsa 11y ago
      > Those subreddits are "less than agreeable" because they advocate outlandish responses Do they? What "outlandish responses" might those be? You're smearing by implication. What specifically do you find so "outlandish"? As far as I can tell, people making claims like yours think that creating a consistent set of rules for all, promoting free expression of all views, and countering group libel are thoughtcrimes. What's "disagreeable" is countering the idea that I might be guilty of something because of my gender and ancestry.
      - rmxt 11y ago
        I don't have to do much "smearing by implication" when the upvoted comments speak for themselves. I think there are people that do this sort of "bullying" and unproductive rabble-rousing on both sides of the debate. I personally agree with the principles of "a consistent set of rules for all, etc.," but I don't think that the road to productive debate begins with including "hate," "sucks", "fuck them", etc., as a means to evoke an emotional response. Specific instances of outlandishness: SJWsAtWork -- low comment traffic, a bit more agreeable than the rest. ThisIsNotASafeSpace -- top comment on the top all time submission, very high quality discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ThisIsNotASafeSpace/comments/3t6awz/had_an_interesting_runin_with_a/cx45az4 https://www.reddit.com/r/ThisIsNotASafeSpace/comments/3t6awz... SJSucks -- highly upvoted comment (relatively speaking) on top all time post, again, some very high quality discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/sjsucks/comments/1vs4kj/watchmen_comic_creator_alan_moore_sick_of_dealing/cevez97 https://www.reddit.com/r/sjsucks/comments/1vs4kj/watchmen_co... SJWhate -- this one speaks for itself, I hope: https://www.reddit.com/r/sjwhate/comments/3u0t33/ahmed_mohamed_demands_15m_compensation_and/cxb3i5q https://www.reddit.com/r/sjwhate/comments/3u0t33/ahmed_moham...
        rewqfdsa 11y ago
        Is that really the best you can do? > Fucking demolished Perfectly appropriate informal language that means "You won the argument convincingly" > It's sad that a bunch of raving lunatic SJWs can have this effect. Useless self-absorbed maniacs with no purpose in life but to pester those that have. Many SJWs are, in fact, saving lunatics who have no purpose in life but to heckle and protest everything > Fuck that piece of shit Very common language when talking about public figures --- and I'd be willing to bet you used similar language about Bush, or Cameron, or Harper, or anyone else on the wrong side. You're demonstrating exactly the kind of militarized hypersensitivity and craven hypocrisy that's turned colleges (and increasingly, workplaces) into zones for political indoctrination.
        rmxt 11y ago
        I'm not demanding hypersensitivity, I'm simply claiming that the path towards better debate is one where emotional invective is left off the table. If you can clearly explain why classifying people as "raving lunatics" adds insight on how to mediate the state of open ("free") college campus discourse, then I'll keep an open ear as to the value of such comments. Also, I find it hard to believe that "fuck that piece of shit" was ever acceptable as college-level discourse. In fact, I think that even high school level L-D style debate shies away from that tone and temperament. If you sincerely believe that using language that appeals to emotion, over logic and evidence, is a means to an end, then we probably will not get much further on this topic. (And I really don't see how this stance is hypocritical, or indoctrinated/pushing a doctrine in any way. It applies equally to both ends of the spectrum.)
jerf 11y ago
You might to find out who you're contemptuously dismissing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt , in particular the first few paragraphs. If you've progressed to the point where you can dismiss that guy without a thought, given his credentials and accomplishments, I submit to you that alarm bells ought to be going off in your head that you might have epistemologically closed yourself too far. I'm not saying you're obligated to agree with him. I'm saying if you can't even engage with his arguments, it may be you that has the problem. I can also recommend:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUM4akzLGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUM4akzLGE "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion"
henshao 11y ago
What in this article is "disappointing"? I'm curious.
- SHIT_TALKER 11y ago
  Calling something or someone "disappointing" or "problematic" is how these people evade enumerating arguments while still attempting to establish themselves as intellectually superior to those they are criticizing. They assume to have the correct position and condescend to anyone who demurs.
bmelton 11y ago
Not affiliated (except that I follow him on Twitter), but the author, Jonathan Haidt, is one of America's pre-eminent social psychologists. He is (or at least was) a liberal who has engaged in some very serious social psychology that gives massive insight into how people tick, especially where those ticks are related to or concerning political party affiliations. If the idea is to dismiss him as an anti-SJW, or anti-free speech, then I would posit that you're simply inclined to dismiss no matter what. If the complaint is that his work is spreading to, or being adopted by the anti-SJW crowd, that's hardly his fault. He may not be right, or he may not have done appropriate research, or he may be based (his own studies would suggest that it's inevitable that he is), but any dismissal predicated in part on that he's trolling is almost certainly knee-jerk.
- ccernaf 11y ago
  I don't doubt at all Haidt is qualified. My complaint was more to your second point, that "If the complaint is that his work is spreading to, or being adopted by the anti-SJW crowd, that's hardly his fault." I do see a problem with how one-sided the comments on the page (Heterodox Academy) are, and I do think that he should have stepped in. Then, when I came to Hacker News, I saw similar comments, and that was disheartening. My distaste really came from comments like these, on the main page: "My white male sons are now 30 and 28. I’m so happy they escaped public high school relatively unscathed, but I could see the beginnings of the nonsense, led by a faculty of activist females and male eunuchs. Public schooling in this country may have begun with noble intent; kids are now truly being inculcated rather than educated." and "You state this like it is an article of faith that women would be totally rad in STEM if only men would stop holding them back. What makes this “sketchy”? There is an abundance of evidence that men and women are different and think differently. There is almost no evidence that women will change that position based on upbringing." and then on hnews itself: "#KillAll(White)Men is literally calling for ethnic / gender purging." (though it was downvoted). It would be great to have a conversation with Dr. Haidt, but I was turned off by how both Heterodox and Hacker News turned into "amen" forums. There were two students who posted on Heterodox, and they had some interesting points, some of which disagreed with Dr. Haidt.
  - 11y ago
dibujante 11y ago
That's a logical fallacy. I could repost anything you like to a subreddit you don't like; would that change the value of the thing you like?
cthalupa 11y ago
Any sort of work should always be judged based on the actual content, not who likes it or where it has been shared. To reduce this argument to absurdity, let's say I create a recipe for pecan pie. People love it, including the people at stormfront or other white power sites. Let's say I created this recipe back in the 1920s, and it happens to be Hitler's favorite pie. Is there anything wrong with that pie? People with extreme viewpoints will often like things that are a more moderate version of their own viewpoints. Just because you don't agree with the extremists doesn't mean that you should also disagree with the moderates.

by ccernaf 11y ago

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
  The extreme of both sides of this debate, as illustrated in your post and in the actions of the most egregious student complaints at Yale, lack the nuance needed to find a healthy compromise. Those subreddits are "less than agreeable" because they advocate outlandish responses to perhaps slightly less outlandish beliefs.
  - rewqfdsa 11y ago
    > Those subreddits are "less than agreeable" because they advocate outlandish responses Do they? What "outlandish responses" might those be? You're smearing by implication. What specifically do you find so "outlandish"? As far as I can tell, people making claims like yours think that creating a consistent set of rules for all, promoting free expression of all views, and countering group libel are thoughtcrimes. What's "disagreeable" is countering the idea that I might be guilty of something because of my gender and ancestry.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      I don't have to do much "smearing by implication" when the upvoted comments speak for themselves. I think there are people that do this sort of "bullying" and unproductive rabble-rousing on both sides of the debate. I personally agree with the principles of "a consistent set of rules for all, etc.," but I don't think that the road to productive debate begins with including "hate," "sucks", "fuck them", etc., as a means to evoke an emotional response. Specific instances of outlandishness: SJWsAtWork -- low comment traffic, a bit more agreeable than the rest. ThisIsNotASafeSpace -- top comment on the top all time submission, very high quality discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ThisIsNotASafeSpace/comments/3t6awz/had_an_interesting_runin_with_a/cx45az4 https://www.reddit.com/r/ThisIsNotASafeSpace/comments/3t6awz... SJSucks -- highly upvoted comment (relatively speaking) on top all time post, again, some very high quality discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/sjsucks/comments/1vs4kj/watchmen_comic_creator_alan_moore_sick_of_dealing/cevez97 https://www.reddit.com/r/sjsucks/comments/1vs4kj/watchmen_co... SJWhate -- this one speaks for itself, I hope: https://www.reddit.com/r/sjwhate/comments/3u0t33/ahmed_mohamed_demands_15m_compensation_and/cxb3i5q https://www.reddit.com/r/sjwhate/comments/3u0t33/ahmed_moham...
      - rewqfdsa 11y ago
        Is that really the best you can do? > Fucking demolished Perfectly appropriate informal language that means "You won the argument convincingly" > It's sad that a bunch of raving lunatic SJWs can have this effect. Useless self-absorbed maniacs with no purpose in life but to pester those that have. Many SJWs are, in fact, saving lunatics who have no purpose in life but to heckle and protest everything > Fuck that piece of shit Very common language when talking about public figures --- and I'd be willing to bet you used similar language about Bush, or Cameron, or Harper, or anyone else on the wrong side. You're demonstrating exactly the kind of militarized hypersensitivity and craven hypocrisy that's turned colleges (and increasingly, workplaces) into zones for political indoctrination.
        rmxt 11y ago
        I'm not demanding hypersensitivity, I'm simply claiming that the path towards better debate is one where emotional invective is left off the table. If you can clearly explain why classifying people as "raving lunatics" adds insight on how to mediate the state of open ("free") college campus discourse, then I'll keep an open ear as to the value of such comments. Also, I find it hard to believe that "fuck that piece of shit" was ever acceptable as college-level discourse. In fact, I think that even high school level L-D style debate shies away from that tone and temperament. If you sincerely believe that using language that appeals to emotion, over logic and evidence, is a means to an end, then we probably will not get much further on this topic. (And I really don't see how this stance is hypocritical, or indoctrinated/pushing a doctrine in any way. It applies equally to both ends of the spectrum.)

jerf 11y ago

You might to find out who you're contemptuously dismissing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt , in particular the first few paragraphs. If you've progressed to the point where you can dismiss that guy without a thought, given his credentials and accomplishments, I submit to you that alarm bells ought to be going off in your head that you might have epistemologically closed yourself too far. I'm not saying you're obligated to agree with him. I'm saying if you can't even engage with his arguments, it may be you that has the problem. I can also recommend:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUM4akzLGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUM4akzLGE "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion"

henshao 11y ago

What in this article is "disappointing"? I'm curious.

SHIT_TALKER 11y ago
Calling something or someone "disappointing" or "problematic" is how these people evade enumerating arguments while still attempting to establish themselves as intellectually superior to those they are criticizing. They assume to have the correct position and condescend to anyone who demurs.

bmelton 11y ago

Not affiliated (except that I follow him on Twitter), but the author, Jonathan Haidt, is one of America's pre-eminent social psychologists. He is (or at least was) a liberal who has engaged in some very serious social psychology that gives massive insight into how people tick, especially where those ticks are related to or concerning political party affiliations. If the idea is to dismiss him as an anti-SJW, or anti-free speech, then I would posit that you're simply inclined to dismiss no matter what. If the complaint is that his work is spreading to, or being adopted by the anti-SJW crowd, that's hardly his fault. He may not be right, or he may not have done appropriate research, or he may be based (his own studies would suggest that it's inevitable that he is), but any dismissal predicated in part on that he's trolling is almost certainly knee-jerk.

ccernaf 11y ago
I don't doubt at all Haidt is qualified. My complaint was more to your second point, that "If the complaint is that his work is spreading to, or being adopted by the anti-SJW crowd, that's hardly his fault." I do see a problem with how one-sided the comments on the page (Heterodox Academy) are, and I do think that he should have stepped in. Then, when I came to Hacker News, I saw similar comments, and that was disheartening. My distaste really came from comments like these, on the main page: "My white male sons are now 30 and 28. I’m so happy they escaped public high school relatively unscathed, but I could see the beginnings of the nonsense, led by a faculty of activist females and male eunuchs. Public schooling in this country may have begun with noble intent; kids are now truly being inculcated rather than educated." and "You state this like it is an article of faith that women would be totally rad in STEM if only men would stop holding them back. What makes this “sketchy”? There is an abundance of evidence that men and women are different and think differently. There is almost no evidence that women will change that position based on upbringing." and then on hnews itself: "#KillAll(White)Men is literally calling for ethnic / gender purging." (though it was downvoted). It would be great to have a conversation with Dr. Haidt, but I was turned off by how both Heterodox and Hacker News turned into "amen" forums. There were two students who posted on Heterodox, and they had some interesting points, some of which disagreed with Dr. Haidt.
- 11y ago

dibujante 11y ago

That's a logical fallacy. I could repost anything you like to a subreddit you don't like; would that change the value of the thing you like?

cthalupa 11y ago

Any sort of work should always be judged based on the actual content, not who likes it or where it has been shared. To reduce this argument to absurdity, let's say I create a recipe for pecan pie. People love it, including the people at stormfront or other white power sites. Let's say I created this recipe back in the 1920s, and it happens to be Hitler's favorite pie. Is there anything wrong with that pie? People with extreme viewpoints will often like things that are a more moderate version of their own viewpoints. Just because you don't agree with the extremists doesn't mean that you should also disagree with the moderates.