4 ms·

Counterpoint: say you had been admitted to Harvard and were coming from Mexico, or were the victim of a sexual assault during high school. How would you feel if

Counterpoint: say you had been admitted to Harvard and were coming from Mexico, or were the victim of a sexual assault during high school. How would you feel if you found out that your new classmates had been sharing racist images, or memes about the abuse of children? What if one of those students had been placed as your freshman roommate? > College is the time to not only learn new ideas, but also to un-learn things that you may have learned in a toxic environment. Despite my counterpoint above, you are of course right. I knew of one very aggressive student at Harvard who went around putting posters up of dead fetuses to protest abortion and was against gay marriage - his family was extremely right wing, and that's what he was brought up to believe. Now he's out of the closet, living in SF, and is one of the most liberal people I know. That story may sound clichéd, but I promise you it's true. But at the same time, there must be a line drawn somewhere, surely? If I write an extremely offensive admissions essay claiming immigrants are sub-human I shouldn't expect to be admitted.

misterbowfinger 9y ago
But at the same time, there must be a line drawn somewhere, surely? Yes - it's fully reasonable for Harvard to rescind admission for someone who's a convicted felon, for example. But posting offensive memes on the internet isn't illegal. Saying racist/sexist things isn't illegal. It's certainly something to have a conversation about, but not to totally alter their future. If I write an extremely offensive admissions essay claiming immigrants are sub-human I shouldn't expect to be admitted. Absolutely! And if that is your submission to Harvard, that is entirely fair. I just don't think memes in a private Facebook group is something that you put up as your submission. Again, it's one thing if Harvard warned them, and they held their ground. It's another thing entirely to do it without warning, or a chance to explain themselves.
- fao_ 9y ago
  > or a chance to explain themselves. You imply that media condoning racism, and sexual violence can be justified.
  - nyolfen 9y ago
    not necessarily; terms are fluid, words mean different things in different contexts.
  - julianmarq 9y ago
    > You imply that media condoning racism, and sexual violence can be justified. You imply that sharing memes in a private group is equivalent to a KKK meeting or actual sexual assault.
    - fao_ 9y ago
      In these cases, condoning them creates and contributes to an environment in which they are acceptable. The only way we are going to remove sexual assault and racism from the world is for every one to understand that these things are never acceptable in any context. Thus, while not equivalent, allowing it to be condoned in private groups is directly contrary to our goals as a society. Bear in mind that this argument is not intended as an argument for "thoughtcrimes" to be made illegal, it is made as an argument for creating and encouraging strict rules against this behaviour in privately-owned spaces. Facebook is not a 'public space', they just choose to give you those rights.
      - julianmarq 9y ago
        > In these cases, condoning them creates and contributes to an environment in which they are acceptable. No, it doesn't, and you literally have no ground to make this argument. You're welcome to try linking "research" that supposedly suggests "this something or other" and then I'll be happy to point out how they don't actually make your case, if you wish. > The only way we are going to remove sexual assault and racism from the world is for every one to understand that these things are never acceptable in any context. And yet none of these students committed a hate crime or assaulted anyone. It's almost as if thought policing were useless and someone who's evil will do horrible things because they want to and not because "something something bad environment", just like a good person (the overwhelming majority, thankfully) won't do them, no matter the context. And, guess what, your country has come a long way from the segregation of the 60s without needing to ban jokes. And nothing says this trend won't continue. Of course, the regressive left and the reactionary right are trying their damnedest to put setbacks or even make you walk back, but let's hope they're just noise that will die out eventually. > Thus, while not equivalent, allowing it to be condoned in private groups is directly contrary to our goals as a society. No, it isn't. Happiness isn't and shouldn't be mandatory. You're free to call someone out or leave if someone makes a joke you don't like, you don't get to tell them to not make it. > Bear in mind that this argument is not intended as an argument for "thoughtcrimes" to be made illegal Yes it is, but your rationalization isn't the worst I've read. Still incorrect, obviously.
julianmarq 9y ago
> Counterpoint: say you had been admitted to Harvard and were coming from Mexico, or were the victim of a sexual assault during high school. How would you feel if you found out that your new classmates had been sharing racist images, or memes about the abuse of children? What if one of those students had been placed as your freshman roommate? As a gay person who has suffered quite a bit of discrimination and bullying from other people and who hails from a different Latin American country I advise you to stop being offended on behalf of other people. Nobody needs this patronizing attitude. It literally helps nobody.

misterbowfinger 9y ago

But at the same time, there must be a line drawn somewhere, surely? Yes - it's fully reasonable for Harvard to rescind admission for someone who's a convicted felon, for example. But posting offensive memes on the internet isn't illegal. Saying racist/sexist things isn't illegal. It's certainly something to have a conversation about, but not to totally alter their future. If I write an extremely offensive admissions essay claiming immigrants are sub-human I shouldn't expect to be admitted. Absolutely! And if that is your submission to Harvard, that is entirely fair. I just don't think memes in a private Facebook group is something that you put up as your submission. Again, it's one thing if Harvard warned them, and they held their ground. It's another thing entirely to do it without warning, or a chance to explain themselves.

fao_ 9y ago
> or a chance to explain themselves. You imply that media condoning racism, and sexual violence can be justified.
- nyolfen 9y ago
  not necessarily; terms are fluid, words mean different things in different contexts.
- julianmarq 9y ago
  > You imply that media condoning racism, and sexual violence can be justified. You imply that sharing memes in a private group is equivalent to a KKK meeting or actual sexual assault.
  - fao_ 9y ago
    In these cases, condoning them creates and contributes to an environment in which they are acceptable. The only way we are going to remove sexual assault and racism from the world is for every one to understand that these things are never acceptable in any context. Thus, while not equivalent, allowing it to be condoned in private groups is directly contrary to our goals as a society. Bear in mind that this argument is not intended as an argument for "thoughtcrimes" to be made illegal, it is made as an argument for creating and encouraging strict rules against this behaviour in privately-owned spaces. Facebook is not a 'public space', they just choose to give you those rights.
    - julianmarq 9y ago
      > In these cases, condoning them creates and contributes to an environment in which they are acceptable. No, it doesn't, and you literally have no ground to make this argument. You're welcome to try linking "research" that supposedly suggests "this something or other" and then I'll be happy to point out how they don't actually make your case, if you wish. > The only way we are going to remove sexual assault and racism from the world is for every one to understand that these things are never acceptable in any context. And yet none of these students committed a hate crime or assaulted anyone. It's almost as if thought policing were useless and someone who's evil will do horrible things because they want to and not because "something something bad environment", just like a good person (the overwhelming majority, thankfully) won't do them, no matter the context. And, guess what, your country has come a long way from the segregation of the 60s without needing to ban jokes. And nothing says this trend won't continue. Of course, the regressive left and the reactionary right are trying their damnedest to put setbacks or even make you walk back, but let's hope they're just noise that will die out eventually. > Thus, while not equivalent, allowing it to be condoned in private groups is directly contrary to our goals as a society. No, it isn't. Happiness isn't and shouldn't be mandatory. You're free to call someone out or leave if someone makes a joke you don't like, you don't get to tell them to not make it. > Bear in mind that this argument is not intended as an argument for "thoughtcrimes" to be made illegal Yes it is, but your rationalization isn't the worst I've read. Still incorrect, obviously.

julianmarq 9y ago

> Counterpoint: say you had been admitted to Harvard and were coming from Mexico, or were the victim of a sexual assault during high school. How would you feel if you found out that your new classmates had been sharing racist images, or memes about the abuse of children? What if one of those students had been placed as your freshman roommate? As a gay person who has suffered quite a bit of discrimination and bullying from other people and who hails from a different Latin American country I advise you to stop being offended on behalf of other people. Nobody needs this patronizing attitude. It literally helps nobody.