5 ms·

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

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.
      - fao_ 9y ago
        > 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. If you are a private company, such as an american university, or facebook, you absolutely do get to decide to tell people not to make jokes, and you absolutely do get to make hiring decisions based on bad jokes. > It's almost as if thought policing were useless This is not thought policing, this is looking at someone's jokes and attitudes towards People of Colour and women and deciding as a private company if you want a toxic person, someone who thinks that it's alright to joke about sexual harassment, in your private space. > someone who's evil will do horrible things because they want to and not because "something something bad environment" There are no evil people, there are only people who have been brought up in an environment where the actions they have taken are acceptable. What, you think people who do evil things are genetically predetermined to do them? It's rubbish. Hundreds of psychopaths have been born and never hurt a fly, it's about upbringing and social rules, rather than some "innate need to do 'bad'". > And, guess what, your country has come a long way from the segregation of the 60s without needing to ban jokes. Actually, the country I live in, like most European countries, has hate speech laws. We no longer have quite as bad a problem with racism as the US does. > And nothing says this trend won't continue. The 915 surviving and growing white supremacy hate groups, along with the 'alt-right' (The leader of the alt-right has openly written that he wants to exterminate black people), says otherwise. That young people feel that they can support such openly racist and anti-PoC movements, says a lot about the atmosphere today. > but let's hope they're just noise that will die out eventually. I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about the National Socialist Party... > No, it isn't. Happiness isn't and shouldn't be mandatory. We're not making happiness mandatory, we're making blatantly abusive speech against the law. I mean, it should be covered under the various "harassment" legislation, but shrug apparently not.
- misterbowfinger 9y ago
  Not justified, explained. I.E. "I didn't know that it was hurtful", "it was just a joke", "won't do it again", etc. Perhaps "redeem" is a better word choice there.

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.
    - fao_ 9y ago
      > 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. If you are a private company, such as an american university, or facebook, you absolutely do get to decide to tell people not to make jokes, and you absolutely do get to make hiring decisions based on bad jokes. > It's almost as if thought policing were useless This is not thought policing, this is looking at someone's jokes and attitudes towards People of Colour and women and deciding as a private company if you want a toxic person, someone who thinks that it's alright to joke about sexual harassment, in your private space. > someone who's evil will do horrible things because they want to and not because "something something bad environment" There are no evil people, there are only people who have been brought up in an environment where the actions they have taken are acceptable. What, you think people who do evil things are genetically predetermined to do them? It's rubbish. Hundreds of psychopaths have been born and never hurt a fly, it's about upbringing and social rules, rather than some "innate need to do 'bad'". > And, guess what, your country has come a long way from the segregation of the 60s without needing to ban jokes. Actually, the country I live in, like most European countries, has hate speech laws. We no longer have quite as bad a problem with racism as the US does. > And nothing says this trend won't continue. The 915 surviving and growing white supremacy hate groups, along with the 'alt-right' (The leader of the alt-right has openly written that he wants to exterminate black people), says otherwise. That young people feel that they can support such openly racist and anti-PoC movements, says a lot about the atmosphere today. > but let's hope they're just noise that will die out eventually. I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about the National Socialist Party... > No, it isn't. Happiness isn't and shouldn't be mandatory. We're not making happiness mandatory, we're making blatantly abusive speech against the law. I mean, it should be covered under the various "harassment" legislation, but shrug apparently not.
misterbowfinger 9y ago
Not justified, explained. I.E. "I didn't know that it was hurtful", "it was just a joke", "won't do it again", etc. Perhaps "redeem" is a better word choice there.