4 ms·

It’s seems like there’s a gap in this story, at least as it’s presented by the article. The article says he was baited into a meeting, and then two weeks after

It’s seems like there’s a gap in this story, at least as it’s presented by the article. The article says he was baited into a meeting, and then two weeks after the meeting was when the real trouble began. Did he in fact say something genuinely unconscionable during that meeting? If so, saying you were “baited” isn’t automatic immunity. So much of what the article says makes me want to pick up the pitch forks, but it’s also clear this article has an anti-left goal in mind, so I’d like to understand more before letting myself get emotional about it. I say it has an anti-left goal, because it’s framing the issue of community ostracization on the basis of different beliefs as a specifically left issue. Go try talking about the benefits of socialism in a far right community and see how that goes.

angry_octet 6y ago
I agree, it is framed as a problem with Left thought, but all movements have their sacred cows and dogma. Except I don't think nuanced criticism of Trump economic policy is going to result in anything more than being called a soy boy -- they are insensitive to criticism like that. In contrast, academia has long and twisty schemes of thought. But previously if you were 'wrong' you just didn't get any grant money or significant publications and pretty soon you had to leave (if you didn't have tenure, but even if you did you could lose students, lab/office space, favourite subjects). Now, having divergent opinions can result in something akin to bees ejecting an intruder from the hive. I don't believe that this particular case is representative though; far more often it seems like nothing is done.
spoonjim 6y ago
You do realize that the point of the follow up meeting is to bait the heretic into saying something truly unconscionable? It’s like trying to get bitten by a dog so you can put it down: punish it for something non-transgressive, confusing them; threaten severe consequences, scaring them; and then initiate conflict to extract the maximally emotional response.
tanseydavid 6y ago
>> it’s also clear this article has an anti-left goal in mind I feel that positioning things in terms of PRO vs ANTI is not accurate or helpful in many cases, including this one. Is reasoned criticism necessarily ANTI in nature? I do not think so.

angry_octet 6y ago

I agree, it is framed as a problem with Left thought, but all movements have their sacred cows and dogma. Except I don't think nuanced criticism of Trump economic policy is going to result in anything more than being called a soy boy -- they are insensitive to criticism like that. In contrast, academia has long and twisty schemes of thought. But previously if you were 'wrong' you just didn't get any grant money or significant publications and pretty soon you had to leave (if you didn't have tenure, but even if you did you could lose students, lab/office space, favourite subjects). Now, having divergent opinions can result in something akin to bees ejecting an intruder from the hive. I don't believe that this particular case is representative though; far more often it seems like nothing is done.

spoonjim 6y ago

You do realize that the point of the follow up meeting is to bait the heretic into saying something truly unconscionable? It’s like trying to get bitten by a dog so you can put it down: punish it for something non-transgressive, confusing them; threaten severe consequences, scaring them; and then initiate conflict to extract the maximally emotional response.

tanseydavid 6y ago

>> it’s also clear this article has an anti-left goal in mind I feel that positioning things in terms of PRO vs ANTI is not accurate or helpful in many cases, including this one. Is reasoned criticism necessarily ANTI in nature? I do not think so.