5 ms·

> Seeing good companies get torn to shreds by this campus idiocy reminds me of how insulated academia is from the real world. What does this have to do with ac

> Seeing good companies get torn to shreds by this campus idiocy reminds me of how insulated academia is from the real world. What does this have to do with academia?

avs733 6y ago
It’s coded language.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  Pointing out that cancel culture is toxic and that free speech still has a place in polite isn't a bad thing. Academia really has a problem with siloing those of a different opinion and apparently it is extending to tech companies as well. I mostly just refuse to talk about that stuff at work. If it's not work related or "guess what I did last weekend" I'm not really interested.
  - SantalBlush 6y ago
    I keep reading the term "free speech" being brought up in these discussions. Some people have come to believe that free speech means "I can say what I want and nobody is allowed to respond negatively." But this definition is, ironically, the polar opposite of free speech.
    - s__s 6y ago
      Free speech by necessity requires tolerance. If there are extreme consequences to what you say you’re obviously not free to speak what you believe. Losing your livelihood, being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like.
      - crooked-v 6y ago
        Loss of livelihood is an entirely acceptable response to some ideas or opinions. For example: a doctor who holds the opinion that microorganisms don't actually exist and that diseases are caused by humours should be removed from their position as a doctor.
      - SantalBlush 6y ago
        >being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like. This is obvious, but I'm not sure how it pertains to this discussion.
        vxNsr 6y ago
        Because many people in this discussion, on the internet and in our country do see it as an acceptable response.
        SantalBlush 6y ago
        >many people in this discussion No they don't; we're talking about verbal disagreements and resignations in the workplace. None of these things deprive anyone of their First Amendment rights. If someone verbally disagrees with you, they are not infringing on your right to free speech; by insinuating that they are, you are taking an anti-free-speech position.
        vxNsr 6y ago
        I’m not sure how you twisted it: the OP said “harassment isn’t acceptable.” you said “why is that in the discussion?” I said “bec some ppl here think it is.” you respond by quoting free speech case law. We’re not arguing about the merits of how the SCOTUS rules on the 1st amendment. It’s a discussion of the appropriate response to encountering someone you disagree with. You calling my employer now and telling them they should fire me is not an appropriate response no matter whether or not it’s protected by the first amd.
        SantalBlush 6y ago
        >you respond by quoting free speech case law. No, I didn't. You are making this up to win an argument. There is no reference to case law or SCOTUS whatsoever in my comment. What a bizarre fabrication. I see there is clearly no point in continuing this if you're going to argue in such bad faith. Moreover, a response you deem "inappropriate" is subjective. Either your free speech is being denied or it isn't. My boss can fire me for saying a lot of things they don't like; that doesn't infringe on my right to free speech. This is the way it has always been.
  - avs733 6y ago
    I didn't say that and it is intriguing that people took it that way.
- JPKab 6y ago
  No, it's not. Where do you think this ideology and hypersensitivity originated?
  - edoceo 6y ago
    I'm curious, was it academia? I mean, is there an origin story? I don't even know what terms search.
    - vimy 6y ago
      https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/what-is-critical-race-theory/ https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/what-is-critical-race-theo...
      - jakelazaroff 6y ago
        Here’s a far less biased overview: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...
        avs733 6y ago
        yeah but if we take a summary with a bias its easier to validate our opinions.
      - edoceo 6y ago
        thanks! I've read that and this part sticks out: ""they assume racism is present in everything and look for it “Critically” until they find it."" that doesn't seem like the scientific method to me. am I the dumb? edit: also the founder of the linked site is critical of Critical Race Theory - so maybe there is bias in this article. Whatever, I asked for a place to start - so, thanks again.
        vxNsr 6y ago
        Every thinking person I know is critical of CRT. It doesn’t follow any scientific method, rewrites history and tells many lies to advance an agenda. It’s basically all target painting. Edit:I’m getting pretty heavy downvoting without any responses... anyone interested in actually explaining why they disagree?
jude- 6y ago
Nothing. The parent has an axe to grind.
JPKab 6y ago
Academia is where this ideology originated. It's where virtually all of the terminology came from. It's also where these employees were taught that collective identity dwarfs individual identity.
- treeman79 6y ago
  Your being downvoted but it’s true.
  - gustavo-fring 6y ago
    Using all encompassing terms like "academia" is the problem. I've been in academia for more than a decade. We're a regional school with lots of foreign students as well as commuter students. The professors that I've interacted with regularly (and are in a dept that deals with that stuff) have never been anything but professional and they understand the importance of rigor. I've yet to see them make emotional caustic and overreaching claims because they can. I suspect most of academia is like this, you just don't hear about it, cause it's boring. If you desire it, you too can work at bad wages for 2 decades before hoping for tenure at a place you barely get to choose. Many of these terms that cause so many issues are those that are working jargon within a domain and make sense within the context of that domain with lots of awareness of the terminology, but when they are extracted out of that context and used by people (for a variety of reasons) for political and cultural battles, it becomes an issue. So academia is perhaps responsible, but all of academia is not.
- canadianfella 6y ago
  You’re right.
clarkmoody 6y ago
Intellectuals are the priests of the new alliance of throne and altar. http://profcj.org/alliance-of-throne-altar/ http://profcj.org/alliance-of-throne-altar/
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  Religion doesn’t go away, it just evolves. Now the priest hand down by divine inspiration. Don’t question the orthodoxy.

> Seeing good companies get torn to shreds by this campus idiocy reminds me of how insulated academia is from the real world. What does this have to do with academia?

avs733 6y ago

It’s coded language.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
Pointing out that cancel culture is toxic and that free speech still has a place in polite isn't a bad thing. Academia really has a problem with siloing those of a different opinion and apparently it is extending to tech companies as well. I mostly just refuse to talk about that stuff at work. If it's not work related or "guess what I did last weekend" I'm not really interested.
- SantalBlush 6y ago
  I keep reading the term "free speech" being brought up in these discussions. Some people have come to believe that free speech means "I can say what I want and nobody is allowed to respond negatively." But this definition is, ironically, the polar opposite of free speech.
  - s__s 6y ago
    Free speech by necessity requires tolerance. If there are extreme consequences to what you say you’re obviously not free to speak what you believe. Losing your livelihood, being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like.
    - crooked-v 6y ago
      Loss of livelihood is an entirely acceptable response to some ideas or opinions. For example: a doctor who holds the opinion that microorganisms don't actually exist and that diseases are caused by humours should be removed from their position as a doctor.
    - SantalBlush 6y ago
      >being bullied, death threats, mob harassment etc are not acceptable responses to ideas or opinions you don’t like. This is obvious, but I'm not sure how it pertains to this discussion.
      - vxNsr 6y ago
        Because many people in this discussion, on the internet and in our country do see it as an acceptable response.
        SantalBlush 6y ago
        >many people in this discussion No they don't; we're talking about verbal disagreements and resignations in the workplace. None of these things deprive anyone of their First Amendment rights. If someone verbally disagrees with you, they are not infringing on your right to free speech; by insinuating that they are, you are taking an anti-free-speech position.
        vxNsr 6y ago
        I’m not sure how you twisted it: the OP said “harassment isn’t acceptable.” you said “why is that in the discussion?” I said “bec some ppl here think it is.” you respond by quoting free speech case law. We’re not arguing about the merits of how the SCOTUS rules on the 1st amendment. It’s a discussion of the appropriate response to encountering someone you disagree with. You calling my employer now and telling them they should fire me is not an appropriate response no matter whether or not it’s protected by the first amd.
        SantalBlush 6y ago
        >you respond by quoting free speech case law. No, I didn't. You are making this up to win an argument. There is no reference to case law or SCOTUS whatsoever in my comment. What a bizarre fabrication. I see there is clearly no point in continuing this if you're going to argue in such bad faith. Moreover, a response you deem "inappropriate" is subjective. Either your free speech is being denied or it isn't. My boss can fire me for saying a lot of things they don't like; that doesn't infringe on my right to free speech. This is the way it has always been.
- avs733 6y ago
  I didn't say that and it is intriguing that people took it that way.
JPKab 6y ago
No, it's not. Where do you think this ideology and hypersensitivity originated?
- edoceo 6y ago
  I'm curious, was it academia? I mean, is there an origin story? I don't even know what terms search.
  - vimy 6y ago
    https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/what-is-critical-race-theory/ https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/what-is-critical-race-theo...
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Here’s a far less biased overview: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/civil-rights-reimagining-policing/a-lesson-on-critical-race-theory/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_r...
      - avs733 6y ago
        yeah but if we take a summary with a bias its easier to validate our opinions.
    - edoceo 6y ago
      thanks! I've read that and this part sticks out: ""they assume racism is present in everything and look for it “Critically” until they find it."" that doesn't seem like the scientific method to me. am I the dumb? edit: also the founder of the linked site is critical of Critical Race Theory - so maybe there is bias in this article. Whatever, I asked for a place to start - so, thanks again.
      - vxNsr 6y ago
        Every thinking person I know is critical of CRT. It doesn’t follow any scientific method, rewrites history and tells many lies to advance an agenda. It’s basically all target painting. Edit:I’m getting pretty heavy downvoting without any responses... anyone interested in actually explaining why they disagree?

jude- 6y ago

Nothing. The parent has an axe to grind.

JPKab 6y ago

Academia is where this ideology originated. It's where virtually all of the terminology came from. It's also where these employees were taught that collective identity dwarfs individual identity.

treeman79 6y ago
Your being downvoted but it’s true.
- gustavo-fring 6y ago
  Using all encompassing terms like "academia" is the problem. I've been in academia for more than a decade. We're a regional school with lots of foreign students as well as commuter students. The professors that I've interacted with regularly (and are in a dept that deals with that stuff) have never been anything but professional and they understand the importance of rigor. I've yet to see them make emotional caustic and overreaching claims because they can. I suspect most of academia is like this, you just don't hear about it, cause it's boring. If you desire it, you too can work at bad wages for 2 decades before hoping for tenure at a place you barely get to choose. Many of these terms that cause so many issues are those that are working jargon within a domain and make sense within the context of that domain with lots of awareness of the terminology, but when they are extracted out of that context and used by people (for a variety of reasons) for political and cultural battles, it becomes an issue. So academia is perhaps responsible, but all of academia is not.
canadianfella 6y ago
You’re right.

clarkmoody 6y ago

Intellectuals are the priests of the new alliance of throne and altar. http://profcj.org/alliance-of-throne-altar/ http://profcj.org/alliance-of-throne-altar/

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Religion doesn’t go away, it just evolves. Now the priest hand down by divine inspiration. Don’t question the orthodoxy.