3 ms·

This article was really hard to read. I generally hate sources that are dripping with opinion that I need to get five or six paragraphs in to bypass the “of COU

This article was really hard to read. I generally hate sources that are dripping with opinion that I need to get five or six paragraphs in to bypass the “of COURSE they did X, like we covered last Thursday”. Also obligatory academic freedom -> actually free speech argument in that article that leads to the common misconception of the 1st amendment applying to literally everything “for curiosity’s sake”.

raxxorrax 5y ago
You don't think Yale does this for PR and that using the term trap house should include consequences like that? Should the student be reprimanded? You are right, this isn't a first amendment issue, but these are straight questions, aren't they? Do you think that is an adequate rejection and it should not question Yales integrity? I believe it pretty much does question it
floor2 5y ago
I don't think that "common misconception" actually exists at all, that's just a rhetorical defense used by people who are trying to stifle free speech in practice. Many people want free speech, as a concept, ideal and aspect of living a safe and fulfilling life. When they are being deprived of that right, if they are in the USA, the people depriving them are quick to point out that the first amendment doesn't protect them... but that's completely irrelevant. As an example, imagine the constitution had a right which said "The federal government will not murder you". Then today, some people are murdering everyone they dislike, and when some people point out "we're afraid of getting murdered and want to live in a society where there isn't murder" and immediately internet commentary is full of people responding "Actually, you only have a right to not be murdered by the federal government, you're confused about how your murder rights work". It's not that the oppressed are confused about what's written in the Bill of Rights, it's that they care about the underlying ideal in a broad and practical way.

raxxorrax 5y ago

You don't think Yale does this for PR and that using the term trap house should include consequences like that? Should the student be reprimanded? You are right, this isn't a first amendment issue, but these are straight questions, aren't they? Do you think that is an adequate rejection and it should not question Yales integrity? I believe it pretty much does question it

floor2 5y ago

I don't think that "common misconception" actually exists at all, that's just a rhetorical defense used by people who are trying to stifle free speech in practice. Many people want free speech, as a concept, ideal and aspect of living a safe and fulfilling life. When they are being deprived of that right, if they are in the USA, the people depriving them are quick to point out that the first amendment doesn't protect them... but that's completely irrelevant. As an example, imagine the constitution had a right which said "The federal government will not murder you". Then today, some people are murdering everyone they dislike, and when some people point out "we're afraid of getting murdered and want to live in a society where there isn't murder" and immediately internet commentary is full of people responding "Actually, you only have a right to not be murdered by the federal government, you're confused about how your murder rights work". It's not that the oppressed are confused about what's written in the Bill of Rights, it's that they care about the underlying ideal in a broad and practical way.