This is a sad turn of events where asking for evidence is evidence of maliciousness rather than revealing fraud or vacuousness on the side of the person making the claims. If someone makes a claim they certainly should be capable of response. And the institution using outrageously euphemistic language when calling for discipline. What fragile institutions.
This is terrible and taking us to nowhere fast.
Even victims of rape and assault are called as witnesses and aren’t spared, but here, questioning a poor argument is grounds for discipline because it called into question the basis for an ideology with weak underpinnings.
Conversely, if you don’t provide specifics, you’ll be accused of making stuff up.
This is an issue I have thought a great deal about. It isn't peculiar to any particular issue. I think it is a product of the internet age, where we can talk about and also talk with virtually anyone on the planet in real time.
I have wrestled with this a lot because I find social stuff interesting. If I talk about a particular person in order to have a concrete example, I'm in danger of doing real harm to that person. If I don't cite a real world example, people may not believe it or may not be able to comprehend my point.
One of my solutions is I talk about myself a lot. The result: I get accused of being a narcissist and attention monger who "makes everything about me."
Exactly what was said at the hearing following the event was not recorded and the events following are a he said, she said according to the judges opinion.
I believe there shouldn’t have been a hearing in the first place. If it’s true that he was argumentative and disrespectful towards those in authority that’s always a good way to get yourself in trouble regardless if you’re right or wrong.
My thoughts are that there probably shouldn’t have been a hearing and that he handled it poorly even though it shouldn’t have happened. Should that be blamed on “the left’s” intolerance? Idk.
Personally I'm exposed to loads of talking about malignant trends on the broad left, or at least the woke bit. Maybe it's just who I follow on twitter etc but I see far more criticism of woke than I see actual wokeness. Titania McGrath (satire) is quite funny if you enjoy jokes about that. https://mobile.twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath
If it is not from life threatening situation it's not PTSD, it can be a serious case of anxiety disorder but you shouldn't confuse those.
Where I think this article goes wrong, however, is when by conflating the two. The "Left" is a broad category. Certainly, some might conflate criticism with "violence", but I think it is a markedly conservative trend to try to conflate corporate D&I training with the Left writ large.
1. it at no point mentions what the fellow is actually alleged to have said. I'm sure I could find out with a few clicks, but what's up with that?
2. This is mostly an anxiety-rant about an entire political movement-of-movements that, for the most part, has nothing to do with the specifics of this anecdotal case.
How is this front-page HN material? Sample size?? Connection with something other than ~feelings~ to leftist tendencies more generally? Like, IDK, this does not seem up to our normal burden-of-proof standards.
Not to put too fine a point on it, I think we are showing our bias, allowing mediocre content that we like here....for ~reasons~.... to bubble up without due scrutiny. Wisdom-of-crowds requires a wise crowd. I doubt ours here.
Did you not read the article? It has extensive quotes.
But it could well be a selective presentation of the evidence in order to make your case.
There's a reason journalists are at least supposed to attempt to show the other side: so the reader doesn't get snowed, and the writer can keep some small measure of objectivity. Since that hasn't happened here, one should assume this portrayal is not accurate.
The court docs include lots of info but we’ll need to see the end result. But it seems like the blog post is accurate and UVA is being totally stupid and will waste a lot of money losing this case.
Second, the article goes into things that happened after the audio confrontation, and it's claimed that those are the things that led to his dismissal. I would want to know more about those things, and not just whatever evidence has been accepted by the court, or the interpretation told by this article.
We probably will never know everything. But from what we know now, that’s helpful for forming opinions.
The case wasn’t dismissed, and it was explicitly not dismissed and continues. 3/4 counts were dismissed. But one was not, thus its continuing.
It’s inaccurate to say that the case was dismissed.
And of course we want to know more, that’s a given. But in this situation we already know a lot.
Does anyone know if there have been more recent developments? t the very least, has UVa issued a response of any sort?
Seems weird that the state attorney general is defending the university. Is that normal?
Also this was a second year med school student and the “professional conduct complaint” was filed by a professor. So these are all adults, not kids involved.
Couldn't agree more. As someone very liberal that is also exhausted of wokeness, of the constant normalization of racism against whites, and against asians (as model minorities), this hits the nail on the head.
NYC has stats on these crimes. NYC is also progressive and yet has a lot of this kind of crime.
Stats are just numbers. If you police one area much more strongly, you will get higher numbers. Same when people in that area are poor, you would get more property crime.
The fact that the numbers stay high point to a failure of policing as the correct approach. More of a failed approach apparently does not fix it.
I don’t necessarily think it speaks to the amount of hate crime fully.
(Especially when you level charges with no proof, or use tiny examples as a counterweight to actually big problems. One of your points is valid, most are not a real thing.)
Usually these get taken down because there is nothing new to say about them.
The first graph is about how criticism on and of the left is akin to literal physical violence
Thats a fox news talking point
I have heard it stated as matter-of-fact many times over the past 10+ years by other people in the Bay Area.
ITT: a bunch of people talking about malignant trends on the left and somehow not being accused of genocide!
From the left-wing mass media you have your typical comedians like stephen colbert. In the podcast scene you have folks like Joe rogan. On the right wing you have folks like steven crowder. They are all comedians.
Only comedians are allowed to criticize or discuss politics. Which is only true in the USA. Outside the USA? Hell Canada just to the north actively fines comedians for jokes. RCMP arrest book authors. Canada once had a ton of fantastic comedians but they have basically been forced to leave the country.
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.
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.
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.
In the paper he suggested areas for further study that could affirm the idea, but I've not seen any, based on the Google Scholar search I set up.
edit: welp, this comment is now completely irrelevant.
Am I totally off? I'm interested to hear how others would rate hn on a scale of 1-10 (lower = more liberal).
A 1-dimensional scale is missing quite a lot in terms of politics. But if you mean classically liberal, it's a 2 out of 10. If you mean US liberal-conservative politics, it's a 3 out of 10.
> free markets but some government is useful, climate change is real, anti-trump, anti-woke.
yep that describes me. However as a 'classical liberal' I personally like Obama's politics over Biden, Macron, Trudeau, and Merkel. Also I enjoy reading both Marx and Rand.
Plenty of examples at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26148870, and there are a lot more where those came from.
Tedious, eternal flamewar is another matter. The point of HN is to have a place on the internet that isn't dominated by that.
As for "the status quo here is California liberalism", everyone thinks HN is dominated by the other side. The GP made the opposite claim (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26732300). In both cases it is imaginary.
Could well be confirmation bias on my part that this place seems to skew Californian in politics.
Systemic _anything_ is that thing perpetuated through systemic effects. In the case of racism it's a structural effect that lasts long after the prolonged and intentional oppression of certain minority groups. Things like a lack of generational wealth, de facto segregation, racial profiling in policing and so on.
The thing with systemic effects in general is that they're not perpetuated intentionally, but are emergent properties of relationships within a complex system. There are ways to unpick and understand why these problems are occurring and prevent their continuation, but I'm sorry to say that I'm just not seeing that coming from the progressive movement at the moment. I care deeply about systems theory and its applicability in solving some of our pressing social problems, but I'm not seeing its use in social activism. Instead the tactics of corporate D&I seem actively designed to look good while not really doing anything. Same with microaggression and unconscious bias training; all they're going to do is put well meaning people on the defensive when interacting with marginalised people for fear of saying something offensive, and that's not going to help anybody.
That's what's always bugged me about people saying "systemic racism". They never could tell me what it is. You are the first person I have read who can actually say something concrete, something I can actually understand.
I had assumed that, because nobody could actually say what it is, that it was just a nebulous term being tossed around to make whites feel guilty. Now I'm going to have to re-think that.
So, congratulations. You made me think. That's about the highest compliment possible on HN...
FWIW sometimes I'm not sure that the people using the term know what it means either. They often use it but then the attempted solution is basically to call out perceived racism in individuals, which will obviously do nothing to help these problems. The root self perpetuating problem is the poverty trap, combined with the racial aspects of segregation and profiling.
Systemic solutions would be things like investing more into inner city schools than the national average, targeted educational and entrepreneurial assistance for enterprising people from poor black backgrounds (I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the current progressive outreach programs are taken up by already-middle-class black people, which doesn't help solve the problem, but I hope I'm wrong) and other measures designed to provide ladders out of poverty to a large number of people at once. You basically need to provide elevated opportunities.
I think my earlier comment which you described as a “no u” comeback was actually really apt and crystal clearly accurate based on your follow-ups.
You just described the Shirky Principle :)
I always browse with showdead on.
You may agree or disagree on whether this particular one is worth discussing, but that's probably the general idea behind the flagging.
Questioning why something is flagged is also against the 'HN Hivemind'. Now get in line. /s
Still, sadly there's too many on either side... Hopefully the pendulums will swing back to the center.
Totally agree with you on your statement "There is no QAnon equivalent to diversity and inclusion policy/training in industry". The private sector is a lot more grounded than academia. Mostly for the better, sometimes for the worse.
Such boogyman victim complex that also only singles out only one particular ideology, showing it's colors, most likely.
Yes, I've certainly engaged those too absorbed in politics to be able to handle criticism, whatever the political allegiance might be, but most persons are far more reasonable than what the article makes anything out to be.
A minority of persons does what the article describes, and this certainly isn't isolated to this so-called “broad left”. — that the writer singles out that alone is reason to be suspicious.
> You’d think a group that obsesses over power differentials and their own marginalization would have some grasp of this. Regardless of which side you fall into with this particular culture war, it should fucking terrify you that a movement that’s been tasked with addressing pressing social problems is designed in such a way that any substantial criticism is met with aggressive punishment.
Many groups obsess over power differentials and everyone who argues politics from such “groups” seems to consider himself the victim and oppressed. They all have their cherry picked statistics to show it, and they all ignore the statistics of the other side and the statistics deal with matters that are so divergent from one another that it's really impossible to tell who has it “worse”, but all are convinced it is they.
This isn't isolated to the so-called “broad left”; this is a function of special interest group politics.
Also, it has to be said, I estimate a 95% chance this article is both written by someone inside of the U.S.A., who also failed to even consider that a world outside of the U.S.A. exists when writing it. — it carries the stench of this style.
This line of reasoning doesn't seem logical to me, but perhaps someone can explain it to me. I don't see how responding with "aggressive viciousness" leads to a conclusion that one knows their position doesn't make sense and that they are in the wrong. This reminds me of reasoning I might associate with a children's playground: "you got mad when I said it, so the rumor must be true!"
If someone comes to me and tells me 2+2=5, and I say "no, dummy, get out of here", that doesn't make them right. Sometimes people don't want to have to deal with nonsense.
Requiring someone to always respond fully to any challenge with evidence, no matter how many times the same points are made or how irrelevant the dispute is to the substance of the issue, is unreasonable.
If I’m presenting evidence based material, I’d rather err on the side of too much discussion about quality of evidence than firing or expelling the single person who asked questions of my evidence.
The author of this article would like the reader to draw the conclusion that the Adams camp responded with "aggressive viciousness precisely because they cannot withstand scrutiny."
The author could be right, could be wrong, responding with "aggressive viciousness" doesn't really tell you anything about how well someone could support their position, it really only tells you that the person didn't and instead resorted to "aggressive viciousness."
Now we could infer that if you have good reasons for your positions you need not resort to "aggressive viciousness" and could instead use less aggressive non-vicious reasoning to support your position. Is that inference valid? I don't know, I don't particularly have a dog in the fight.
If I call your mom an idiot and you say you'll knock my block off for doing so, I could rightly say you responded with "aggressive viciousness." That doesn't really bolster my claim that your mom is an idiot nor does it imply that you could not support with evidence the case that your mom is not an idiot. The analogy here falls a bit flat because something like "your mom is an idiot" is rather inflammatory and so a strong visceral reaction makes sense in that context, where in the drawn out academic setting that is referenced in the post there would be ample time to make a calm reasoned case.
So should you draw the inference the author wants? That the actions outlined are "aggressive viciousness" and that they are that way because the "firmaments [...] cannot withstand scrutiny." That's up to you. Does it follow from a purely logical set of reasoning, not really, which to the author's credit they readily admit by labeling this section "Now for conjecture:"
That it is possible there exists a potential argument that links the premise to the same conclusion doesn't save the particular argument presented. Being right for the wrong reasons is still being wrong.
There are 100 other possible explanations, but I think anyone can agree that not replying to every "counterargument" in a social setting doesn't mean that someone is wrong.