Hacker News Reader

Comment by golemotron | Hacker News Reader

There's a lot to unpack in this phenomenon. The most interesting question is - why now?

I think that safe spaces / micro-aggressions may come from the perfect storm of a) a generation that was conceived after a period of widespread crime and social uncertainty, leading parents to coddle them and try to protect them from the world [see 'helicopter' parenting'], b) the self-esteem movement [everyone wins prize], and c) increasingly feminized primary and secondary education. The number of male teachers has dwindled rapidly over the decades.

I don't want to appeal to gender stereotypes but I remember seeing some research that indicated that while boys in a playground situation were more physically aggressive and directly confrontational during disagreements with each other, girls tended to have higher incidence of shunning and social exclusion - emotional/relational aggression.

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised to see safe spaces / micro-aggressions as a strategy to shut down unpleasant situations (ideas) rather than confronting them as ideas. These strategies are essentially forms of shunning and avoidance.

Regardless of how one feels about the veracity of these gender stereotypes and how they apply to the sexes, the strategies are real and they are a significant difference from what we've historically had as cultural values in the US and UK: "we're all strong enough for dissent, it's about more than our feelings."

View on HN

It's not a result of coddling (or only a bit).

Certain groups realized they could gain power by being offended. Once you create that incentive, unchecked, it's game over.

Unless people feel start to feel comfortable calling it out as manipulation: "you want to be treated like and adult? Act like an adult." I hope the inevitable backlash takes this form.

The backlash will likely take this form. Then there will be two polar ends of the spectrum and it will turn into another "A vs B" with both ideologies slowly pushing to the extremes. Meanwhile the majority of us will be somewhere in the middle begging for nuance in the discussions and some level of compromise as the loudest voices dominate the conversation.

it's already happening in some form already in the memenet: https://i.imgur.com/Lo40E5D.png

the problem is mixed in there there are reactionaries which took the opposite extreme stance and are poisoning the ground for constructive criticism

This is actually exactly it. It's a power-play.

The amount of think-pieces that have been dumped over the internet psychoanalyzing "the medal generation", talking about the ways in which kids have had their self-esteem massaged by lack of bullying, or beating, or suffering, or how "America has been pussyified" or whatever, all part from the premise that when a student says "take this down, it offends me", they are actually being honest in this weak way.

On some level I suppose it makes it easier for the person making the critique, they get to brag a bit about how they have a "thicker skin". But that's not what's going on at all.

People aren't belittling students for being offended, they are belittling them for feeling so entitled that they would suggest to "take it down" as a response. It's incredibly selfish to feel that anything that hurts your feelings should be censored out of your environment.

The equivalent would be if we all just flagged every post we disagreed with and it was removed by mods as long as you we include text saying that it triggered us.

If that was all there was to the discussion, it wouldn't be so explosive in places like HN. GP tries to phrase it as a "why now?" phenomenon, with a heavy dose of conservatism about the old days, when the idea of people feigning outrage for power has been going on forever (see: right-wing panics about race mixing, women voting, etc.).

I guess I'm in a relatively rare position around these parts of usually agreeing with the radical students' aims (demolishing certain kinds of speech, like "race realism" and "sex realism", taking down statues honoring unworthy figures from the past) and not their methods (legalizing em out of sight and squashing dissent vs taking them down via argument).

>>> I think that safe spaces / micro-aggressions may come from the perfect storm of a) a generation that was conceived after a period of widespread crime and social uncertainty, leading parents to coddle them and try to protect them from the world [see 'helicopter' parenting'], b) the self-esteem movement [everyone wins prize], and c) increasingly feminized primary and secondary education. The number of male teachers has dwindled rapidly over the decades.

> People aren't belittling students for being offended

As you can see, there is a strong identity component here.

> all part from the premise that when a student says "take this down, it offends me", they are actually being honest

As in all things in life there are nuances. This problem isn't even tied to this generation in particular, the only issue to contend today is that in this generation sensationalism breed views and views breed consensus, all in all this situation isn't that much different from people fighting against the N* racial slur in the last century, only the communication channels and consensus rules differ, especially regarding diffusion speed.

This is a part of a bigger problem: modern society ethics diffuse and segregate groups at a pace that has no precedent while not sporting the same mediation and dialectics needed by living in close physical social groups.

you're wrong. While there is plenty of powerplaying, many of these students really are outraged and entitled. They aren't after power, they are after breaking down so called structures that they think are unfair. The collective, fairness in their mind trumps freedom of speech. It turns them into useful idiots as well. Which is why you think it's all about power.

But if those students are useful idiots, then someone's about power...

Yeah the few are not the majority, that's what I'm saying. The Majority are deluded and believe what they are told. They are the SJW purists. They may be for change, but not necessarily power. Their leaders are often about power. More followers that leaders

"Happy Holidays!" instead of "Merry Christmas!" certainly seems to offend a lot of people. So does saying "I'm an atheist" in many part of the US. Or, outrage for saying "we need the same types of gun ownership restrictions that then-Governor Reagan pushed for California."

The most recent outrage seems to concern transsexuals using something other than the cisnormative bathroom.

You did mean to include those forms of outrage, right? Because to me those still look like "game on".

I know you are trolling. But to still give an honest reply: think more along the lines of the outrage about lambdaconf and Mencius Moldbug's alter ego speaking there.

I agree with maehwasu. These are all manifestations of a similar phenomenon i.e. what appears to be an increasing tendency for some groups to aggressively defend their "right" to not have to listen to people who disagree with them.

As a tactic it seems to have been quite successful so it's not surprising that disparate groups are using it.

There's no "increasing tendency".

Pick a random decade and you'll hear exactly the same things.

Christopher Hitchens in 1994, for example, defended David Irving when St. Martin’s Press "de-platformed" (to use the modern term, that is, canceled its contract to print) Irving's edition of the Goebbels diaries.

Look at the generations of people who insisted on the "right" to not hear certain racially charged slurs in casual conversation. Just watch 'Archie Bunker' episodes if you want a reminder of what that was like in the 1970s.

I propose that it's only "increasing" because things that are recent, and which affect us and challenge us most directly, appear more important than things in the past. Even more so where we implicitly accept the views of the winning side - eg, woman's suffrage - as being correct, and don't think that those on the losing side also thought themselves as being correct.

You are correct, I over generalised. I think there's an increasing tendency to aggressively use victimhood (or survivorship if you prefer) in a censorious fashion.

Censorship simply because you don't like what someone says has been around forever.

So has the question about the boundary between "censorship" and "required to support someone you disagree with."

When it's the government, is easy to say that censorship is when the government goes beyond time/place/manner restrictions on free speech.

But with the migration of the public commons to private areas, is it censorship to prevent a Black Lives Matter protest at the Mall of the Americas? Occupy Wall Street managed to survive so long because Zuccotti Park was on a privately owned public space which was required to stay open 24 hours a day, and thus avoid city curfews in public parks.

It's even less clear that a private entity like St. Martin’s Press must never change their mind about publishing a book, should they decide that doing so will give a Holocaust denialist the ability to use their name in support of his cause.

When HN users flag a spam comment for maid services in London, and it's later deleted, is that censorship?

We know all know of HN posts which cry out censorship for receiving downvotes.

The few times I've looked into one of these controversies, it seems more like people are using "censorship" as synonymous for "criticism I don't like." (Certainly not all cases! Just a boringly common majority of them.)

Yeah, there's an awkward boundary between freedom of speech and private property, and it's very, very hard to decide where that lies. At what point does it become wrong to decide what people are allowed to say on private property? A lot of people will say individuals can choose what's allowed in their own houses, but what about businesses? Does the small corner shop have more of a right to shut down discussions than the large private university?

It's also a massive problem with the internet in general. After all, the internet doesn't have public property, ever. Every site is privately owned, so theoretically every site can choose what to allow. But without a public platform, that also means perfectly valid ideas can be basically banned from public view by way of large gatekeepers and popular communities banning them, regardless of their legality.

Either way, it's a tricky thing to answer, since any 'solution' wil cause a lot of problems in one case or another.

I think it's increasing because things that are recent naturally progress from things that started in the past. The examples you cite are all post 1960s, which is when a lot of these movements began (political correctness, feminism, and so on).

Once the slurs are banned, to use the PC example, the movement doesn't stop, but instead the focus moves onto the next thing so that now the debates are about how to label someone who suffers with mild myopia, or whatever today's campaign is.

I know you're being sarcastic, but I DID mean to include those.

The right is just as guilty of this outrage game as the left; in some areas the coalitions are such that they gain power from it. In more left-leaning situations, the outrage power swings left.

I detest both. I want people to be able to say things without constantly being threatened with firings, no-platformings, and blacklists.

In 32 states it is legal to fire a person for being transgender. In practice people get fired illegally for attempting to unionize the workforce. Or for complaining about violations of labor laws. Or for being gay. Or for having the wrong political views. People get fired for expressing themselves all the time. And since business leans conservative right people on the left face the brunt of this discrimination. Free expression has never been without consequence in the United States or anywhere else.

Any serious talk about free speech should focus on the core issue: people in power abuse their power to punish the powerless when they express themselves in the wrong way. Students have practically no power or influence in society. So even if these "SJWs" are entirely unjustified in their actions the impact on society is utterly negligible. This is why the panicky reaction in the linked article about student activists repressing free speech is so comical. If anything, the student activists increase free speech by giving a platform to those people who would otherwise go unheard.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If there's anything to be learned in school, that's it.

The moment you give people a little bit of power they'll find a way to abuse it. People can be really petty and spiteful.

What happened at this university is no different from a secretary deliberating forgetting to book a hotel room for the person they like least in the group. No different from the clerk at the DMV sending you to the back of the line because you made a paperwork mistake.

Where is the moral panic about this type of petty nonsense? Nowhere! Because we recognize it's petty nonsense, and not worthy of hand-wringing commentary or a national conversation. But when it comes to students and free speech and safe spaces every news channel and every major magazine is talking about it like it signifies the end of Freedom itself. It's totally absurd.

The secretary knows he's doing something wrong.

You'd be amazed at how creative people are at rationalizing their actions.

I've known. It's certainly on display these days.

Oh wow this is very good. I wrote out this long paragraph but you said it much better and more succintly.

> Where is the moral panic about this type of petty nonsense?

I think the difference is that petty nonsense on college campuses is publicized and quasi-institutional. If, somehow, a DMV employee was publicly and proudly making people they don't like go to the back of the line, and they had powerful people aligned with them, there would be some outrage.

While a few overzealous activists are not going to end Freedom itself, I (and apparently many others) still want to confront petty nonsense when it begins to institutionalize (by being supported by faculty/admin or influential media members).

>If, somehow, a DMV employee was publicly and proudly making people they don't like go to the back of the line, and they had powerful people aligned with them, there would be some outrage.

What about a county clerk refusing to sign legal marriage certificates for gay couples?

There was huge, massive outrage about that.

Right, I was just illustrating that your hypothetical had a recent, concrete example.

Ironically, by pivoting the discussion to systemic power differences as justification for large groups of students to disallow smaller groups of their ability to voice their opinions by passive-aggressive force, you are supporting the conceptional framework that in large part allows the abuses of power, which can be aggressive force, you oppose. If it is wrong for the powerful to prevent the less powerful from speech, then it is wrong for the large to prevent the smaller from speech even the majority against the minority. The 'core issue' of free speech has never been the opposition of those in power with the speech of a majority, even a localized majority, but the empowerment of every individual to speech regardless of their opinions popularity or any of its other attributes, except for those who cause tremendous harm. If it is wrong for the government because it is more powerful to abuse their power, it is wrong for the group because it is larger to abuse their size to limit others. I think the cause of this whole situation is due to the conflation of speech meant to harm other persons (i.e yelling fire, inciting a riot) and speech that causes subjective discomfort or intellectual disagreement. One is a crime, and the other is the heart of every civil discussion.

I'm pivoting the discussion so that we can look at the actual consequences of (putting limits on) speech, instead of categorizing "free speech" as a silly absolute. I showed how true unlimited libertarian free speech doesn't exist and cannot possibly exist in an unequal society. This is separate from Free Speech as a legal concept. The government should never silence dissenting voices, no matter how abhorrent. In this sense I'm a free speech absolutist.

It makes no sense to blindly apply free speech principles based on majority/minority. By that logic we ought to amplify the voices of neo-nazis and other undesirables simply because they're a minority that would otherwise go unheard. To the contrary, I believe we're better off banishing them from the campus instead.

I completely disagree with your characterization of hate speech as speech that causes "subjective discomfort". Specific types of speech can do a lot of harm to e.g. individuals who suffer from mental illnesses or PTSD. So organizations have to choose. Either you ban the speech that will predictably harm individuals or minority groups, or you allow all speech (including hate speech) and the more vulnerable people will be forced to leave to protect their mental health. That's the reality of the situation. I don't think this is a difficult choice.

In practice free speech restrictions on college campuses don't restrict scientific work or scientific debate (in the broadest sense), so I don't think there is any cause for concern.

> It makes no sense to blindly apply free speech principles based on majority/minority. By that logic we ought to amplify the voices of neo-nazis and other undesirables simply because they're a minority that would otherwise go unheard. To the contrary, I believe we're better of banishing them from the campus instead.

There would be some hope of that if university students and admin had the slightest awareness of the 'Streisand effect.' They don't and they end up raising awareness of speakers and ideas they are scared of. It's comical. Free speech wins eventually, and that's net positive.

Hold on, isn't it true that for every type of protest the protesters have to explain what they're protesting against? If you're correct then every protest should backfire because of the Streisand Effect.

In reality, people protest because it works, even though they have to draw attention to the behavior they want to put an end to. The hope is to persuade the majority that they are righteous and the other side is in the wrong. That's how you get change. Sometimes the protesters mess up and end up looking bad. Then they lose credibility. That's OK, because then a different group of activists will stand up and continue pushing forward.

Safe spaces, micro-aggression theory, and other progressive concepts are quickly becoming mainstream, and they're definitely here to stay.

> Safe spaces, micro-aggression theory, and other progressive concepts are quickly becoming mainstream, and they're definitely here to stay.

Until the next generation rebels against them. It's already happening.

> every protest should backfire because of the Streisand Effect

The Streisand Effect relates to things someone doesn't want others to know about. If a protest isn't about supressing ideas or information then the Streisand Effect is not relevant.

> They don't and they end up raising awareness of speakers and ideas they are scared of

It's true that a lot of people are only hearing about this because of the protest, and that some of the public reaction is negative, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would have been better served staying quiet.

Maybe hate groups are perfectly capable of getting the attention of their targets and supporters already, and getting the public's attention is the best way changing the status quo and reducing silent acceptance.

> It makes no sense to blindly apply free speech principles based on majority/minority.

How about just blindly applying free speech principles? That's kind of how the "free" part of that is supposed to work.

It's all to easy to declare a pox on both your houses and wash your hands of things.

Would it change anything if the left were 1/5th as guilty as the right? Or 1/50th? Or 100x more guilty?

If your views don't change, then you give more power to those who are most guilty. As another example of sarcasm, "Look, one person on welfare once bought drugs so it's okay for big banks to illegally foreclose on mortgages!"

I'm certain that you do want people to be fired for saying some things. If a geology teacher at a public university were to only talk about Young Earth Creationism then they should be fired. No?

If a professor or reporter should plagiarize - plagiarism is NOT illegal - then they should be fired. No? If further investigation shows a 20 year history of plagiarism across scores of publications, do you seriously propose there mustn't be the functional equivalent of a blacklist which prevents that person from working again a prestigious institution?

If an invited speaker for "How to be Moral" is accused in federal court of sexually abusing boys when he worked as a wrestling coach at a high school, then he should be de-platformed. No?

Actions as an employee are another issue. The problem with de-platforming in the public sphere (rather than the private) is arrogance and condescension.

De-platformers presume to be protectors from ideas that they find bad or dangerous. The reason why it won't survive as a strategy is because it seeds resentment among the people who have to go along with the platforming choices of their 'betters.'

It's becoming obvious that not everyone agrees with PC/call-out culture, but they don't feel comfortable saying so. We're in a preference falsification bubble now. It's going to pop.

Your objection about actions of an employee give an easy out - a university can say that employee X did the wrong thing by inviting person Y and thereby justify cancelling the invitation to Y not as "de-platforming" but simply that X was not authorized to make that decision.

You objection has another easy out - most places are neither fully public nor fully private, so the distinction "public sphere" vs. "private sphere" doesn't really apply. For example, if Y were invited for a private conversation with the university president, then is that public or private? What about if it's only limited to university staff? Only to university students? What if it's a private university? A private, for-profit university?

A third easy out is to couple the invitation to the number of ticket buyers or attendees. If there are many protests then the host can say "our analysis says that fewer people than we thought would attend the event so we have decided to exercise our option to cancel the invitation."

In any case, my third example, which is obviously based on the current news about Hastert, was constructed to let you explain why that Hastert-like figure should be allowed to speak on how to be moral, rather than being uninvited.

Finally, your statement "De-platformers presume to be protectors from ideas that they find bad or dangerous" is at best incomplete. Some protests are from students who are upset that their student fees are being used to pay speaker fees for someone who they disagree with. For example, I think that Kissinger is a war criminal. I wouldn't want some of my student fees and tuition going into his wallet, even if Clinton might be right by saying he has excellent insights about global politics.

When haven't we been in a "preference falsification bubble"?

Maybe instead of looking for "outs" we should look for the positive value of ideological diversity.

People get lost in the argument that the First Amendment only applies to the government. To be fair, you didn't. You sidestepped it entirely in your examples.

This issue is whether people consider themselves strong enough to allow a marketplace of ideas. The answer for this fragile generation appears to be no.

Most of the people who "get lost in the First Amendment" are those who get stuck on "freedom of speech" and forget the entire "freedom of assembly" part.

That's the one that says you aren't forced to include people you don't want to include. It's the reason why a private club can legally exclude Jews.

The objections I raised all had to do with including that aspect of the First.

This generation is no more fragile than the previous ones. In my generation, we were the weak ones because we were too fragile for the corporal punishment - beating by wooden boards - that previous generations received as children.

who walks around saying "I'm an Atheist" it's a silly statement really. I'm not religious, had my enlightenment about 20 years ago now. But saying "I'm an Atheist" is like saying "I'm a non-whatever" It's just kind of immature. I mean if you're an activist speaking to people, I guess, but at that point you should expect to live in the space of constant criticism.

You should expect outrage about gun ownership in california. Because you're saying that you are for taking people's rights away, or in general prevent them from something where the model isn't proven to necessarily be correct.

My example was of someone who says "I'm an atheist", not someone who "walks around saying" that.

I was thinking specifically of http://www.salon.com/2013/05/22/tornado_survivor_to_wolf_bli... . The news reporter Wolf Blitzer asked a tornado survivor if she "thanks the Lord" for her survival. Quoting that article:

> Vitsmun hesitates for a moment and smiles. “I — I’m actually an atheist,” she said, laughing off the awkward moment.

This brought her into the spotlight, with Rush Limbaugh declaring she must be the only atheist in Oklahoma ( http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/05/22/media_elites_co... ) and Glenn Beck saying it was a setup (http://www.salon.com/2013/05/23/glenn_beck_cnn_interview_wit... ).

A better example would be teacher-lead mandatory school prayer, which has been illegal for decades, but it still occurs. Here's an example of a family which sued the school over mandatory prayer http://www.rawstory.com/2015/02/georgia-public-school-teache... . They did so anonymously for fear of retribution.

Again, this is not someone who goes around saying "I am an atheist" but is instead someone who will likely face retribution for saying "I am an atheist" even once in public (or in private to a school official) in order to complain about illegal school practices.

Neither of these two occurrences are "kind of immature" nor the result of an activist speaking to people.

In Sweden being offended is big business getting a lot of government grants. Some really shady fuckers (ISIS) supports have gotten a lot of money that way.

> I don't want to appeal to gender stereotypes [...]

...a whole bunch of prose appealing to gender stereotypes.

If society is, in fact, "feminizing", it's a far safer place for the vast majority of humans than it was before. And out of that safety come a whole bunch of voices that weren't traditionally given much credence.

To the extent that this is a phenomenon that is spilling outward from the US, I think it's simply the fact that a lot of people have platforms that never did before. The discourse is becoming a lot more complex because of it. It's old white men like Stephen Fry that have to grow up and get used to it. Welcome to the great democratization of speech.

Let's face it, it's been a white man's world for a long time, where the cultural discourse has centered around the tastes of the dominant viewpoint, regardless of the fact that it might not actually be particularly empowering to people who have identities that are increasingly divergent (and yes, I realize that Fry is no stranger to this). The appeal to Shakespeare rings a bit hollow from that perspective. Shakespeare's great, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's beyond criticism to say that maybe the elevation of his works and their themes hasn't exactly been democratic.

In case you're wondering, I don't advocate for a society that attempts to shelter people. It's fine to push back and say, "no, we're a place where even unpopular, hurtful people are allowed to speak" and "no, we're a place where we're going to deal with tough issues head on". But that's an argument that isn't won in perpetuity, it has to be continually negotiated. And I'm more than a bit amused to see people squirm when confronted with the reality that they now have to negotiate with people whose viewpoints have traditionally been given little to no credence.

Stephen Fry has bipolar and is very aware of what it means to be "triggered" and the incredibly adverse effects it can have an effect on his well being. Being called something bad or offended isn't always black and white. I'm sure this isn't just as simple as him telling others to "Deal with it." My guess is that it's closer to "Guys, it's really not as bad as you think it is if you just expose yourself to things that offend you!"

Source: I have it too, and find the SJW/triggering crowd to be absolutely painful to listen to, especially considering they're usually the crowd that tends to call those with bipolar, "crazy". ;)

> If society is, in fact, "feminizing", it's a far safer place for the vast majority of humans than it was before. And out of that safety come a whole bunch of voices that weren't traditionally given much credence.

And what do they do? Attempt to silence other voices.

This isn't progress. Respect for all voices is progress.

So...silence the people calling for silencing?

"...that they now have to negotiate with people..."

Watch the Yale video and tell me where the negotiation was.

There was none. Many of these people are incapable or rational debate or discussion.

Because...feelings.

Negotiation isn't a moment-to-moment thing. It's a process, which is often begun by people staking out entrenched positions. From that perspective, as distasteful as I find some of the protest tactics to be, there's no doubt that issues have been raised to general consciousness that haven't gotten a lot of press otherwise. The reality is that politeness is a privilege of those who are comfortable, those who have easy access to platforms, and those whose causes are already well represented.

And let's be honest, the discourse is always driven by feelings. I detect feelings in Stephen Fry's piece. "Rational" is often code for "agrees with me".

>Maybe we shouldn't be surprised to see safe spaces / micro-aggressions as a strategy to shut down unpleasant situations (ideas) rather than confronting them as ideas

Is it not confronting to refuse it in your presence because you find the behavior unacceptable? What would you prefer the confrontation to be like?

I don't agree with the extreme measures often taken by university kids but I also think criticism of it should be accurate to its state. That is, it is a form of confronting the idea of a social issue by creating a space where certain behaviors are unacceptable to facilitate more productive conversation without someone's ignorance shouting it down, taken too far with too many subjects because it's practiced mostly among young college kids who are really not experienced at all.

Except these strategies are not really about behaviors in many cases, they are about ideas. There have been a number of cases of safe spaces being set up as alternatives for on-campus events where 'unpleasant' ideas are discussed. University professors routinely have to censor material that is 'triggering' merely because of the ideas it presents.

> University professors routinely have to censor material that is 'triggering' merely because of the ideas it presents.

Source? Is there a wide academic study on this? I know current college kids who sre studying genocide in literature class and rape in societal context. Most of the studies academia has on rape and microagression and so on are from professors on college campuses who presumably teach similar stuff. I find it highly improbable that this safe space issue in universities just sprung out of an aether of the internet into unsuspecting professors. Especially when, as I understand it, it started in universities.

To be fair, these are also young adults floundering about with these new ideas. Presumably there's always been kids who complained about the professor in one way or another. Is the 'too hard' criticism of the modern ratemyprofessor.com any different than another young person complaining about a useless perceived microaggression? They're both probably going to be ignored in the greater context of things.

- https://www.thefire.org/laura-kipniss-title-ix-inquisition-r...

- http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap...

- http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

- http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-codd...

I apologize.

I asked if there are any widespread studies on professors routinely (I would assume a casual 1 in 4 or 1 in 10 correlation would be routine?) being forced to edit and change their syllabus.

I'd like to share with you a response to article 3.

https://chroniclevitae.com/news/1030-dear-liberal-professor-...

A note - this isn't the article I was originally looking for. There was a response to this article I recall specifically discussing colleges becoming more profit or money-minded and that it effects how it treats or protects its professors. It was a very useful perspective and I will do my best to find the article.

Suicide dropped by sociology exam board: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jun/15/suicide-dro...

A law professor saying it's becoming harder to teach laws relating to rape: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trouble-teaching-rap...

> To be fair, these are also young adults floundering about with these new ideas. Presumably there's always been kids who complained about the professor in one way or another. Is the 'too hard' criticism of the modern ratemyprofessor.com any different than another young person complaining about a useless perceived microaggression? They're both probably going to be ignored in the greater context of things.

I'm not trying to stop them complaining. I am trying to stop them having their professors sacked and having speakers no-platformed.

> Is it not confronting to refuse it in your presence because you find the behavior unacceptable? What would you prefer the confrontation to be like?

I would prefer it violent. I would prefer the illiberal left exposed as bullies than universities just caving. The more people see that they're currently the fiercest opponents of a free society the better. I would prefer universities not caving and the no platformers shouting people down, rioting and assaulting people.

> I don't agree with the extreme measures often taken by university kids but I also think criticism of it should be accurate to its state. That is, it is a form of confronting the idea of a social issue by creating a space where certain behaviors are unacceptable to facilitate more productive conversation without someone's ignorance shouting it down, taken too far with too many subjects because it's practiced mostly among young college kids who are really not experienced at all.

Fine. A university is not a safe space. The public square is not a safe space. Let them have their safe spaces where they organise them. Their own clubs and societies for example.

> I would prefer it violent.

Dude, why? This comes off to be as a gut based, emotional viewpoint rather than a rational one.

"The more people see that they're currently the fiercest opponents of a free society the better."

Does putting your head in the sand and ignoring people pass as conforntation nowadays? You confront ideas with other ideas. You think Stephen Fry would be happier if he was a hidden- or silent- homosexual ?

> a) a generation that was conceived after a period of widespread crime and social uncertainty, leading parents to coddle them and try to protect them from the world [see 'helicopter' parenting'],

I think that's making the phenomenon a bit more rational than it is. Growing up in american middle-class suburbs in the 90s is easily the safest childhood any child every had.

I think a big factor is that the baby-boomers in the west was the first generation that were able to focus on individualism and self realisation in a first-class way, and in passing that excitement on to their children, they created a generation of parents who perhaps over-indexed on those values. When everybody is a unique snowflake, the "everybody else is doing it, it's probably going to be fine" approach to decision making get tempered in favour of "oh, maybe that's how my parents approached things and I almost fell out of a tree that one time, and they could have done more to make me practise the violin, but luckily I'm very smart and I have read a lot of books and I took a lot of classes and my child is very special and unique and so I need to work out, from first principles and with great care, exactly under which circumstances going bicycling in the street will aid the specific, carefully laid out plan I have for my child" -- and that's where you end up over-indexing on the dangers and rationalising over-protection, and you remove the mechanisms by which kids learn to make decisions and mistakes for themselves.

The best explanations I've found seem to include "a culture of victimhood" rising in popularity [0]. Though my sociologist friends probably wouldn't agree.

[0] http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10....

> The number of male teachers has dwindled rapidly over the decades.

Citation? World Bank disagrees with you but has only data going back to 1996 (then: 86% female, now: 87% female).

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.TCHR.FE.ZS/countr...

You know who has the highest percentages of teachers being female? Eastern Europe, Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, and that region. Just for a point of comparison.

You have to go back further: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-mor...

That article is highly non-specific about trends over time.

I found some more specific numbers for Ireland: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/the-gender-gap-in-e...

1961: 63% female, 2011: 74% female

Clearly the trend that you claim, but hardly a staggering rate of change. Meanwhile, my searches still turn up articles complaining that school administration is male-dominant. I'll be frank: I don't think you have anywhere near enough evidence to make the claims (about causes) you're making.

> I don't want to appeal to gender stereotypes

That's what you seem to be doing, though.

By that logic, if we had increased the number of male teachers people would be breaking out in violent fights instead?

Well, crime's gone down since the 80's, so maybe he has a point! I'm joking of course, but I think OP's point is similarly ridiculous.

You don’t need anything complex here. Humans will optimise whatever is rewarded.

Well, the initial article speaks about an incident in a university, and it's not surprising that "safe spaces" would be popular there.

University councils are infamous for being dominated by old white men who are used to shout in meetings. People will find a balance eventually, but having this old white guy telling people to "grow up" really isn't helping.

Funny. Against any other demographic this would be seen as an ageist, racist, and sexist comment. Do you feel good about it?

I'm an old white man.. and it's punching up, not punching down.

And you, sir, are becoming the problem you're complaining about. Don't kid yourself that it's fine for you to do because of the targets you're choosing.

It is far from being a level playing field. The message varies greatly depending on the sender, receiver and context, right? I think it's quite OK to call out your fellow stereotype when they're being dicks.

And while we're at it, since this thread is going down into "this is reverse racism": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M

> It is far from being a level playing field.

So that makes it fair to unfairly stereotype others?

> I think it's quite OK to call out your fellow stereotype when they're being dicks.

Call out your fellow [members of a group that contains you] when they're being dicks, sure. We need that. But don't stereotype them to do it - we don't need that.

It's more than that. http://bit.ly/1sLUaQP

Justice would be 'punching wrong' regardless of up or down.

Hello, there is a link in the story to another story about an incident at a university where a complaint was made about a young woman raising her hand in a debate. She was subjected to a vote of exclusion as a result of the debate but the vote failed as the majority didn't agree with the complaint. Later in the same meeting she was subjected to a complaint that she had shaken her head during a discussion because she disagreed with a point someone had made.

Is this the incident that you are referring to? It didn't seem to feature old white men to me - but I may have misread it or misunderstood, could you help?

Yes that's the incident I was referring to when I said that "people will find a balance eventually", because indeed, it seems to be used in some circumstances to silence people (well, most rules are, but it's particularly ironic in this circumstance).

http://www.fredoneverything.net/Feminization.shtml

Thanks for the interesting read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com