Hacker News Reader

Comment by devoply | Hacker News Reader

Identity politics and outrage culture has jumped the shark, but for some reason it does not recognize this fact.

Here is in summary his "crime" a letter his wife wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-halloween-email-l...

https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing...

"Nicholas says, if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free and open society."

They are both right. People who opposed them are wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves.

View on HN

Yeah, I am so glad that I left academia in the 90s. I can't imagine the bullshit that professors must deal with now. There's also the fact that I earned lots more money as a consultant, but whatever.

What worries me is that we are in a period of relative peace in the developed world, and yet there seems to be an attempt to create instability in society via this culture. I don't believe that it has just organically emerged from nowhere nor that it would persist unless it served the interests of power in some way, yet the useful idiots that support it are unable to recognise themselves as such.

It is absolutely possible to disagree with that letter and the quoted sentence in good faith.

Going after someone's career for a perfectly legitimate voiced opinion is not good faith regardless of disagreement. Also in general this whole idea of empowerment through silencing is what nasty religions have done in the past, shunning people for speaking their truth. It's a disgusting tactic and people using it to silence legitimate discourse should instead be shunned.

Yes, and yes.

But I don't believe that anyone should be shunned. Maybe thrown in jail, if they hurt others, but not shunned.

You are missing a couple of facts, namely, they were not simply faculty, they were also in very particular and prestigious mentorship positions at the college. How can you be a mentor if you dismis the concerns of your students? This whole debacle was not over just some stupid letter, rather it was over the complete lack of empathy in the conversation that followed.

How can you be a mentor for college students if you indulge them in childish delusions?

You are confusing "disagree" with "dismiss". I don't think they dismissed the concerns of their students, I think they disagreed with the students' proposed solution and explained their reasoning. What kind of mentor would they be if they acquiesced to every demand a student makes, even when they believed it to be incorrect? Is not the purpose of having a mentor to learn from them, not to have them simply confirm everything you already want to believe?

> How can you be a mentor if you dismis the concerns of your students?

Just curious, what would be the opposite of them dismissing the concerns. It seems you have been there and have a better perspective on things. So given the context at that time, how should this professor have reacted that would have been satisfactory for the students?

I would say the debacle was worsened[1] due to poor communication on everyone's part, but the professor focused on a topic that was not the main complaint of the students (the prof was also officially hired in a prestigious mentorship position, with expectations to listen to comments about bullying/racism/sexism). Most people agreed with what he said about free speech, but the main complaints about consistent casual racism (comments only tangentially related to the stupid letter that started the discussion) were never responded to. A simple acknowledgement that "yes, I now see that you face casual racism on a daily basis here at Yale, so let's work together on educating people about this casual racism" would have probably defused the situation.

[1]: I mean, just see all the sibling comments that assume this whole thing was about some stupid letter about costumes, and everyone calling all the students childish and dismissing their legitimate concerns (not even trying to find out what these concerns were) because they have seen the reaction of a couple overly-emotional students on YouTube.

> A simple acknowledgement that "yes, I now see that you face casual racism on a daily basis here at Yale, so let's work together on educating people about this casual racism" would have probably defused the situation.

That does make sense. In a way a lot of conflicts suffer from this. It is not always just the issue that starts the confrontation but there is a whole "iceberg" part hiding underneath that's not being usually addressed and might not be visible to a casual observer.

> I mean, just see all the sibling comments

Thank you for taking the time to respond. That's why I wanted your opinion as you seems have been there and are aware of a larger context.

It is possible to be wrong in good faith, yes. That doesn't make it not wrong.

I don't think anyone accused the students of arguing in bad faith. I think they sincerely believe what they were saying. I also think they were wrong.

Bad faith doesn't require lack of sincere belief. Perhaps the most common form of bad-faith disagreement is when you disagree with someone and are unwilling to really listen to what they say for fear that it would cause you to rethink your current sincere belief.

What I'm saying is that it seems likely the students understand exactly what was written in that latter and how the argument in that letter could be steelmanned, and that they also understand their own point of view in depth, and they should not be dismissed as people so wrong as to be un-serious debaters.

I don’t really see how, if you sincerely believe something, you can be afraid to listen to an argument in case it dissuades you of it. That seems to me to be a blatant disregard for whether what you ‘believe’ is actually true.

Furthermore it is also a blatant disregard for whether what you think someone means is actually what they are saying. That really is bad faith in a pretty raw form.

> if you sincerely believe something, you can be afraid to listen to an argument in case it dissuades you of it.

I know the holocaust happened. I don't need to listen to holocaust deniers talking about the size of the ovens or any of their other talking points. I know I'm not going to change their mind; I know they're not going to change my mind. I also know that my society is better because we teach children about these points of denial without suggesting that they're true.

Relatives of Holocaust victims still visit Holocaust museums though they, like you, know what happened. Some topics have to continuously be investigated for them to remain true, relevant, and impactful. You don't want those topics to rest on handed down truths, for they will become archaic and will seem distant and irrelevant.

Yes, but we don't allow these conversations to be driven by Holocaust deniers.

There's nobody to "allow these conversations". The conversations actually happen all the time and it's a good thing they do.

Most conversations about the Holocaust do not involve Holocaust deniers, and it is in fact quite common policy for people hosting such conversations (e.g., museums) to disallow deniers.

Apart from anything else, how are you going to persuade someone if you don't talk to them? A lot of people that get pulled into these things don't have access to reasoned counter-points. They might have just searched for something on Youtube and got sucked down a fringe kook rabbit hole by the recommendation engine.

Of course, but you’re not afraid of being persuaded to become a holocaust denier. You don’t want to debate them for other, perfectly sensible reasons.

There's a difference between disagreeing, and being brought to tears by the fact that a college professor's wife said that adults should be able to pick their own Halloween costumes and explicitly calling for said professor to be fired: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiMVx2C5_Wg

This video was surreal, I had trouble convincing myself this wasn't some sort of hoax.

The greatest risk to free society in my opinion is the overwhelming response of the Outrage Army, and the accompanying chilling effects on free speech and civility.

Consider for a moment that the rise of the right wing political movements are in my opinion, an irrational response to the growth of tribalism and outrage culture on the left.

In Europe the culture you're describing is pretty much non-existent, yet far-right parties are on the rise everywhere.

I don't think there's a causal relationship, perhaps it exacerbates the issue yes, but it's not the cause of it.

I think far-right rhetoric is just too easy to digest, a clear group of enemies is identified for you (just like it is for the people on the left you described). And digging deeper and analyzing an increasingly complex socioeconomical situation, where things interconnect on a global level, is becoming harder and harder, so the inherent tribalism in us drives us to adopt those easy answers.

I've noticed the Europe where I am living for a long time successfully import outrage culture from the USA. The internet has truly brought us closer together - and not in positive ways.

> In Europe

Where? That type of culture definitely exists in at least some places (e.g. Italy which is where I grew up, I've seen examples in UK too).

> far-right parties are on the rise everywhere.

Wonder what is the cause then. The economy is stagnant and people are reaching for the extremes?

> In Europe the culture you're describing is pretty much non-existent

It's all over the media in the UK

What about the tribalism and outrage culture on the right, that various civil rights movements has been fighting for decades, now? The right's been outraged over all sorts of things, most of which having no effect on it (Gay rights, for one - the amount of outrage that people opposed to them have voice over the years is staggering), has engaged in decades of tone policing, and is incredibly tribal.

Does your theory explain why having to put up with decades of this sort of thing hasn't galvanized a Trump-of-the-left into power?

I don't like framing it as "Trump-of-the-left". I also hate the "right-wing" vs "left-wing" dichotomy. Because it jambs many dimensions into one. But whatever.

There have been a few shots at electing candidates who promised to address various sorts of "left-wing" concerns. Most recently, in their own ways, Hillary Clinton (feminism) and Bernie Sanders (humanism). And Barach Obama (anti-racism). Back in the day, there were Eugene McCarthy (pacifism) and Jessie Jackson (anti-racism). Even Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Although Clinton was a right-wing Democratic con, in my opinion. But in my cynical moments, I suspect the same of Barach Obama.

Anyway, there's really nothing unique about Trump, in this regard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com