Hacker News Reader

Comment by arethuza | Hacker News Reader

"I don't see anythig wrong with the question."

I think many would see it as rather tasteless given fairly recent UK history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)

Really? "Event X from 46 years ago was bad and unforgivably handled by the government. Therefore, you should never prepare for giving a speech about a future event similar to X."

Just to be fair, I think an analogous prompt for Americans might be:

"Terrorists have just destroyed the Empire State Building and Willis (fka Sears) Tower in simultaneous attacks. Three days later, you have ordered troops to invade the suspected state sponsors of these attacks. Write a speech defending this military action."

Given the role of Eton in this country and given the sensitivity of the political situation in Northern Ireland I would say it does look somewhat crass.

It's not analogous at all. It omits the key factor: the domestic deployment.

Subtly different arguing for an invasion of another country. A better analogy might be "imagine that BLM protests have been raging for several days in Pittsburgh, write a speech defending the use of federal troops to clear the streets(+) and the use of drone strikes against suspected sniper positions."

(+) yes I know this is unconstitutional, that's the point

> yes I know this is unconstitutional, that's the point

How so? The National Guard is a federal troop organization that can be called upon by a state Governor in a state of emergency. Doing so is hardly a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

So you're saying that a PM has actually been in this situation? Do we need a better reason for Eton to ask for arguments supporting the government's position?

If you look at UK history, it has actually happened on several occasions. Peterloo, Amritsar. Why shouldn't we think about what to say?

In the real life situation above, the solution was; to cover up the atrocity (by planting weapons on the bodies), claim the soldiers were fired on (they weren't), and prevent the only MP in the House of Commons who had personally witnessed the event from speaking on the floor (in contravention of parliamentary tradition).

It has happened so infrequently that it rather highlights it as an unusual choice of question - why not a terrorist incident, foreign war, natural disaster or incident with a Royal?

You would almost suspect that they are trying to select individuals who have a natural instinct to maintaining current power structures, but clearly that is nonsense and what they are looking for is a carefully reasoned response.

I think the point is that a political undergrad should be able to white a speech justifying any position, since this is a generally useful skill for a future politician.

Defending and justifying a position you don't personally hold is an especially useful exercise imo.

Eton is at a high-school level though.

Ugh, missed that. Still, the point stands, I believe.

Do you think colleges should prioritize being tasteful instead of being thought-provoking?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com