Hacker News Reader

Comment by FireBeyond | Hacker News Reader

"You must disband these groups, including the National Lawyer's Guild student group. In addition, you must discipline officers and members of these groups, and you must make them ineligible to join any other student group."

Sorry, I'll take "holier than thou" institutions over government-mandated "these student groups are acceptable and these are not".

"You must ban all masks and have penalties no less than suspension for any violation".

Oh yes, look at these ethical high ground ivory tower types...

View on HN

The mask obsession these people still have is just amazing. So angry at being told to wear a mask during a pandemic that they want to ban anyone else from doing it now. I would expect better behavior from a toddler.

They want to ban it for absolute facial recognition coverage, and pretty much nothing else.

It has nothing to do with the pandemic. The ban on masks is about whether or not protesters are actually students. Masks have been used to conceal identities when taking over buildings or shutting down classes.

It’s unclear how much is residual anti-mask sentiment from the pandemic and how much is related to events like this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68923528

One might reasonably interpret events like that as protestors engaged in activity that is not protected by the First Amendment, is criminal and/or violates other student’s civil rights and/or improperly interferes with the activities of others. And one might credibly imagine that some of the protesters knew this and were wearing masks to hide their identities. And one might further credibly argue that, in 2024, these students were not likely to be wearing masks outdoors for health reasons.

Of course, the letter to Harvard doesn’t really explain what kind of mask ban is imagined or why it’s appropriate to ban masks when students are merely going about their ordinary business.

One might argue that masks are necessary because the state is surveiling people and abducting them off the street based on viewpoint. If you're expressing views in public, it would behoove you to do so while obscuring your identity to the extent possible, lest you end up in a Salvadoran death camp for expressing views disfavored by the regime.

I absolutely think it’s valid to want to express one’s viewpoint anonymously.

However, I don’t think your argument really covers this particular situation. The events in question predate Trump’s reelection, and a lot of the things done by people, many whom were wearing masks, were approaching (or far beyond, depending your perspective) the line where free speech stops and harassment, vandalism and hate begins.

I think that one of the most self-defeating things that some of Trump’s opponents do is to ignore the fact that many of his actions are based on actual problems in the US. In my mind, bad things really were done on college campuses. Awful things really were done in the name of DEI. Cancel culture really was out of control. The US really does have economic deficiencies in the manufacturing sector. None of these excuse most of what Trump has done, but minimizing the real problems that he and his supporters latch onto doesn’t help.

> I think that one of the most self-defeating things that some of Trump’s opponents do is to ignore the fact that many of his actions are based on actual problems in the US. In my mind, bad things really were done on college campuses. Awful things really were done in the name of DEI. Cancel culture really was out of control. The US really does have economic deficiencies in the manufacturing sector

The problem, as it were, is that most of these "problems" are invented by "news" agencies and then repeated over and over until people believe them.

For example, in this conversation, there is literally no fact I could mention, no study I could cite, that would convince you that any one of these things might not actually be a real problem because you didn't use facts and science to develop them in the first place.

I do think the answer isn't to play defense to made up problems but talking about reality is always harder and more complicated than emotive sound bites.

Absolutely. I know people who still believe that multiple swathes of blocks in Portland were "burned to the ground" by Antifa and "will never be rebuilt".

Even in Seattle. "Tried to burn down a police station", by which "a mattress was set on a fire in an alley next to a police station".

Let's not forget eating cats and dogs.

Defending a firehose of lies because there was once one nugget there that sounded like something that might have happened for real is pretty weak.

I mean, frankly, "tried to burn down a police station" doesn't exactly press my outrage buttons. Like, yes, people should not do that, for a whole bunch of complicated reasons, but it's not the kind of thing I think we need a violent overthrow of the societal order to fix.

> The problem, as it were, is that most of these "problems" are invented by "news" agencies and then repeated over and over until people believe them.

I disagree. I think they’re heavily exaggerated, and a whole pile of outright lies have been added on top, but more than enough of the “problems” seem to be generally rooted in real issues. For example:

I know a law professor who cannot teach basic topics in family law without dealing with trigger warnings.

Here’s some “DEI”:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42944203

Ever applied for anything from the NSF? You get to write about “broader impacts”. Everyone seems to know it’s BS, but it’s been there for decades.

Watching Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard from the sidelines, I found it rather difficult to agree with Harvard.

The ~75% indirect / F&A grant allocation to universities was indeed a real mess. Not necessarily the 75% number, but the structure of the allocation. I’ve experienced this from the research group side at two different universities, and I’ve even submitted formal feedback to a university suggesting that they voluntarily waive a portion in order to reduce the outrageously degree to which the allocation incentivizes grantees to do silly and wasteful things with their grant money. Now, obviously, the administration should not solve this problem by arbitrarily and illegally refusing to pay this money, but the executive branch may be able to legally improve the situation by improving the cost structure (IIRC the current structure is in the CFR), and they could certainly encourage Congress to adjust the statutes if needed.

> For example, in this conversation, there is literally no fact I could mention, no study I could cite, that would convince you that any one of these things might not actually be a real problem because you didn't use facts and science to develop them in the first place.

Let’s be clear: I do not, and never have, supported Trump or MAGA. But I’m perfectly happy to try to dig up real examples of actual issues, and I’m kind of tired of the tendency of, say, the more liberal media to avoid acknowledging problems. If there are real issues, engage with them! Don’t tell me that they don’t exist without giving some evidence!

This indeed a complicated subject and it's difficult to discuss such things in the tiny text boxes we are given here.

Let me attempt to make a broader point here: these are issues that do not in any way justify the changes trump and the republicans are trying to make.

This is a classic scenario, not unique to right wing, but heavily favored by, where they mention something that, when you dig into it deeply enough, might be an actual problem for someone somewhere, then they propose broad sweeping changes to fix it. Changes that just happen to increase their power.

So yes, we can talk about the FAA hiring scandal. It sounds like some people did something wrong! I spent 30 seconds skimming the HN comments so I'm only slightly more informed than the average LLM, but be extremely wary of people who ask you to support vague but sweeping changes like "stopping the spread of DEI!" and so on.

> If there are real issues, engage with them.

There are very, very, very many real issues, which ones do we engage with? Is cheating, racial or otherwise, at the FAA hiring process, more important to engage with than whatever is going on with americans being deported right now to parts unknown?

Like, I've talked to a number of people recently who tell me with all apparent sincerity that they believe that when trump and musk say they're doing something for X reason, they're telling the truth. Two people who are literally famous for lying.

It's easy to be mad at something, like colleges and how they handle grants, and as a result be drawn to anyone else who is mad at them. But it is vital to understand what will actually happen when these people get power.

The mask ban isn’t about covid. The purpose is to facilitate facial recognition. It is analogous to the HK protests a few years ago: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49931598.amp

Reply on news.ycombinator.com