Comment by smacktoward | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smacktoward | Hacker News Reader

I don't think it's an accident that all three of his examples involve college students. I saw plenty of examples of this type of aggressive ideological policing in various political groups I was involved in when I was college. I have seen exactly zero in nearly twenty years of being involved with and working in left-wing politics after graduation.

(Which isn't to say it never happens, I'm sure it does, just that it's not the epidemic it would appear to be if you look solely at politics as she is practiced on campus.)

There's an old saying to the effect that campus politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low. When you get out in the real world and realize politics requires more than making statements -- that it requires building movements, and you need lots of people in order to build movements that make a difference -- you learn fast to either live with people who are mostly on your side, even if they disagree with you here and there, or you content yourself with writing blog manifestos.

"Academic politics is so vicious because the stakes are so low." - Henry Kissinger. He'd both been on the Harvard faculty and was Secretary of State, so he knew.

The real trouble with the political correctness thing about sex is that it's a distraction from the real political issues - money, and who gets how much. Most of what government does and can do is about money. The US right has its own problems with sex, but it's a distraction there, too: "God, guns, and gays". None of which the U.S. Government can do much about.

Occupy ran into this. Occupy leaves behind one lasting achievement - the identification of "the 1%" as a problem. They never had a coherent agenda. Basic truth about dealing with political leaders - don't ask them to solve your problem. The most that will get you is a study. You must have all the homework done up to the "sign here" point. Ask any lobbyist.

Thought for today: should people be paid more than they are worth as purely economic units? If not, should incomes go down as automation gets better?

>Occupy leaves behind one lasting achievement - the identification of "the 1%" as a problem.

As long as the 1% doesn't include Steve Jobs.

I don't think the message is that those 1% of people are themselves a problem, more that it's a problem that wealth is distributed as inequitably as it is.

It's still the same argument. I didn't see Steve Jobs offering to pay extra taxes. And I don't see the Occupy crowd complaining about Jobs. Or Soros for that matter (who financed the Occupy movement). OTOH the Koch brothers and any republican 1%ers seem to be fair game. It seems some billionaires are more equal than others.

> Occupy ran into this. Occupy leaves behind one lasting achievement - the identification of "the 1%" as a problem. They never had a coherent agenda.

Small correction: From what I understand Occupy didn't have a coherent agenda by design. The initiators of the movement had other goals, and were relatively successful by their own measures (and I agree, to an extent).

I think it's human nature to more vigorously defend your viewpoint if A: You feel would be strongly effected if it turned out to be false and B: You are somewhat unsure of the validity of your claim.

To me, this explains at least partially why the college age is one where you see this sort of strong rejection of anyone who disagrees. Many college students will have only recently laid any real claim to their own fully formed world view, and they don't have very much personal experience to back it up. Their world view also tends to be very wrapped up in self identity.

All in all, I think this leads to a more vigorous rejection of differing opinions in some cases.

I see this outside academia, definitely. I don't participate in political groups, but I see these debates among friends and acquaintances, on the internet, and in the workplace, even (usually in relation to diversity initiatives).

The overwhelming message I hear (not that anyone ever says it explicitly) is: "you either believe everything we say, or you're against us". It's gotten to the point that I (as a white male) have a lot of fear of speaking out when it comes to these matters, to the point where often I just keep my mouth shut. Not saying there aren't times when I should be keeping my mouth shut. But I do feel like I have some useful things to say, but I'm afraid to say them.

But he wasn't talking about campus politics per se, but the college scene in general. The policing is not so vicious because the stakes are low, but because there is real doubt about whether people are "racist" or "sexist". I think you experience in left wing politics is due to the fact that you all already had "cred" and so weren't subject to the same level of scrutiny.

I was just thinking that a lot of this might be college kids having a better handle on their politics than their social norms.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com