[zekkius]

I find the underlying premise of this article and the claim that there is a "war on boys" absurd. It's a old argument from the same old set of people who have the same old intolerant (and dying) paradigm.

Not sure why it is on HN at all as the content has nothing to do with tech...

[dang]

Content on HN needn't have anything to do with tech, as you'll see if you read the first of the site guidelines:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It's not good that large parts of the thread have erupted into low-rent flamewars, though.

[detaro]

So what's your explanation for the events described?

[flopto]

The school (teachers and students together) recognizes an ideology (patriarchy) that they see as a problem and responds by creating a culture that opposes that ideology, in order to reduce the power of that ideology. I don't see any way to take a neutral stance on this issue, as ``doing nothing'' is supporting the status quo (patriarchy), so if you agree that patriarchy is a problem, then the school should be celebrated for picking the right side of the issue. If you like patriarchy, that's a different issue.

[woah]

So basically, anyone who disagrees with you is a racist/sexist?

[socksy]

In isolate, this is an absurd sentence. If I said "I don't think we should [do horrible thing to group x]", then you could easily retort with "yeah, but if I disagree with you I'm against group x?" in a "screw you" sort of way, and, well, it'd be true, wouldn't it?

I'm not saying anything either way about the GP, but I'd suggest it'd be better to tackle the point, rather than have such a knee-jerk reaction.

[flopto]

Well, if racism and sexism are real (they are) and person A believes that these are bad, then if person B disagrees with person A, that means person B believes racism and/or sexism are not bad.

Language like "racist/sexist" suggests that it's a binary, that each person is either racist or not racist. It's more useful to recognize that the dominant culture in the US is racist and that people benefit from/support that culture to varying degrees. Person B supports it.

[ams6110]

You can reject (or at least question) the premise.

[flopto]

Do you mean the premise that the patriarchy exists?

[oconnore]

Perhaps the premise that the school's actions successfully (does the policy work?), appropriately (is the policy ethical?), and accurately (does the policy have negative side effects?) counters that ideology.

[dudul]

Did you read the article? It answers your question and demonstrates that it is not a fallacy.

[WaxProlix]

I read the article but don't see exactly that myself (not OP) - would you be willing to pick out a few salient parts?

[ccernaf]

I'm pretty disappointed in the article and the comments, and how like Reddit this website is turning out to be. I'm not going to make any judgements (though I really really am), but this same article has been posted to 10 subreddits, among them such gems as: SJWsAtWork, ThisIsNotASafeSpace, sjsucks, and sjwhate.

[jerf]

You might to find out who you're contemptuously dismissing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt , in particular the first few paragraphs.

If you've progressed to the point where you can dismiss that guy without a thought, given his credentials and accomplishments, I submit to you that alarm bells ought to be going off in your head that you might have epistemologically closed yourself too far.

I'm not saying you're obligated to agree with him. I'm saying if you can't even engage with his arguments, it may be you that has the problem.

I can also recommend:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONUM4akzLGE "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion"

[bmelton]

Not affiliated (except that I follow him on Twitter), but the author, Jonathan Haidt, is one of America's pre-eminent social psychologists. He is (or at least was) a liberal who has engaged in some very serious social psychology that gives massive insight into how people tick, especially where those ticks are related to or concerning political party affiliations.

If the idea is to dismiss him as an anti-SJW, or anti-free speech, then I would posit that you're simply inclined to dismiss no matter what. If the complaint is that his work is spreading to, or being adopted by the anti-SJW crowd, that's hardly his fault.

He may not be right, or he may not have done appropriate research, or he may be based (his own studies would suggest that it's inevitable that he is), but any dismissal predicated in part on that he's trolling is almost certainly knee-jerk.

[ccernaf]

I don't doubt at all Haidt is qualified.

My complaint was more to your second point, that "If the complaint is that his work is spreading to, or being adopted by the anti-SJW crowd, that's hardly his fault." I do see a problem with how one-sided the comments on the page (Heterodox Academy) are, and I do think that he should have stepped in. Then, when I came to Hacker News, I saw similar comments, and that was disheartening.

My distaste really came from comments like these, on the main page: "My white male sons are now 30 and 28. I’m so happy they escaped public high school relatively unscathed, but I could see the beginnings of the nonsense, led by a faculty of activist females and male eunuchs. Public schooling in this country may have begun with noble intent; kids are now truly being inculcated rather than educated." and "You state this like it is an article of faith that women would be totally rad in STEM if only men would stop holding them back. What makes this “sketchy”? There is an abundance of evidence that men and women are different and think differently. There is almost no evidence that women will change that position based on upbringing." and then on hnews itself: "#KillAll(White)Men is literally calling for ethnic / gender purging." (though it was downvoted).

It would be great to have a conversation with Dr. Haidt, but I was turned off by how both Heterodox and Hacker News turned into "amen" forums. There were two students who posted on Heterodox, and they had some interesting points, some of which disagreed with Dr. Haidt.

[henshao]

The commentators are self selecting - if they strongly agree, they comment, which they have. You're still trying to dismiss the article based on people having opinions different than yours, rather than critiquing the article itself.

[ccernaf]

Would you agree with me in saying that the comments are at least disappointing?

In terms of the article itself, I agreed with this part, "High schools and colleges that lack viewpoint diversity should make it their top priority" which seems like a pretty progressive viewpoint. Let's make sure everybody's voice is heard, and let's make sure that voices that are usually silenced outside the classroom have equal footing inside. But a sentence later, bam - "Schools that value freedom of thought should therefore actively seek out non-leftist faculty."

I'm not sure how exactly that flows, and that's what led me to be disappointed. Moreover, the idea that students and faculty are living in "fear" and we have to accommodate their fears is also just a tad hypocritical.

I also have a problem with victimhood culture being a thing, but that's a whole different argument.

[bmelton]

> "Schools that value freedom of thought should therefore actively seek out non-leftist faculty."

Any argument that can be made in favor of cultural diversity should necessarily extend to left-right diversity as well.

FWIW, as I stated earlier, Haidt is leftist. Perhaps less so now than 7-8 years ago, but he is indeed a leftist, but one who appreciates that non-leftists are not evil, but who have different gradients of right/wrong, and different associations with which to be entrenched.

If you want children to have freedom of thought, then you should try to accurately present a range of ideas to students wherever possible. Students learn that 2+2=4, at least in some small part, because teachers say that it does. They later learn how and why 2+2=4, which mitigates the need for teacher acceptance as canon, but regardless, they learn that teachers ideas are to be given weight at the least, and that their expressions, even not necessarily strictly academic ones, are right.

Would you find fault with your children's education if every teacher were a Rush Limbaugh clone, or would you prefer them be exposed to a variety of thoughts and given the tools and knowledge to inform themselves and form their own viewpoints? If the answer is the latter, then you should reject the notion of your children being subscribed to any narrow ideological view, and adding non-leftist ideologies can only broaden it.

Edit: And yes, I would agree that if the comments are as you say they are, that is disappointing. I caught this article shortly after it was posted, and there weren't any other comments at the time, so I thankfully did not have those comments color my opinion of the article itself.

[henshao]

There are a lot more comments now than when you first looked, and I think the viewpoints expressed there go both ways now, so I don't see any issue there.

Non-leftist faculty would bring their own different worldview and perspective, increasing viewpoint diversity. I think it's a fairly logical statement.

And yes, we are accommodating their "fears". Rightfully so. They "fear" overzealous pushback for expressing their dissenting opinions. We should not accommodate those who "fear" opinions that differ from their own. That is not accommodation, that is censorship.

[sinxoveretothex]

This distaste is unsurprising. Research has concluded (see this popular science article about it http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-09/why-were-shutt...) that polarized opinions do affect how strongly readers react to information.

But the core of the article is about how there is a problem about polarized opinions: the core problems with the Mizzou, Yale and al. situations are not related to the opinions expressed themselves: the initial email was that opinion (in the specific case discussed in the article) and the administrator wanted to meet with that student to discuss it.

The problem is that the conversation is not about the concerns expressed in that email anymore, but about the use of one word in the response.

Is that the more important conversion you talk about wanting to have?

[bmelton]

> Research has concluded that polarized opinions do affect how strongly readers react to information.

Ironically enough, Jonathan Haidt, the author of this article contributed greatly to the insights on the effects of such bias.

http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/jhaidt-819710-haidt...

[sinxoveretothex]

I love material that so profoundly affect my thinking like this one did (last time was probably being introduced to LessWrong).

I can't thank you enough for linking this.

[realityking]

How is the fact that the article has been posted to less than agreeable subreddits an indication of it's quality or the validity of the arguments and opinion in it?

[rewqfdsa]

Besides, what makes those subreddits "less than agreeable"? I think they're important. Social justice is cancer.

[rmxt]

The extreme of both sides of this debate, as illustrated in your post and in the actions of the most egregious student complaints at Yale, lack the nuance needed to find a healthy compromise. Those subreddits are "less than agreeable" because they advocate outlandish responses to perhaps slightly less outlandish beliefs.

[rewqfdsa]

> Those subreddits are "less than agreeable" because they advocate outlandish responses

Do they? What "outlandish responses" might those be? You're smearing by implication. What specifically do you find so "outlandish"? As far as I can tell, people making claims like yours think that creating a consistent set of rules for all, promoting free expression of all views, and countering group libel are thoughtcrimes. What's "disagreeable" is countering the idea that I might be guilty of something because of my gender and ancestry.

[rmxt]

I don't have to do much "smearing by implication" when the upvoted comments speak for themselves. I think there are people that do this sort of "bullying" and unproductive rabble-rousing on both sides of the debate. I personally agree with the principles of "a consistent set of rules for all, etc.," but I don't think that the road to productive debate begins with including "hate," "sucks", "fuck them", etc., as a means to evoke an emotional response.

Specific instances of outlandishness:

SJWsAtWork -- low comment traffic, a bit more agreeable than the rest.

ThisIsNotASafeSpace -- top comment on the top all time submission, very high quality discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ThisIsNotASafeSpace/comments/3t6awz...

SJSucks -- highly upvoted comment (relatively speaking) on top all time post, again, some very high quality discussion here: https://www.reddit.com/r/sjsucks/comments/1vs4kj/watchmen_co...

SJWhate -- this one speaks for itself, I hope:

https://www.reddit.com/r/sjwhate/comments/3u0t33/ahmed_moham...

[dibujante]

That's a logical fallacy. I could repost anything you like to a subreddit you don't like; would that change the value of the thing you like?

[henshao]

What in this article is "disappointing"? I'm curious.

[SHIT_TALKER]

Calling something or someone "disappointing" or "problematic" is how these people evade enumerating arguments while still attempting to establish themselves as intellectually superior to those they are criticizing. They assume to have the correct position and condescend to anyone who demurs.

[cthalupa]

Any sort of work should always be judged based on the actual content, not who likes it or where it has been shared.

To reduce this argument to absurdity, let's say I create a recipe for pecan pie. People love it, including the people at stormfront or other white power sites. Let's say I created this recipe back in the 1920s, and it happens to be Hitler's favorite pie.

Is there anything wrong with that pie?

People with extreme viewpoints will often like things that are a more moderate version of their own viewpoints. Just because you don't agree with the extremists doesn't mean that you should also disagree with the moderates.