How about framing political opponents as "bigots"?

If the article was "withdraws acceptances for people who advocated X political belief" (e.g. "less funding for universities", "less power to teachers' unions", "private healthcare", take your pick of things that the average university faculty is likely to disagree with), I'd be right there arguing against that; all of those are reasonably debatable topics in the right forums. Which is exactly why there's no slippery slope there: when it's something worth defending, there's no shortage of defenders. So why does there inevitably spring up an army of defenders to support bigots? There's no "first they came for" argument here; first they came for the bigots, and then they stopped and threw a party.

(On a technical forum, in particular, there ought to be an appreciation for historical pattern matching; today "bigotry against outgroups" looks a lot like yesterday's "bigotry against outgroups", and it really shouldn't be a battle that has to get re-fought for every outgroup. One of these days I have hope that people could simply complete the pattern and skip the next dozen instances of it. It's the same battle every time, all the arguments look the same, and the right and wrong answers are always the same.)

At this point, I don't feel like there are any new arguments to make here. I think both of us are well aware of the arguments, I don't think either of us is particularly inclined to change their stance, and I see little value in going through the motions. All the arguments either one of us might reasonably make are posted elsewhere. So, in the interests of the honesty you've expressed an appreciation for: let's stop wasting each others' time.

> today "bigotry against outgroups" looks a lot like yesterday's "bigotry against outgroups"

In every case, bigotry against an outgroup relies upon defining members of whatever outgroup is targeted by their membership in that outgroup, and nothing else. People being basically decent as we are, the only way to support the argument that X outgroup has got to go, is by first establishing in the mind of one's interlocutor the certainty that membership in X outgroup is so bad, so utterly and uniquely exclusive by nature of every possible countervailing virtue, that in this specific case it is reasonable - indeed, that it's righteous - to mete out to members of X outgroup treatment whose infliction upon anyone else would be iniquitous in the extreme.

Such a concept is not easy to establish, people being basically decent as we are. Recent history recommends one method as especially efficacious toward that end - that of inventing or selecting a name generally used in reference to a given outgroup, and then investing not the members of that outgroup directly, but rather that name in itself, with all the opprobrium that can be laden upon it. The nature of the name isn't so important; be it a demonym, an ethnonym, a name of choice, or a slur, what matters is that it be generally understood outside the targeted outgroup that the group is the object of the name. Then, by making people despise the name, you can make people despise the group, as well.

There is a subtlety here - it's very hard, people being basically decent as we are, to convince one human being to look upon another not as a fellow deserving of at least some basic modicum of decency, but rather as a disease upon the body politic, meriting excision therefrom by methods otherwise too brutal or mean to be seriously contemplated. But language is the tool we use to understand the world around us, and it should be hardly controversial in the modern age that, by modifying the way we understand language, one may modify the way we understand our world. By investing a name with contempt, therefore, we can heap contempt upon those whom that name describes, much more easily than we could achieve the same end without the same semiotic indirection.

Don't you think it's interesting that you've spent your entire participation in this thread inveighing against "racists" and "sexists" and "bigots", and making very clear that those whom you so describe, you have no problem seeing excluded from social and professional life by means which you'd consider totally unacceptable if applied to those whom you do not place in the categories those names describe? I think it's interesting.

But, as you've rightly pointed out, we are getting awfully abstract, and should bear in mind the situation we're actually talking about here. In that connection, I also think it's interesting how broadly you define these categories you're using. We are, after all, talking about some eighteen-year-old jackasses, which is to say some eighteen-year-old men, who have posted some deeply tasteless and shameful meme pictures on Facebook, mostly in a private group.

That such behavior should be firmly discouraged, we agree; I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread that I would regard disciplinary probation - that is, preemptive advancement to strike two of the notional three, with one more incident of misconduct resulting in summary expulsion - as a proportionate response. Where we part company is in that you find such a response arrantly insufficient. Nothing will do by you but that these young idiots be, not given the opportunity to learn from the gravity of their error, but instead totally and permanently ostracized, from society and from the professions - which is to say, they should be permitted no friends, and they should be permitted no opportunity to pursue whatever careers they might have gone to Harvard to begin. Because they posted some deeply tasteless and shameful meme pictures on Facebook, mostly in a private group.

You're right that we shouldn't forget what we're talking about here. But I think that's precisely what your words show you to have done. You're not talking about some eighteen-year-old jackasses who have perpetuated and played into some truly shitty stereotypes in front of God and everybody, and should be firmly swatted for so doing - but should also be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they have derived a salutary lesson therefrom. You're talking about "racists" and "sexists" and "bigots" as though the subjects of the discussion were, not some young damn fools who, like most young men, enjoy shit-stirring and seeing what they can get away with before someone reins them in, but rather a klavern of hardcore Klansmen long since beyond susceptibility to reason. You speak here as though there were no distinction to be made between the former and the latter, and that simply is not true.

You seem a sensible and thoughtful enough person, and I can't imagine that you are simply not at home to nuance in general - rather, I think the names you're using, and the opprobrium which attaches to them, have blinded you to the nuance which obtains here. Do you think that's very likely to be the only nuance to which you've made yourself blind?

But, of course, that's your problem, to which you'll attend or not as you so choose. It's not the sort of thing with which I'd be comfortable, or one which I could easily compose with a desire to understand, as best I'm able, the world as it actually is, the better that my actions therein be more virtuous than the converse. Should I so err, I'd like to think someone would bring it to my attention. But perhaps you feel otherwise, and in any case I've probably abused your patience just about long enough. "Just about" - one last point and a link, and then I'm done.

You may at this time be inclined to argue that, while I'm not wrong in general about the fashion in which outgroups are demonized by means of those names which apply to them, I am wrong to be concerned with your having done so in this specific case, because, in this specific case, the group you so attack actually deserves it.

And I'm sure you believe that's true! So, after all, has everyone else who has ever deployed this method against anyone. But perhaps this happens simply to be the first time in human history that that claim has had merit.

Finally, the link - I'm hardly the first person to speak on this subject, to say nothing of well respected. If you won't hear it from me, then, perhaps you'll be interested in this not totally dissimilar formulation, which predates mine and originates with someone who I gather is generally held in good regard: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

I have seen, first-hand, across multiple communities, the effects of attempting to include everyone, including those who hate others and make them feel unwelcome, versus the effects of creating a community that actually feels welcoming. See also the interminable arguments about codes of conduct. This isn't an abstract question for me.

I'm going to skip responding to the arguments that I consider entirely addressed by the above.

> I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread that I would regard disciplinary probation - that is, preemptive advancement to strike two of the notional three, with one more incident of misconduct resulting in summary expulsion - as a proportionate response.

If the argument in this particular thread was along those lines, a matter of degree rather than one of action versus inaction, then that would come across a lot more reasonably. A general reaction of "of course this behavior shouldn't be tolerated; what's the best way to address it and make it stop happening everywhere" would be entirely reasonable. (There are interesting questions there, such as the value of attempting to fix deep-seated problems in 10 people versus the value of demonstrating consequences to a larger set.) This branch of the thread, however, has not led in that direction. I had not thus far commented on whether another response might have been appropriate; as a matter of fact, I'd consider either response perfectly fine.

> You're talking about "racists" and "sexists" and "bigots" as though the subjects of the discussion were, not some young damn fools who, like most young men, enjoy shit-stirring and seeing what they can get away with before someone reins them in

> We are, after all, talking about some eighteen-year-old jackasses

...who were applying to Harvard. If we want to paint the full picture of context here, I think saying that Harvard has higher-than-average standards is perhaps an understatement.

The terms refer to entire classes of behavior, not only the most extreme examples of such. It includes people who commit the most horrific acts of violence, people who make communities unwelcoming to specific genders/races/etc, people who repost hateful images and jokes, and people who try to put on their best cherubic faces and defend them in the most flowery and elaborate language. There are most certainly matters of degree and nuance, and not binary; one can be "more sexist" or "less racist", unlike "more dead"; they're comparable adjectives. That doesn't make the labels inapplicable.

And I find that using those terms tends to get people who might otherwise dismiss labels like "offensive" as "political correctness" to actually think about what they're defending. (I also find it an interesting choice by the original article to use "offensive" in the title rather than a more specific term; I think that makes a noticeable difference in framing.) Using them does not imply a lack of nuance; if you consider the terms themselves entirely un-nuanced, perhaps you should consider whether and why you find it appropriate to attempt to minimize their actions by avoiding the labels.

I would also suggest that, while there are extreme members of such groups that might revel in such labels, there are many people who might take pride and glory in being called "offensive" yet flinch back from being called "sexist" or "racist". Using more precise terms like those gets more people to question their behavior.

> http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...

I've read it, more than once. I'm rather amused that you're sending it, considering it ends with:

> The worst thing that could happen to this post is to have it be used as convenient feces to fling at the Blue Tribe whenever feces are necessary.

But in general, I'll end with one point I think we can agree on: nuance is useful. I think it's reasonable and self-consistent to handle increasing degrees of bad behavior with anything from correction (of varing degrees of gentle), this-is-your-first-and-last-warning, or immediate exclusion, depending on malice and damage. (The best communities I know don't jump to exclusion on the majority of first offenses; those are just the most high-profile cases.) I think it's reasonable to have stricter reactions to business leaders and candidates for high office than, and less strict corrective actions for others, based both on how much opportunity they should already have had to learn and the damage they could do if unchecked. I think it's reasonable that some people are willing to take the time to educate and attempt to correct, and others simply don't want to deal with the associated toxicity in the meantime; I don't see either as more virtuous, they're just choosing where and on who to spend their time. I see no hypocrisy in treating groups whose actions hurt others differently than groups commonly hurt by such actions; attempting to equate the two is a common tactic by the former, that also often sounds abstractly appealing to people in neither group.

I'm all for that. But when people have gotten to the point of excluding those who are perfectly fine with "live and let live" and one starts harassing them, then things have gotten quite out of hand. Your desire to ostracize -- there is no hate here for you? Honestly? I don't expect an honest answer from you, but know in your heart, that if you have hate in it, then you should be included in those who hate others and make them feel unwelcome.

And I find that using those terms tends to get people who might otherwise dismiss labels like "offensive" as "political correctness" to actually think about what they're defending.

Look, just because I advocate for people being able to do what they want in their own bedrooms doesn't mean that I advocate [insert particular action here]. Defending speech doesn't automatically make you an advocate for what has been said. In fact, that very fallacy is used by authoritarian regimes to justify their censorship. For like the 6th time, get a clue. I'm not defending what you're reacting against. I'm saying that how you propose to react against it is a bad idea and if it spreads will itself foster more injustice.

The worst thing that could happen to this post is to have it be used as convenient feces to fling at the Blue Tribe whenever feces are necessary.

What is the Blue Tribe going to do to get the other parts of the Blue Tribe to stop being secretly hateful authoritarians?

I see no hypocrisy in treating groups whose actions hurt others

For one who decries both hypocrisy and false equivalence, this looks a lot like you're engaging in a bit of it yourself. Ostracizing people from organizations deemed important by society and important to people's lives and careers carries a lot more consequence than some college aged kid posting some memes. Is it because they're the children of privilege? Hereditary blame is one sure sign that your thinking has reached toxic levels of tribalism and othering.

Nice to find a point of common ground.

> But when people have gotten to the point of excluding those who are perfectly fine with "live and let live"

"those who are perfectly fine with 'live and let live'" is more or less the definition of the group that welcoming communities welcome. What exclusion are you referring to, here? Because it isn't what was discussed in the article, nor anything I've advocated, nor anything I've seen advocated elsewhere in the parts of this overall comment thread I've read.

> Your desire to ostracize -- there is no hate here for you?

I don't desire to ostracize; I desire an absence of hate. The ideal case would be that nobody has hate to spread; attempting to limit the damage done is a fallback position.

> I'm saying that how you propose to react against it is a bad idea and if it spreads will itself foster more injustice.

I'm not (here or anywhere) suggesting exclusion as a first and only resort. I'm suggesting that it's an entirely valid tactic for people unwilling to learn to "live and let live", to make things more pleasant and welcoming for those who do. To paraphrase the description of an anti-harassment team in one community I'm fond of, de-escalation is always the first resort.

> Ostracizing people from organizations deemed important by society and important to people's lives and careers carries a lot more consequence than some college aged kid posting some memes.

I don't have the impression that the entirety of the groups were excluded; it sounded, from the article, more like they were excluding ringleaders and people who specifically stirred things up. I might also hold a different opinion if there was some genuine sign of recognizing the screwup and attempting to improve that was being ignored in favor of putting on a show. But as long as we're talking about the consequences to people's lives and careers, also consider the other students they'll interact with over the coming years, not just those 10 students.

> Is it because they're the children of privilege?

Nope. And I'm not sure where in anything I posted you would have gotten that from.

Let's take this in another direction, please. You suggested elsewhere in this thread that you'd have been fine with some form of academic probation. That also suggests that you'd be fine with the consequences of such if the behavior continues. So if this is just a question of degree, then as far as I can tell we're on the same page and disagreeing about positions not actually held. As posted here and elsewhere, I'm similarly in favor of de-escalation and proportional responses. Bans and exclusions are near-last resorts, to use with 1) people who show no indication of recognizing and changing their behavior, or 2) people who would be put in a position where they could do a lot of damage. This isn't "screw up once and you're excluded for life", and if you thought that's what I was advocating, then let's just chalk it up to limitations of the medium and move on.

People can change, though it's not necessarily the job of everyone and every group in society to put up with them while they do.