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.
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.