I have no idea whether it's true or not because you can't even find research on the subject because of how absurdly politicized the topic is.
I wonder if dang could point us to a reference of ideological boilerplate to be avoided, or if its just supposed to be something "we should know."
Snark is also a clear indicator of repetitive bludgeoning because people only resort to that when they have, let's call it, surplus creative energy left over—no real thought being needed to repeat the underlying points—which they use to try to add force to the smiting [3].
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
dressing it up under the term "boilerplate ideological rhetoric" doesn't change anything.
Commenters in the habit of posting typical internet dreck love nothing better than to paint themselves in grandiose colors as noble, freethinking victims of repression. In fact the problem is, to put it crudely, that they post such shitty comments. We're just trying to have an internet forum that manages to hover a little above the bottom of the barrel.
p.s. It looks like your account has been breaking the site guidelines by using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed here, regardless of which ideology you're battling for or against, because it destroys the curiosity this place is supposed to exist for. See https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for more explanation. Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed here either, for the same reason. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
It's the absence of action that is the issue. There is all kinds of left wing (I'm from the US for reference) dreck on here that receives no push back nor moderation. It's very common to see very low value statements on HN that disparage Republicans. People on here have said all kinds of nasty things about Republicans and conservatives. I rarely see any push back from you against these. It's pretty common to see people assume that Republicans don't care about people and state so, like it is an obvious truth without any supporting argument. How is that thoughtful or substantive?
I think your personal biases are blinding you to just how low value much of the accepted discussion here at HN is, when it is left-leaning
In other words, while "I rarely see" is no doubt true, the reasons for that have to do with your own filters as much as the objective situation. This explains why the opposite side reaches the opposite conclusions from the same data: they have the opposite filters. It's the same mechanism in both cases, and there are more than enough datapoints to support every pre-existing view. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
As you can imagine, what this boils down to is that all passionate political observers feel equally aggrieved and, ironically, all share the same perception that HN is stacked against them and they're being treated unfairly.
You might want to look up what Danielle Bunten Berry, rest in peace, had to say on the matter. The important quote is on her wikipedia page.
zero-tolerance to anybody questioning the current dogma is seen everywhere
However, academic freedom does not mean that universities must provide a platform to literally anybody that wants one. Their resources are finite and choices need to be made.
Surely, we can agree that some discussions by their very nature are harmful or at least deeply insulting. Imagine discussions such as "should women be allowed to vote?" or "are $ETHNICITY people worthwhile of being treated like other human beings?" or "was Hitler right?" or some other such topic.
I would certainly not say such speech should be banned, but it is equally clear to me that no institution should be obligated to provide a platform for such ideas.
It's worth noting that "teach the controversy" is the disingenuous rallying cry of creationists seeking to wedge anti-evolution religious dogma into US public school systems. Those people know that merely giving creationism a figurative seat at the table serves to legitimize it to some extent. They also hope to wear down their opposition (in this case, already-overworked educators) by consuming massive amounts of their time and energy. Well, such religious teachings should be denied a seat at the table, at least in publicly-funded secular schools.
By your own description[0][1], choices had already been made, and resources had already been committed.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27609417
1: > Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology at Britain's Open University, was due to give a talk at Essex University
What are you getting at? I can guess, but these things work better if we don't make assumptions or guesses about what others are saying.
Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology
at Britain’s Open University, was due to
give a talk at Essex University
You have to convince others of your ideas at some point...
Why are publicly funded institutions allowed to
decide who's opinion matters and whose doesn't?
There are a limited number of lecture halls and auditoriums. It costs money to run the facilities. Staff is required to maintain them. Somebody has to sweep the floors. There are heating and cooling bills to be paid and new boilers to be purchased every few decades. There are a limited number of hours available in students' academic careers.
A university cannot provide platforms for an unlimited number of professors and guest speakers; a student cannot attend an unlimited number of talks/lectures.
Therefore it is obvious. Choices must be made. One could even say that this curation is one of the most elementary duties of an educational institution.
What's your alternative? Should publicly funded institutions make zero curatorial choices whatsoever? Should literally anybody be able to teach there? If that is not your position, then you surely accept that some curation needs to occur.
This is not incompatible with the wishes of the people nor does it suggest that educational institutions should have dictatorial carte blanche. They must make choices, but must also be accountable to the public.
Are we trying to curtail freedom of speech?
Nobody is arguing that the subject of the linked article should be barred from expressing her views. This is strictly a question about who should (or should not) be obligated to give her a soapbox and a megaphone.
They shouldn't be allowed to take a stance
because they are the government.
It would be worth looking for examples of times and places when government kept its nose out of education entirely. I do not think you will enjoy the correlation between "governments disinterested in education" and... well, anything good.
I think another reason "things are different now" is that more of us think abstractly today than in years past. Many of the perspectives and possibilities we entertain today would have been alien to more of us 50 or 100 years ago, when the world was more conventional, more black and white.
Finally, with the multitudes of voices that no longer remain hidden behind mainstream media outlets, we're more aware of nontraditional, complex, and nuanced POVs today. That helps us realize that many psychological variations exist "between the lines", not as pathology but as a matter of natural variation.
A small, extremely vocal minority insists that anyone that voices the slightest hesitation in accommodating trans people into gender/sex segregated social functions must be a transphobe or be complicit in the violence against trans people. It makes the entire conversation exhausting.