I'm impressed by your incredible level-headedness, sir.
Leaving snark aside, it seems telling that both your leveller's bias, and your repellent pride in same, are entirely compatible in your own mind with the sort of "let's all be grown-ups here, shall we?" pose you take one comment later. "Unbiased" and "level-headed", it seems, mean exactly what you define them to mean, and you define them to mean being entirely in agreement with how you yourself regard these matters. I find this rather marvelous, or would if it weren't so lamentably common.
"If the common good justifies killing X agent, then it must be ok for a doctor to kill a patient in their sleep, take his organs and save three people with his two kidneys and heart."
Also, what Yale did wasn't right, and the students just defend themselves... If, for example, you were robbed wouldn't you care? "Oh but there are thousands more people poorer than me, I shouldn't bother".
Isn't that a variation of a semantic shift fallacy? [1]
I'm really interested in this sentence/concept - is there a term for this or anywhere I can read more about the concept behind this statement?
Oh, I wasn't aware that you knew the author of blog post and software. Was he really very spoiled as a child?
(I'm assuming you knew him, based on your comment, because surely you're not blanket-judging everyone who goes to a top-tier or Ivy League school as a coddled little brat with a silver spoon and an insular view of the world? Such a judgment would not even be correct to first order.)
What is making you sick to your stomach, anyway?
If it is the time spent on this project, how many hours did any of them actually spend? I think it's fun to go out to a bar with friends, and I even like entertainment where I do nothing other than sit or stand in the audience. I don't think those activities create much value for society, and I'm not even helping some classmates save time when picking out their classes, yet I don't think that's making anyone sick to their stomachs.
If it is the defiance of superiors, the two categories of crimes you mentioned are specifically relevant. Whether its a student, a gang on a bus, a soldier or a priest committing the crime, it isn't only about the force used at the time of the assault, but the complicity of the authorities that are in the habit of operating without oversight from the people they presume to serve.
When you describe the students as "spoiled", and the issues they think important as inconsequential without coming down on a side, it makes it sound like it would be better if they were paralyzed with awe over their good fortune, or at the very least deferential to the closest thing they can find to patrons. What is a "cocoon of hopes and dreams"? I think it is an objection to the students being idealistic, but the alternatives to serving ideals that I can think of are being self-congratulatory, or seeking for validation from superiors instead.
As for academic dishonesty[2], how do you think entire labs publish fraudulent papers other than through deference to authority? It seems less likely that some PhD candidate tricks everyone else in the lab, than that a PhD candidate slowly comes to the realization that his PI is sloppy and then that he is actively twisting or manufacturing results. What does the candidate do when his career would be interrupted if he becomes known for blowing the whistle on someone who gave him a position. How about the consideration that his career will be significantly tarnished if the person he trained under becomes known as a fraud? In such a case, it's probably just a lot easier to keep it in perspective as a case of academic honesty, rather than complicating it with trying to figure out who he owes your loyalty or respect to.
And finally, the third possibility for bellyache I can think of is that people are paying so much attention to this issue. That one shouldn't take much time to address. The issue is a pretty good proxy for describing the difference between a society (and economy) that is permission based or not. Hacker News is a community for people who see themselves as hackers, entrepreneurs, and innovators. While it is difficult to prove that disruption is always good, or even good on balance, that it is is pretty close to being the identifying major premise for a community like this.
In a very general sense I'm not sure that course ratings don't discourage diverse educational experiences and students from choosing classes best tailored to their individual talents. On the other hand, I also assume Yale students are sophisticated enough to take the ratings for what they're worth, and either way I'm saying that it is an issue worth considering, not one that makes me sick to my stomach to hear discussed.
The fact is, we live in a society where it is virtually required to stand up for ones self. Regardless of rape, fraud, bribery, etc. every person in a democratic society needs to stand up for what they feel is right. If you feel that it is wrong that fraud is happening, go ahead attempt to make a difference, you'll make the NEWS as well.
The reason that this is making NEWS is that these kids are willing to stand up for themselves even if it gets them kicked out of school (which by the way is not exactly a minuscule event).
It seems to me that you are attempting to compare a dispute amongst intellectuals with the rabbles of society. This is not a fair comparison, the fact is you are right everything you listed should get the attention they deserve and believe it or not they do. Would you really like to sit on Hacker News and just read about rapes all day, or plagiarism? It is not NEWS because there is little that can be done, we have systems in place (and continue to improve systems) to minimize "bad behavior."
In this case, Yale is actually abusing those systems (in many peoples eyes) and that is why it is making NEWS. Yale has an issue with seemingly abusing its power, this in my opinion, is wrong for the same reasons as rape, fraud, bribery, or plagiarism, it reduces our freedoms and "cheats" us. In this case, the ones being cheated are the Yale students, in the case of plagiarism it's perhaps the company that hires the plagiarizing student (or the student body when he fails at his job).
My point, is that you are so quick to make the assertion that this is a "minuscule altercation" without truly taking the time to consider that each altercation such as this is a battle for ones personal freedoms (similar to battling against plagiarism, bribery, fraud, or rape).
I do consider rape a far more extreme version of reducing ones freedom, but it is still so horrible because it takes away choice and in turn ones freedom.
Why you felt the need to use that idea to bash on (your stereotypical view of) ivy leaguers is beyond me.
The fact that this inconsequential squabble gets discussed so much and gets portrayed as the fight between David and "Goliath The Man", instead of being seen as a public tantrum being thrown by a spoiled kid living a cushioned life inside a cocoon made out of hopes and dreams, makes me sick to my stomach.