Morning Ed: United States {2017.06.05.M}

Well, I suppose it makes sense for somebody to make some money off the Big Sort.

This is interesting. It’s not often the Great Plains converge with BosWash.

And here’s a map of the closest top-tier college football program to your county.

In case you ever wanted to know what happened to all of those emails sent to Hillary Clinton.

Gillian Brockell writes about the racism that flight attendants have to put up with.

Harsh!

Virginia Postrel says we need some new stories.

You will never guess why Mary Kay Letourneau and her husband are getting a divorce.


Managing Editor
Home Page Twitter Google+ Pinterest 

Will Truman is a former professional gearhead who is presently a stay-at-home father in the Mountain East. He has moved around frequently, having lived in six places since 2003, ranging from rural outposts to major metropolitan areas. He also writes fiction, when he finds the time. ...more →

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrintFriendlyMore options

280 thoughts on “Morning Ed: United States {2017.06.05.M}

  1. Making money off the Big Sort seems like a continuation of the Long Con.

    California has fewer households where both spouses work than I thought it would.

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
    • The areas in California with both spouses in the labor force look like the SF Bay Area, San Diego metro area and the LA Metro area. So the wealthiest and most expensive parts of the state.

      The areas with deeper purple are more economically depressed and sometimes very depressed so I wonder if those areas just as both spouses outside the traditional labor force.

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
        • Employment is pretty depressed in those areas and the map said one or both spouses is not working. It did not tell us how many were one income households or no income households.

          The map doesn’t even tell us whether men or women are staying at home.

            Quote  Link

          Report

           
  2. Conservative Move: for every possible need, there is someone willing to sell it to you. sniff. I love ‘merica! But really, isn’t almost anywhere in texas, outside of austin, conservative?

    My area is green, just as expected, but wasn’t was when me and the now ex moved into the “marital estate” and found that, in our court, we were the only couple that both worked. Everyone else, the wife stayed home. Fair to say though that everyone have 2 or more kids…so…..

    Clinton: God, what shitty job. First to waste a decade doing this in the hopes to be doing it for a president, then to have to respond to each and every letter, reliving that night. Wonder if he’s still dressing in all black.

    Flight racism: Seems more ignorance than racism.

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
  3. The “flight racism” one also just seems to be a “when you work in a service-oriented industry, you have to cater to the whims of people who think they’re special/regularly deal with ignorant people.”

    It is hard to know “what’s potentially a threat and what’s just a ‘different’ person going about their daily life” and I think sometimes the people who are a little “different” in some way wind up dealing with more trouble. I’m a quiet loner and I rail every time there was a shooting where everyone talks about how the shooter was a quiet loner and that’s like TOTALLY a red flag….

    Part of it may be the metastasis of the “if you see something, say something” encouragement that we’ve been given since 2001 (Wasn’t there a plan afoot at some point to allow people to anonymously snitch on their neighbors for a lotta stuff? Like THAT is never gonna be abused….)

    But also, those kinds of mindsets have existed FOREVER. Doubtless during WWII Chinese-Americans got harassed because people thought they were part of the “Japanese threat” and during WWI there were German families who changed their surnames in order to avoid trouble (“No, we are….Swedish….”)

    I remember almost 20 years ago driving to an Amtrak station in a town a little while away to see if it would be feasible to drive there and leave my car while traveling to visit family. I ultimately didn’t, because it turned out to involve changing trains and was more hassle and longer than going to a more-distant station where I wouldn’t need to make a change, but while I was checking out the area, a guy (of the same complexion as I am) came up to me and said:

    him: “Are you thinking of taking the train?”

    me: “Yeah. I want to go home for Thanksgiving but I don’t want to fly. I was checking it out to see about leaving my car here, if there’d be a fee….”

    him: “There isn’t, but you should know that this part of town gets awfully…..dark….at night.”

    (I looked around and then said): “Huh. It seems like they have plenty of streetlights in the parking lot here so seeing to get to my car shouldn’t be a problem.”

    Him: “No, it gets awfully DARK here at night….”

    It wasn’t until about 10 minutes later I figured out what he was on about. I mean, if it was a high-crime area he should have just said, “Your car might get broken in to because the police don’t patrol much here” or something… I assume that’s what he meant, or that he assumed “people of a particular skin tone” = higher crime rate. And he assumed I’d know/believe that too.

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
  4. Conservative Move: I am curious whether this is simply cheesy marketing for a real estate agent offering the usual services at the going rate, or if this a grift, fleecing the rubes.

    Either way, this seems to me a peculiarly conservative thing. Sure, liberals tend to congregate too, but it seems to be more of an amenities thing. If you pitch a city as having an active music scene, micro breweries, walkable neighborhoods, great bookstores, etc., then yeah, you are pitching to liberals. But this is because those are the sorts of things liberals want, at least stereotypically. It would seem weird to me to pitch a city on the basis that you won’t have to suffer frequent contact with conservatives. But this is what this Conservative Move is pitching. It doesn’t even bother with the ritual denunciation of taxes. It is just assumed that moving to a conservative area is the same as moving to “a better life.”

    I see the same thing in the church. I belong to more liberal Lutheran church, “liberal” meaning we have had female clergy for decades and we are OK with gay marriage. But until recently there was a conservative wing. You could find congregations that never called a female pastor and where gay marriage was out of the question. And that was OK. They were a minority, but they was never a movement to purge them. They have mostly left over the past ten years or so, mostly over the gay marriage issue. But they left us. They weren’t pushed out. They found it intolerable to be members of an organization that allowed gay marriage, so off they went. The more conservative Lutheran church, on the other hand, purged their liberal wing almost fifty years ago. It seems a characteristically conservative attitude that coexistence with people who disagree is impossible.

    See also: MSNBC: the “liberal network” because it has both liberal and conservative hosts.

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
  5. The NY Times has an interesting article on the rise and fall of Bleeker Street:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/31/fashion/bleecker-street-shopping-empty-storefronts.html?_r=0

    The basic story seems to be:

    1. Bleeker Street was a charming, semi-Bohemian West Village street with local businesses like the Biography Bookshop, some indy fashion boutiques, antique stores, etc.

    2. Magnolia Bakery opens in 1996 and is just another Bleeker Street business.

    3. Magnolia Bakery is featured on Sex in the City four years later.

    4. The crowds go wild and tours are organized. I went to grad school around here when the tours were very big in 2005-2006.

    5. Lots of mega luxury brands decide to rent/lease storefronts on Bleeker Street and this drives up rents.

    6. Turns out that people on Sex in the City tours either can’t afford expensive clothing or don’t want it. They just want to gawk at celebrities.

    7. The fiscal crisis.

    8. The mega luxury brands close up shop largely except now the landlords are greedy for huge rents they extracted short term and won’t lower accordingly and you have empty storefronts.

    I’m not sure what can be done here because I seem to be largely in both worlds where I don’t mind nice things and also like a good bookshop but the bookshop crowd treats the fancy clothing brand as the enemy uber allies because no one knows how to get over middle and high school. I don’t think it is a contradiction to like nice clothing and to like a good bookstore or reading but many people seem to. My ideal urban hood would contain both nice clothing stores and a good bookshop or two. Maybe an arthouse movie theatre.

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
    • ” no one knows how to get over middle and high school”

      Oh Lord is this true.

      So much of calling-out culture resolves to “now that I have a thousand followers I can finally tell those popular girls what I really think about them! With a hundred retweets on my side I can finally stand up to that bully!”

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
      • One of the things I was least prepared for in adulthood (in general: not just on the internet) is how some folks never seem to have moved past junior high or high school.

        It’s especially weird to realize that that’s the dynamic behind some of the micturational combat that goes on in university departments/administrations.

          Quote  Link

        Report

         
          • I’m not so sure on this one. What I think happens is that people develop a lot of taste tribe identities and they decide “this is for me” and “this is not for me.”

            Symbolism seems to matter a lot for many people and the symbolism that people care for is a very myopic “this is meant for me” and if something is not meant for them than they oppose it even if that thing can benefit them tangentially.

            I’ve come around on the housing crisis issue and think the best way to lower housing costs is to build about as much of it as possible as quickly as possible while still being safe and not-shoddy. But a lot of people still refuse to believe that building yuppie condos is going to lower the rent despite evidence that it does. The only thing I can surmise that when people see yuppie condos they see “you are building housing for people who are not like me and people I don’t like.” Maybe my hope is that building enough yuppie condos will let me buy a place because I am part-yuppie too (or HENRY as the new term). And I am one of those weirdos who likes modern architecture over traditional styles usually.

            I came to be interested in clothing a bit late in life (my late 20s) but in reading the comments to the Bleeker Street article, I see a lot of people angry that their neighborhood became popular with tourists and rich people and a lot of book lovers seem to were anti-fashion as a badge of honor.

            I do think that if you live in a city like NY, SF, LA, Seattle, and Portland tourism is just something you need to get used to.

              Quote  Link

            Report

             
            • It would be really nice if the up-zoners took a moment out of their day to understand that up-zoning isn’t easy, especially in old built-out cities.

              Besides assisting the developer in assembling the footprint, the local govt needs look at all the impacts to local services: traffic, public transit, parking, schools, parks, water & sewer service, police & fire, etc.

              Then you have to persuade the existing residents who bought into a particular zoning regulation that the upzone is appropriate.

              All politics is local, but land use is perhaps the most so.

                Quote  Link

              Report

               
              • And it would be really nice if people realized it isn’t going to be 1967 or 1978 forever and nothing is going to prevent people from moving to SF or NYC or any other cool city.

                It would be really nice if people realized when they were acting in their own biases and for their own good and that maybe there is not a good reason to have farmland in Marin, Alameda, or San Mateo counties.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                 
  6. Clinton letters – Strange article. It seems to think it’s a story about personal connections (in the sense of people reaching out and making sense of their experiences) but it’s a story about personal connections (the network of paid staffers who make a politician look good).

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
  7. Postrel’s new stories – (Hyeesh, can we get these things numbered? I don’t want free content spoon-fed to me; I want free content conveniently spoon-fed to me.) It doesn’t sound like she wants new stories. She says we’re telling more stories than ever. She’s looking for us to focus on different stories. I’m all for that, although it’d be nice if she’d identify which stories those should be. But I think the problem is something I brought up on the Everything Is Political thread: we don’t have a good tool for disengaging from topics. We don’t have a meme-closer, or media that steer the conversation away from garbage.

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
    • “we don’t have a good tool for disengaging from topics.”

      And so long as “I don’t want to talk about (thing)” is interpreted as “I don’t care about (thing)”, “nobody should care about (thing)”, “(thing) is not a problem”, or “I actually support (thing)”, we will not have a good way.

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
  8. Flight Attendant Racism: Part of the problem is that, in order to fight racism, we’ve gone to Zero Tolerance codeword-style enforcement. If certain phrases are uttered then there is an Objective Standardized Response, a Procedure which must be followed. Judgement is assumed to be suspect, informed by bias and prejudice.

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
  9. So Trump wants to privatize Air Traffic Control with (what sounds like) a GSO non-profit? Given the FAAs inability to make any headway at modernizing ATC, this doesn’t seem like a bad idea.

    The DNC complains:

    By privatizing our nation’s air traffic control system, Trump is once again putting the interests and the pocketbooks of airline executives before the safety and well being of American workers and passengers

    I’m not sure how, since the airlines will still be paying fees to run ATC. I’m sure that airlines are hoping that a privatized ATC will be more efficient and thus they will save money either through lower fees paid to ATC, or through improved flight times and corridors (saving on fuel and time), but that strikes me as a win for everyone.

    So exactly how would an ATC that is responsive to airline interests be bad for everyone?

      Quote  Link

    Report

     
      • Setting aside that I don’t trust the Trump administration to be able to do something like this, as it is more complicated than spellchecking a tweet, I’m looking for something more.

        The Delta report makes an awful lot of claims, but offers no real analysis regarding why Canada and the UK experienced cost increases. It also seems to make the assumption that there is no way to control for or regulate potential negatives so as to avoid the problems other countries have experienced. It also hand waves away the raft of problems the FAA has running the ATC as it is.

          Quote  Link

        Report

         
    • So exactly how would an ATC that is responsive to airline interests be bad for everyone?

      I agree that the DNC is missing the point. (And it’s a terrible political message as well, further evidence that the DNC remains incompetent.) But your question is a bit beggy as phrased. It’s similar to asking “So, how exactly would a prison system responsive to prisoner’s interests be bad for everyone?” when discussing privatizing our prison system.

      I think the worry – or at least the worry I have – is that corporate culture in these types of PPPs has a history of not WAI. So I’d want it heavily regulated, so much so that tweaking the current structure makes more sense.

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
    • “exactly how would an ATC that is responsive to airline interests be bad for everyone?”

      If I had to come up with a reason, I could guess that a privately-funded ATC would be incentivised to accept a higher passenger risk in order to keep operations tempo (and revenue) high. Closer spacing between aircraft, allowing takeoffs and landings in marginal weather conditions, that sort of thing.

      Not necessarily things that would themselves cause crashes, but things that could contribute to the overall “this went wrong, then this went wrong, then that went wrong, and because the planes were close together and the weather was bad the pilots couldn’t see each other, and that’s when they crashed” story.

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
    • As I said on Twitter, this has been floating around for a while; Trump didn’t come up with this ex nihilo. It’s interesting in that the people you’d expect to be against it – the unions – are for it.

      But that said, the proposals I’ve seen don’t make it seem to be the best policy, on balance, and, as you and others have said, I don’t trust Trump enough to want to deviate from the status quo on any system design.

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
      • That really depends on how it is structured. If the leadership of the PPP ATC is all or mostly air line execs or lobbyists, that could be bad (or not).

        The thing to keep in mind is that ATC is not a regulatory body, it’s a service. The FAA is still publishing and enforcing regs, and if the regs say stuff like “all aircraft must maintain 5 miles horizontal separation”, a PPP ATC isn’t going to be playing fast and loose with the rules, at least not any more than they do now (ATC data is logged, so if there is an incident, the FAA/NTSB is going to know if an aircraft was instructed or otherwise allowed to get too close).

          Quote  Link

        Report

         
    • A bit harsh on the kids… but, hey. This is the future now. Put this on a poster and put it in every single high school in the good part of town in the country.

      “WHAT YOU DO ON FACEBOOK CAN KEEP YOU FROM GOING TO COLLEGE”

      Put it next to the posters about bullying.

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
      • How is it harsh on the kids? Harvard set up a facebook group for the class of 2021 and a bunch of kids decided that they would start a more X-rated group to do the same. The kids were kind of dumb though and they said “Hey, do you want in on our secret group? You gotta post a meme to the Harvard-sponsored and monitored group that will offend about 100 of your fellow soon-to-be froshes!” And people went for it.

          Quote  Link

        Report

         
        • It’s not like the kids are *ENTITLED* to go to Harvard. Harvard is a private business and they can accept (or deny (or withdraw acceptance from)) whomever they want.

          I imagine that there are 10 waitlisted kids who are very happy indeed.

          But when it comes to “harsh”, I’m sure that they’re blindsided and would claim something like they “had no idea that posting a meme to facebook could get them dropped from acceptance to Harvard”, in the same way that a lot of people in recent years are finding out that their tweets, facebook posts, and whatnot are being sent to bosses, parents, spouses, and so on and finding that they have to apply for new jobs or find themselves having to explain themselves.

          Maybe the kids aren’t reeducatable.

          Better that they’re replaced with those waitlisted kids. The waitlisted kids will appreciate it that much more, I’m sure.

            Quote  Link

          Report

           
          • I’m certain that tens of thousands of Harvard students have gotten away with edgelord crap every bit is gross as what these students posted in their little FB group.

            The difference? They didn’t do it in a goddamn FB group.

            Also, roughly 300 million Americans haven’t been to Harvard, and some of them manage to lead happy and productive lives. I’m pretty sure these idiots will be fine.

              Quote  Link

            Report

             
            • Fired from their jobs. Their bosses should be told about what they did and told that there will be a boycott of their business if this person is not fired.

              Their parents should be told. “Your child said *THIS*.”

              If nude photos of the people can be found, if they’re over 18, these photos should be publicized.

              Their home addresses should be published in the newspaper along with regular schedules.

                Quote  Link

              Report

               
              • You understand, , when you go off on silly rants like this, nobody actually listens to you anymore, right?

                I mean, I understand you think speech should have zero consequences, especially when comfortable middle class or above people say not nice things and all…

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                 
                • My original point was that what happened was a bit harsh but indicative of the way reality is now and that they should be the poster children for children in high schools everywhere on how posting on social media will have consequences.

                  The problem that people had with what I said was not the part where I said “indicative of the way reality is now and that they should be the poster children for children in high schools everywhere on how posting on social media will have consequences” but on the part where I said it was “a bit harsh”.

                  If you want to read that as “he said that this was a bit harsh! THAT MEANS THAT HE THINKS THAT SPEECH SHOULD HAVE ZERO CONSEQUENCES!”, you’re not exactly understanding my argument.

                  But that’s cool.

                  I’m down with my boss reading what I’ve written here.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

                   
                    • I stand by the whole “this was a bit harsh but indicative of the way reality is now and that they should be the poster children for children in high schools everywhere on how posting on social media will have consequences” thing, for the record.

                      I think that arguing against the “a bit harsh” thing is to argue against the least interesting part of the statement, but, hey. Whatever.

                      If that’s what we’re arguing against, is the position that you’re arguing that it was perfectly calibrated or is it that it was not harsh enough?

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                       
                        • They’re arguing against the least interesting part of the clearly stated position as if it were followed by “and that’s why I support people who get accepted to Harvard… but only if they’re white! Once Accepted, Always Accepted!” rather than “we should make these kids poster children for what they did”.

                          (And, no. I’m not mad. I promise.)

                            Quote  Link

                          Report

                           
                  • The thing is most kids knew social media use had consequences years ago. So these kids are outliers in good ( getting into Harvard) and bad ( clueless) ways.

                    Harsh? Eh. It would be harsh for Mexican classmates to sit next to Sir Meme-A-Lot who makes those pinata jokes.

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

                     
              • Hmmm Fbook is sort of public. The kids had to post something in the public group to get into the private group. So how do the targeted groups feel about those memes? Is that worth a thought?

                Just to get ahead of you. Yup people make mistakes and should be able to get on with their lives without being forever tarred. Agree completely. But some mistakes also have consequences for the target and the person in err.

                  Quote  Link

                Report

                 
                • But some mistakes also have consequences for the target and the person in err.

                  I think that we should have a *BIT* more leeway for kids than for adults and that it’s likely that a stern lecture, a handful of demerits, and a probationary period would have been sufficient.

                  But, hey, maybe it wasn’t. Hell, maybe the kids hammered their First Amendment rights when questioned about it.

                  As I said, I’m sure that there are 10 waitlisted kids who are over the moon right now.

                  And I’m sure that they know better than to post memes. They’d better, anyway.

                    Quote  Link

                  Report

                   
                  • Knowing when you can make off color comments is a pretty basic social skill. Most college know it already or learn it in a less painful manner. I’m sure most of their peers, even those that are fine with the memes, are gobsmacked these kids were this publicly stupid.

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

                     
                  • So, their actions exposed those kids as uncultured roughnecks who clearly aren’t Harvard material. Why isn’t that account sufficient? Why doesn’t the story end there? As far as I can tell, there are no cultural or speech related issues here except that you are looking for an angle to make this into a cultural and speech issue. Which ironically is exactly what you’re cautioning people against doing.

                      Quote  Link

                    Report

                     
                    • Dude, I’m saying that they should be made poster children as warnings to *ALL* high school students in the good part of town as to what will happen if you act foolish on social media.

                      School guidance counselors can use these kids as examples in the beginning of the year assembly for at least a decade.

                      “Don’t be foolish on Social Media! It will get you booted from Harvard before you even start going there! Now for a sketch from the Drama Club about marijuana being bad.”

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                       
                      • Ahh. Ok. That’s the position I thought you were leaning into at the beginning, but this comment

                        I think that we should have a *BIT* more leeway for kids than for adults and that it’s likely that a stern lecture, a handful of demerits, and a probationary period would have been sufficient.

                        seemed to go in a different direction more closely aligned with free speech absolutism and so on.

                          Quote  Link

                        Report

                         
                        • “Perfectly calibrated”. Gotcha.

                          (Fine, use shadow faces and say “these 10 students” and not “John Smith”, “Mark Jones”, “Matt Thompson” and so on.)

                          Just make the point big and loud that this happened, it happened to 10 kids, they got accepted to Harvard, and now they had to go to Some Other College because of their memeing.

                          Because, let’s face it, if they only got a stern talking to and a handful of demerits and a probationary period, we never would have heard this story in the first place.

                          We want high school kids to know that they are all Justine Sacco now. They are the guy who made jokes about dongles in front of Adria Richards. They are Kathy Griffin.

                            Quote  Link

                          Report

                           
                            • The direct circumstances under which Adria got fired were bullshit (because of a DDOS holding her company hostage? Come on!), but “tech evangelist” strikes me as being a job somewhere on the same spectrum as “PR person” and making a huge (avoidable) stink is a good way to demonstrate that one is doing a poor job evangelizing. I would not have been surprised if she had gotten fired without the DDOS.

                              It stinks to high heaven that she got fired with it, though.

                                Quote  Link

                              Report

                               
                                • I usually find plenty to disagree with Freddie, but he’s spot on here. I’ve seen it in action too many times.
                                  The central idea is that the people-at-large are “the eyes and ears” of the police (from the community policing model), and the police urgently need any information they can get– any information at all, without regard to whether it is legitimate police business– so they can make a determination on it.
                                  The issue is that it doesn’t mesh well with the intelligence-led policing model, because the tools to drill down that information are lacking. Those tools are definitely there alright, but they’re being used for their own purposes rather than mundane matters. The end product is the generation of a vast amount of noise in the system.
                                  Nonetheless, many police will tell you that they would rather know about it than not know. Police are like that, generally. Part of their training is to home in on the “magic words” that justify everything, e.g., “I felt threatened.”
                                  The noise in the system itself is a hobble on legitimate police work, but its true detriment is in the deployment of police (i.e., deadly force) where there is no legitimate police work to be had. Of course, the police unions are all for this (they are labor organizations of law enforcement, and not a law enforcement organization for labor), because it makes it look like more officers are needed; i.e., it is purely self-serving. The shift in police function occurring following the Bush administration’s refusal to reauthorize the Byrne grants is quite likely the single biggest reason why there are so many police shooting deaths these days. They are performing tasks that are not traditional police work, and for which they are only marginally trained to perform.

                                  It reminds me of Mussolini’s model, that of passing out uniforms and making people police and employees of the state. Our model does not involve a uniform or a payout, but is otherwise identical.
                                  This desocialization of society, combined with ubiquity of digital tools, e.g., cell phones, makes for an unpleasant end. Not to say that the end is undesirable, as certainly there are many who apparently *DO* desire it, but it is distinctly unpleasant nonetheless.

                                    Quote  Link

                                  Report

                                   
                                    • Not the Byrne grants themselves, but the actions surrounding them.

                                      Two reasons:
                                      1) Much of the disbursements were misspent, and lots embezzled. There was a decision not to prosecute, because there was a shortage of prospective officers, and depleting the ranks more by removing the criminal was found to be counter to the objective of “putting more cops on the streets.”
                                      This gave the green light to those types of acts, and, as a result, criminal conduct became embedded in many departments, which had formerly been seeing a decline in officer misconduct since the mid- to late-70’s.

                                      2) Despite the evidence cited by the Bush administration showing that greater numbers of police officers are terribly inadequate at controlling crime, the leadership at many municipalities and counties felt it would be “sending the wrong message to criminals” were they to lay off police officers. Shortly after the Byrne grants got shot down, municipalities and counties began shifting services traditionally provided by other agencies to the police to justify maintaining a bloated police department. The unions were all for this, because it increased their numbers, which increased payroll deductions to the unions, which increased political activism in favor of maintaining bloated police departments.

                                      Wherever you look, one-third to one-half of all police shooting deaths involve victims described as “mentally ill,” “mentally unstable,” or “mentally disturbed.” Functionally, this could mean that someone was prescribed Prozac or Ritalin at some point in their lives.
                                      Police are trained to act with deadly force. They are not there to negotiate, other than with deadly force.
                                      They are not trained to interact with people who are “mentally ill,” “mentally unstable,” or “mentally disturbed.”

                                      This is changing though.
                                      I was talking to a state cop recently who is certified to deal with mentally disturbed persons.

                                      Granted, that is the state police, who are more well-trained anyway.

                                        Quote  Link

                                      Report

                                       
                                • Why wouldn’t she? Sacco made a sarcastic comment about no one in particular that offended the pretend sensibilities of the internet hive mind.

                                  Richards decided to play junior G Man and put two real people on the internet for making off-color comments.

                                    Quote  Link

                                  Report

                                   
                                    • To clarify, I don’t think firing Sacco cuz her joke missed was fair.

                                      I think firing Sacco because she made a questionable joke on social media and then logged off for however many hours… seemingly unaware of how that would play out… showed a lack of basic competency for a social media strategist or whatever.

                                      She did not deserve the targetted hate she got.

                                        Quote  Link

                                      Report

                                       
                                      • Shaming is a very, very important social tool.

                                        It’s used to punish all sorts of slights, perceived and real, for issues that the law (for whatever reason) does not have the breadth to cover.

                                        We’ve seen it used to police sexual deviancy, for example.

                                        And, as you say, it’s exactly how free speech is supposed to work.

                                          Quote  Link

                                        Report

                                         
                                          • This is one of those areas where I feel as if I inhabit a completely different world than some other folks, because never in my world have I ever been tempted to play social media snitch.

                                            Don’t get me wrong. I am and have always been a law-abiding citizen (most laws, at least). If my house gets broken into, I’m calling the police. If I witness a crime being committed against an innocent victim, I’m going to cooperate with the law. But tattling on people to whatever random authority figure or trying to publicly shame them for some perceived slight is so far outside of the realm of things that I would ever think to do.

                                            If Adria Richards weren’t a woman at a tech conference, but instead some person at a mega church. And that person had turned her camera at a couple of people in the pew behind her who were telling slightly sacrilegious jokes during the preacher’s sermon and Tweeted that photo out with a comment about how disrespectful they were being to the baby Jesus, all the people applauding Richards would be calling the church lady a self-righteous, holier-than-though prig.

                                              Quote  Link

                                            Report

                                             
                                            • Why can’t both be true? If you wanna shame, shame. And if you wanna shame the shamers, shame the shamers.

                                              And if you don’t want to, you don’t have to.

                                              What’s the alternative? Ban shaming?

                                                Quote  Link

                                              Report

                                               
                                              • I don’t want to ban anything and I don’t really want to tell other people what not to do. Sure, people should take whatever actions that they feel are appropriate and other people should in turn react as they see appropriate.

                                                But yes, I would like to live in a world with fewer cops and snitches.

                                                  Quote  Link

                                                Report

                                                 
                                              • Part of the problem with internet shaming is there is horrific effects, and essentially zero accountability. The mob can rise up and destroy a person, and if they got it wrong, the destroyed person has zero recourse except to spend resources trying to salvage their reputation.

                                                  Quote  Link

                                                Report

                                                 
                                                • I agree and I liked Freddie’s we are all cops article despite my usual reservations on Freddie.

                                                  But there is something about people who go against internet shamming cultures where they pick the worst hills to die on. Justine Sacco proved herself to be bad at her job as Kazzy pointed out. The guys who made the dongles were being juvenile and unprofessional (and Adria Richards lost her job and received rape threats.)

                                                  Can’t they see how this makes them look like defenders of the Mad Men era when most elite institutions were filled with white men whether it was a college campus or a successful corporation? This isn’t 1962 anymore. You can’t call your secretary “babe” and slap her ass or tell really sexist or racist or anti-Semitic jokes around the water cooler anymore.

                                                  I believe in Free Speech but I also believe that society changes and equality means that this kind of boorish behavior is no longer acceptable at the workplace or in Welcoming Groups for College Freshman.

                                                  I don’t think today’s advocates of Free Speech Uber Alles think about how minorities are supposed to respond to boorish and offensive jokes in the workplace. So the Free Speech Uber Alles crowd does come across as wishing it were 1962 and they didn’t have to deal with a Black woman as a Vice President of Marketing or whatever now cause that really cramps their style.

                                                    Quote  Link

                                                  Report

                                                   
                                                  • I’m not sure I agree with your views on free speech absolutists. Personally, I think you’re conflating two types of FSAs: the real ones and those who adopt the view for instrumental political and personal purposes. A racist who invokes free speech absolutism to yell nasty things at people of another color is looking for political cover to normalize their abhorrent, otherwise inexcusable behavior. A principled FSA merely says that saying those things is a protected right which should not be abridged.

                                                    We’ve gone round and round here at the OT about whether the principled FSA position is coherent (spoiler: FSAers think it is!) but leaving that aside, the arguments justifying the principle in the two cases strikes me as very different.

                                                      Quote  Link

                                                    Report

                                                     
                                                    • I cover this below. I am largely still a FSA if only because the solution is worse but I am trying to deal with my polite tea party problem. And I am willing to say “Okay the price of your free speech is that someone might sucker punch you” or complain to HR.

                                                      Not everything is going to be a center-left wonk arguing with a center-right wonk. A lot of FSAs seem to think it can be though but the reason speech is powerful is because it is emotionally intemperate. If everyone was a centrist wonk, we would not need free speech laws because no one would say anything “offensive”. But sometimes intemperate speech needs to be met with intemperate speech in reaction. Or at least a strong show of defiance.

                                                        Quote  Link

                                                      Report

                                                       
                                                  • I don’t think today’s advocates of Free Speech Uber Alles think about how minorities are supposed to respond to boorish and offensive jokes in the workplace. So the Free Speech Uber Alles crowd does come across as wishing it were 1962 and they didn’t have to deal with a Black woman as a Vice President of Marketing or whatever now cause that really cramps their style.

                                                    That’s not quite right. In fact, it’s a pretty big error in differentiating between folks who have very strong preferences for free speech and expression norms and conservative culture warriors who opportunistically invoke the language of free speech to use as a weapon against progressives.

                                                    It’s not particularly hard to tell those groups apart. The folks screaming about political correctness one moment and then calling for laws against burning the flag the next are the conservative culture warriors.

                                                      Quote  Link

                                                    Report

                                                     
                                                • I still largely think of myself as a Free Speech absolutist but what has struck me a lot about many Free Speech defenders over the last half year is that there is something very Pollyannaish about their defenses of free speech.

                                                  The thing that I can’t get around is what I call the “polite tea party” problem in Free Speech. That is that a lot of free speech above all defenders seem to think that all of our hotly debated issues can happen in the terms and tones of an exceedingly polite tea party. This only really works among a company of bookish wonks with a Vox-esque orientation who manage to create a way to debate each other for a living. Ezra Klein and Avik Roy probably disagree a lot on policy but they are both highly educated wonks who are really good at reading and writing. They are also nerds.

                                                  However, the more extreme your position, the less likely you are going to be prone to temperate rhetoric. If Richard Spencer truly believes that Jews are evil and Blacks are less intelligent than whites, than why would he use temperate language to make his point? Even if it was just a grift for money and power, why would he shy away from inflamed rhetoric.

                                                  What the Free Speech defenders also seem to want is a kind of subservience from minorities who are the victims of inflammatory rhetoric like it is a kind of moral high ground. I’m not sure this subservience is a kind of moral high ground IIRC there is evidence that the authoritarians do moderate or shy away when met with a “Fuck you, we belong here too. We are human too and are not going away.”

                                                  In the 1930s, the British Fascists wanted to march through the then Jewish East End of London. They were met with resistance from Jews, Labourites, and Communists in what became known as the Battle of Cable Street. The fascists had bottles of piss thrown on them (among other things) and dispersed and never came back.

                                                  I get that Free Speech Uber Alles defenders would tsk tsk this resistance but it worked. The Fascists went away and never came back. They also became politically irrelevant in Britain after the Battle of Cable Street.

                                                    Quote  Link

                                                  Report

                                                   
                                                  • What the Free Speech defenders also seem to want is a kind of subservience from minorities who are the victims of inflammatory rhetoric like it is a kind of moral high ground.

                                                    No. What does that mean? How can you be subservient to speech? That makes no sense.

                                                    The whole idea of “free speech over all” makes no sense, because pure speech is never in conflict with anyone else’s rights or safety or humanity. Speech can be used as part of a larger effort to attach those things, but it’s never the speech. If someone deploys a racial slur at me, they have in no way taken away from my humanity. They’ve only demeaned their own humanity. If someone uses a racial slur while harassing me at work or trying to intimidate me or while physically attacking me, well, yes, they’ve done something wrong. But it’s not the speech part that’s wrong. It’s the harassment and the intimidation and the assault that are wrong.

                                                      Quote  Link

                                                    Report

                                                     
                                                    • “What the Free Speech defenders also seem to want is a kind of subservience from minorities who are the victims of inflammatory rhetoric like it is a kind of moral high ground.”

                                                      “What does that mean? How can you be subservient to speech? That makes no sense.”

                                                      What he means is that he doesn’t think that people who talk about Free Speech mean it. He thinks what they’re really saying is that they’re not-so-secret racists who want moral protection for saying the awful racist things they’re just dying to say but are worried that they’d lose their job for it or have people say nasty things back to them.

                                                        Quote  Link

                                                      Report

                                                       
                                                • I agree but, like so many areas of free speech, I don’t know what we can do about it that isn’t worse than the issue itself.

                                                  Do our best to avoid being part of the mobs and push back against them whenever possible.

                                                    Quote  Link

                                                  Report

                                                   
                                              • I’m seeing a growing trend where groups of people overreact, people call out the overreaction, and then people who support the overreaction say, “But [insert whatever was done in the overreaction] is a legitimate free speech tool.”

                                                Protests are a legitimate tool, but we don’t use them all the time at every opportunity. Shaming is a legitimate social tool for correcting misbehavior, but it’s not necessarily required or even OK at every juncture.

                                                I had a conversation not long ago about whether the Yale Halloween costume affair constituted bad behavior on the part of the students. The argument was basically that what they did was OK because their protest was just more free speech, and that’s how it should be done. Free speech vs other free speech, right?

                                                My point is simply that there are times for protests and trying to get people fired and there are times when you write just a pissy letter to the student newspaper and call it a day. We seem to be losing our ability to tell when which one is which. We roll out the doomsday weapons as early as possible and use them at every opportunity.

                                                  Quote  Link

                                                Report

                                                 
                                                • Proportional response is important and I 100% agree that it is a lost art.

                                                  I don’t know that Richards’ act was disproportionate, especially when looked at in context. She’s a woman in the tech industry and while at a professional conferences, some guys were making jokes that made her uncomfortable. She called them out on Twitter using their face but not their name (presumably because she didn’t know their names).

                                                  Probably not the best way to handle it. But also far from the worst.

                                                  Then all shit went to hell.

                                                  And everyone wants to point at her when, among the various actions and reactions and whatnot, she was probably the closest to offering a proportional response.

                                                    Quote  Link

                                                  Report

                                                   
                                                  • I don’t necessarily think her response was wrong, but it’s important to remember now that your social media page isn’t just a conversation with your friends anymore, especially if you have hundreds or thousands (or more) followers. Her instincts were probably right, but the tool isn’t great for that because our shaming instincts are built for a handful of our peers, not millions of angry strangers.

                                                    We know how mobs behave. There’s a weird psychology there and we know that mobs can’t be trusted to behave proportionally. Twitter is basically a bunch of people simmering in the just-below-mob state, but our monkey instincts treat them as a close circle of our friends and we send stuff to them accordingly. It’s probably going to be a while before we figure out new behavioral norms and get good instincts for how the social media beast differs from a real village.

                                                      Quote  Link

                                                    Report

                                                     
                                                    • What’s weird is that in one case (Sacco) the supposed do-gooders were the mob and in another (Richards) the mob descended on the supposed do-gooder. In both case, I’m sure some in the mob were well intentioned while others were ne’er-do-wells.

                                                      Yet all the focus is on the supposed do-gooders.

                                                      If mobs are the problem, why are we discussing Richards?

                                                        Quote  Link

                                                      Report

                                                       
                                                      • I think in the Richards case, two different mobs descended on both sides, as often happens on the Internet.

                                                        In her case, I don’t think she’s totally blameless. I’m cutting her some slack because we’re still figuring out the whole Internet mob thing. But she did decide to make something that started out fairly private and small in scope into a bit of a public spectacle.

                                                        I’ll just say that the more often it happens, the less of an excuse people have for not knowing what might happens when you put up something that might look like the Bat Signal to the mob. Richards gets a pass. Sacco was just an unlucky victim. But what will we say about the next one?

                                                          Quote  Link

                                                        Report

                                                         
                                                • That was me on the Yale thing, if the handle didn’t tip me off. Hi!

                                                  I’m seeing a growing trend where groups of people overreact, people call out the overreaction, and then people who support the overreaction say, “But [insert whatever was done in the overreaction] is a legitimate free speech tool.”

                                                  Whereas I’m seeing a growing trend of people seeing an overreaction as an opportunity to delegitimate either the fundamental tactic in question, or the underlying reason to react negatively in the first place. Both trends can exist at the same time, and it seems likely that they will feed off each other to an extent.

                                                  Alice does something kind of crummy, and Bob gets upset by it. So upset, in fact, that he reacts in a way that would be appropriate only if Alice had done something extraordinarily crummy.

                                                  Then someone Tweets about it, or writes a column fretting about it in the Chronicle of Higher Education, or whatever, and next thing you know a zillion people are furiously typing at each other about it.

                                                  Among the positions that various furious typists hold, some think that Alice is entirely innocent of crummy behavior, and others think that Bob did something that’s inappropriate no matter what. Others believe that Alice engaged in the crummiest imaginable behavior, and still others think that what Bob did was totally innocuous.

                                                  Clearly arguing that what Bob did is not absolutely wrong, but is an overreaction to somewhat crummy behavior, is difficult in such a circumstance. Indeed, two people could actually agree that this is the case, and yet exchange thousands of words trying to prove each other wrong, 140 characters at a time.

                                                    Quote  Link

                                                  Report

                                                   
                                        • Shaming is a very, very important social tool.

                                          One of the central themes of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

                                          EDIT:

                                          “Do you want me to tell your mother, Billy? What would she say if she knew about what you’ve done?”

                                          Now, everybody go hang a nerd and feel good about themselves, one big Hugfest.

                                            Quote  Link

                                          Report

                                           
                              • This seems like a fair position to take.

                                And indeed, if not for the DDoS, I would not be particularly fussed about Richards being fired for her role in Dongleghazi. Maybe it was disproportionate to her error, but then again, maybe it wasn’t.

                                It’s worth at least being clear, so we can have some sense what principle, if any, we’re arguing about. “People deserve to be fired for saying stupid shit, but this shit isn’t stupid enough to qualify,” is a cromulent enough position, but one which many people are reluctant to defend, at least openly.

                                  Quote  Link

                                Report

                                 
                          • We want high school kids to know that they are all Justine Sacco now. They are the guy who made jokes about dongles in front of Adria Richards. They are Kathy Griffin.

                            Now you’re back to creating a Big and Important cultural and speech issue outa the residue of something which just isn’t that important. There are no important lessons here which need to be amplified. The kids certainly to not need to be plastered – anonymously or otherwise – on PSA adverts targeted at HS kids informing them of the dangers social media communications present. The fact that you think they do, once again, escalates exactly what you’re objecting to. It’s incoherent to say that paying too much attention to X is a problem by paying more attention to X than is warranted.

                            But you’ve managed, in your own mind, to have it both ways and resolve the contradiction by vacillating between claiming the future is the worry and that the future is now. If the future is now, then using those Harvard students in a PSA wouldn’t make any sense. Seems to me you’re actually arguing FOR your own worst case scenario.

                              Quote  Link

                            Report

                             
                            • “Now you’re back to creating a Big and Important cultural and speech issue outa the residue of something which just isn’t that important.”

                              Well. It was important enough for these kids to not go to Harvard, which will have an effect on lifetime earnings measurable in millions of dollars.

                              “The kids certainly to not need to be plastered – anonymously or otherwise – on PSA adverts targeted at HS kids informing them of the dangers social media communications present.”

                              Okay, so you think that social media and internet postings should not have lasting consequences? That “Rabbit posted awful jokes to Facebook, Bear found out about it and told Otter, and Rabbit did not go to the best university” should not be a modern fable?

                              “It’s incoherent to say that paying too much attention to X is a problem by paying more attention to X than is warranted.”

                              I don’t think Jaybird wants, really, a world where your life can be ended because someone didn’t like a joke you posted on Facebook.

                              What he wants is for people to recognize that they’re building this world. What he wants is for you to recognize the ideals you’re demanding everyone live up to. What he wants is for you to not be surprised when your boss walks into the office with a piece of paper that has a screenshot of a Facebook post and says “stillwater, clean out your desk, security will escort you off the property when you’re done”.

                                Quote  Link

                              Report

                               
                              • I’ts like clockwork: I disagree with something Jaybird said or argued and you jump in to explain what Jaybird REALLY meant and why my criticism makes a hash of his REAL view. And that I better be careful what I’m arguing, or else!!

                                  Quote  Link

                                Report

                                 
                                • “I better be careful what I’m arguing, or else!!”

                                  Hey, you’ll get the world you want. You’ll be surprised, I’m sure, to learn that you wanted Trump to be President until 2024, but it will be the world you wanted. You’ll be surprised to learn that you’re the asshole on the internet posting bad things who needs to be taught a lesson that freedom from speech is not freedom from consequences, but it will be the world you wanted.

                                    Quote  Link

                                  Report

                                   
                                  • Hey, you’ll get the world you want.

                                    Heh. I know you read my comment (you quoted almost the whole damn thing in your reply) but I don’t think you understood it. In fact, given what you wrote above, I’m almost certain that you didn’t.

                                      Quote  Link

                                    Report

                                     
                              • It was important enough for these kids to not go to Harvard, which will have an effect on lifetime earnings measurable in millions of dollars.

                                Compared to the typical reasons that will get Harvard Admissions to round-file an application, this really isn’t saying much.

                                  Quote  Link

                                Report

                                 
                                • Yes. It’s not like Harvard doesn’t have a long queue of super qualified students who don’t post racist stuff online who didn’t make the cut. At that level of selectivity, cosmic rays may be the difference between taking the last spot and not getting in.

                                  This is way more than cosmic rays.

                                    Quote  Link

                                  Report

                                   
                                  • Though it’s extremely unlikely these ten students became unacceptably racist some moment after their acceptance, and not before.

                                    So the question arises, why wasn’t Harvard’s screening criteria good enough to filter out these individuals *before* they were accepted. One or even two falling through the cracks may be understandable, but ten?

                                      Quote  Link

                                    Report

                                     
                                    • I doubt the Harvard admissions process invests much effort in screening out racist students, beyond looking askance at essays about how misunderstood Adolf Hitler was or rejecting applicants who put the Ku Klux Klan down as an extracurricular activity.

                                        Quote  Link

                                      Report

                                       
                                • Jaybird,

                                  What are we to “behold”? That Harvard University took exception to offensive comments made by acceptees on Harvard-based social media platforms? There is nothing to behold in that situation.

                                    Quote  Link

                                  Report

                                   
                            • Now you’re back to creating a Big and Important cultural and speech issue outa the residue of something which just isn’t that important.

                              What is the thing that “just isn’t that important”, here?

                              The posting of horrible memes to the internet?
                              The saying of horrible things in public?
                              The fact that saying horrible things in public/posting horrible memes to the internet has consequences beyond people directly replying to the horrible things?
                              The fact that, somehow, kids don’t know that saying horrible things in public/posting horrible memes to the internet can have an impact on them such as “being denied going to the college of their choice”?

                              What just isn’t that important?

                                Quote  Link

                              Report

                               
                              • The fact that, somehow, kids don’t know that saying horrible things in public/posting horrible memes to the internet can have an impact on them such as “being denied going to the college of their choice”?

                                Ironic. Here you are, Jaybird, arguing “who’ll think of the children?” Heh. I don’t believe you.

                                  Quote  Link

                                Report

                                 
                                • You didn’t answer my question.

                                  Here, I’ll repeat it:

                                  Now you’re back to creating a Big and Important cultural and speech issue outa the residue of something which just isn’t that important.

                                  What is the thing that “just isn’t that important”, here?

                                    Quote  Link

                                  Report

                                   
                                  • You’re phrasing the question as if everything about the Hrvard dismissal letters is important and I’m objecting to a single aspect which you want a more detailed refudiation of. That begs the question. My argument is that none of it is important. Nothing in Harvard’s actions warrants being elevated to the level of significance you suggest. But I’m arguing something else too: that by interpreting those events as if they ARE important you’re arguing in a self-confirming circle. You’re seeing what you want to see – much like an SJWer – and asserting what you perceive as fact. (You’re woke, dude!)

                                      Quote  Link

                                    Report

                                     
                                    • You’re phrasing the question as if everything about the Hrvard dismissal letters is important and I’m objecting to a single aspect which you want a more detailed refudiation of.

                                      It’s more that I’m seeing it as representative of a change in society that we’ve been seeing for years and years now.

                                      The “new normal”, if you will.

                                      “Important”? I don’t know if “normal” is “important”. I’m not understanding how you’re using the word.

                                        Quote  Link

                                      Report

                                       
                                        • “Perhaps the change is just that racist nitwits have more opportunities to broadcast their racist nitwittery.”

                                          Sure! And because of that, it’s easier to track the racist nitwittery back to the source and finally, finally punch Richard Spencer in the face and hit people with bike locks and set women on fire. Finally we can do to those bad people what we, the good ones, have always felt was right.

                                            Quote  Link

                                          Report

                                           
                                        • Broadcast. As in put it in a place where it is easily seen/heard by everybody with minimal effort?

                                          Oh yeah.

                                          And the people who are part of everybody who can see/hear it with minimal effort can now respond with minimal effort. They can broadcast it.

                                          Private and public is blurring something awful.

                                          The whole thing about how it “feels” like you’re typing in your basement to a relatively small community of your follows can quickly become something that your boss is reading to you right before you clean out your desk.

                                          And now someone in New Hampshire can hate someone in California and call for their job and feel a small burst of endorphins. 20 years ago? It had to have some kind of physical record to make an impact.

                                            Quote  Link

                                          Report

                                           
                                          • The whole thing about how it “feels” like you’re typing in your basement to a relatively small community of your follows can quickly become something that your boss is reading to you right before you clean out your desk.

                                            I’m about 97% sure we agree in this instance, but just to sure, I don’t see a way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Best to just try to get people to understand that just ’cause they’re typing it in their basement doesn’t mean the whole damn world isn’t going to know about it.

                                              Quote  Link

                                            Report

                                             
                                            • I don’t see a way to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Best to just try to get people to understand that just ’cause they’re typing it in their basement doesn’t mean the whole damn world isn’t going to know about it.

                                              Perhaps we could make posters.

                                                Quote  Link

                                              Report

                                               
                                    • “My argument is that none of it is important. Nothing in Harvard’s actions warrants being elevated to the level of significance you suggest.”

                                      You don’t think it matters that shitposting is now a reason why you don’t get to go to Harvard?

                                      Because let’s look at that. They don’t just give Harvard admissions out to people who walk in the door. These are, presumably, students subject to a great deal of effort in vetting and interviewing, a lot of work to make sure that they really are Harvard Material. Presumably you don’t invest that degree of effort in someone who you’ll throw under the bus at the first hint of trouble.

                                      But, shitposting, and now that’s all gone; shitposting was enough to negate all of that time and energy invested in those prospective Harvard students.

                                      And, sure, maybe you don’t care. Maybe you think shiposting should get that degree of punishment. Maybe you do think that Not Going To Harvard is the sort of Consequence that Speech is not Free From.

                                      What we want is for you to say it. And when it’s some black kid whose rap lyrics were a little too raw and that’s why he doesn’t get to go to college at all, we want you to keep saying it.

                                        Quote  Link

                                      Report

                                       
                    • I’d be good money that these kids are not uncultured roughnecks and come from at least upper-middle class families. Potentially higher.

                      The whole 4chan and Pepe the Frog thing is a kind of slumming for Trump. There is a certain kind of kid that knows every few things will truly shock their parents except going hard-right. Stephen Miller is exhibit A.

                      The other possibility is that these kids come from the kind of old money that is horrified by all this liberalism and needs it to be stamped down.

                        Quote  Link

                      Report

                       
                      • I’d be good money that these kids are not uncultured roughnecks and come from at least upper-middle class families.

                        Didn’t they proudly proclaim themselves to be “bourgeois”?

                        Anyway, I don’t know if they were Pepes or just run-of-the-mill teenagers trying to be shocking (if there’s even a distinction at that age). It’s not like that’s a new sort of behavior, it’s just that social media provide wonderful ways to be extra stupid about it.

                          Quote  Link

                        Report

                         
                        • Wasn’t there a previous thread about how Banning the Box is counterproductive, because employers will just fall back on racist stereotypes once the Box is Banned?

                          In light of that, combing through applicants’ social media histories is surely the only fair approach.

                            Quote  Link

                          Report

                           
      • “Put this on a poster and put it in every single high school in the good part of town in the country.

        “WHAT YOU DO ON FACEBOOK CAN KEEP YOU FROM GOING TO COLLEGE”

        Put it next to the posters about bullying.”

        Zero sarcasm here? 100% reflection of your actual beliefs?

          Quote  Link

        Report

         
        • “Put this on a poster and put it in every single high school in the good part of town in the country. WHAT YOU DO ON FACEBOOK CAN KEEP YOU FROM GOING TO COLLEGE”

          “Zero sarcasm here? 100% reflection of your actual beliefs?”

          Kazzy, you seem really angry at the idea that what you do on facebook can keep you from going to college, or that high school students should be made aware of this.

          Why does that offend you so much?

            Quote  Link

          Report

           
    • This is actually kind of awesome! Part of me really wants this to be the brain child of some media guru who is on staff at Harvard. I can just see the pitch:

      Hey, I got an idea on how we can filter out some of the more obnoxious overly entitled idiots in the the freshman class. You know, the ones who truly are dumb as a box of hammers, but have parents who know how to game the system, and taught junior well on that front? So, here is what we do…

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
    • I honestly don’t care that some kids got their Harvard admission pull led. Sh*t happens. I don’t even care on any kind of speech/expression norms concerns. That said, I do find it odd the way some people get very worked up over whether people they view as having too much privilege get or don’t get the appropriate level of punishment when they do something wrong.

      People need to decide whether they are for more punishment, more thought policing, more zero tolerance policies or not, because you don’t get a great deal of precision with these things. In other words celebrate it now, because it’s happening to a bunch of relatively privileged kids, but don’t be surprised when those same norms end up getting deployed at much higher rates against the underprivileged.

      The wealthy and the connected will almost always be able to evolve fast enough to keep from getting caught up in these kinds of traps. It’s not so much the case for everyone else.

        Quote  Link

      Report

       
      • The wealthy and the connected will almost always be able to evolve fast enough to keep from getting caught up in these kinds of traps.

        And yet here we are, with the (presumably) wealthy and (almost certainly) connected getting caught up in a “trap” that’s been blatantly obvious for years. Nor are they the sort of wealth and connected person who is old enough to believe that the Internet is a series of tubes.

          Quote  Link

        Report

         
        • Why pull out that one random sentence and ignore the rest of the comment?

          And why ignore the words “almost always?”

          Here is what I believe:

          People need to decide whether they are for more punishment, more thought policing, more zero tolerance policies or not, because you don’t get a great deal of precision with these things. In other words celebrate it now, because it’s happening to a bunch of relatively privileged kids, but don’t be surprised when those same norms end up getting deployed at much higher rates against the underprivileged.

          If you think that is wrong, if you think that we can, in fact, selectively punish the privilege will simultaneously going easier on the underprivileged, then we have drastically different life experiences and world views. And we can agree to disagree.

            Quote  Link

          Report

           
          • Why pull out that one random sentence and ignore the rest of the comment?

            Because it was the concluding sentence, and the one which evidently provided a mechanism of how the privilege was going work in the favor of the privileged.

            And because “almost always” or not, it’s the opposite of what happened here, and frankly I don’t really believe it’s true. And, intentionally or not, it tends to equate stuff like, “Don’t crack jokes about lynching Mexicans,” with, “Don’t use the wrong fork when you eat your salad,” as if not being a gross asshole is, itself, an expression of privilege.

            If you think that is wrong, if you think that we can, in fact, selectively punish the privilege will simultaneously going easier on the underprivileged, then we have drastically different life experiences and world views. And we can agree to disagree.

            I do not.

            I just think that one of the ways this kind of privilege plays out is that a privileged person gets caught doing something shitty and suddenly there just happens to be a barrage of reasons that they shouldn’t face consequences for doing so. One of those consequences being, “Well, this means that the less privileged will face those consequences, too,” but if the less privileged are facing those sorts of consequences already, then going easy now just entrenches the privilege further.

              Quote  Link

            Report

             
            • ” a privileged person gets caught doing something shitty and suddenly there just happens to be a barrage of reasons that they shouldn’t face consequences for doing so.”

              pillsy you agree with him

              you agree with him

              you are angrily declaring that he’s wrong, he’s WRONG, and the reasons you state for why he’s wrong are the reasons he already stated

              what are you people even doing here

                Quote  Link

              Report

               
              • Dude, when I angrily disagree with someone around here, kindly moderators tend to come along to [redact] my post.

                As for why I think I disagree with him, well, I think that’s explained adequately in the rest of my post. But maybe I’m wrong. WRONG.

                [insert elaborate ASCII art “WRONG” that would probably be [redacted] here]

                  Quote  Link

                Report