Example; If some private christian college decided "okay, anyone who has supported abortion, immigration, et al is not welcome at our school" there would be outcry
I would be shocked if this was not already their policy. In fact, I'd be surprised if you weren't required to take some kind of oath swearing that you would never support abortion. I mean, they attack it in their student handbook! Immigration? Eh, not sure that's really a Christian school kind of issue - in fact I think evangelicals tend to favor immigration on humanitarian grounds.
So the problem is that you went and assumed that I'd conceded that Harvard had really changed anything. Last week, Harvard used arbitrary criteria to decide who was and who wasn't "Harvard material". They still use arbitrary criteria to keep their little club very exclusive. There's no slope.
So without any evidence that this actually changes anything, I'm going to push back and say that it is not a slippery slope. Harvard always has and continues to have an arbitrary standard for students that they admit. They have always considered "character", whatever the hell that means, and this is simply another example - not a departure from the norm.
The right to free speech does not mean forcing others to do your bidding - it just means you can say/publish whatever you want without criminal liability.
I don't think the statement that "regulations are good an necessary to a free market" is nearly as "obvious" to others as it is to you. Thanks for really adding to the discussion.
With apologies to XKCD, if you interpolated how many wives I would have based only on the day before my wedding day and the actual day, you'd assume that I'd have several thousand wives by now.
None of these things are a problem unless the very competitive and diverse US college market suddenly were to become homogeneous and the scenarios you describe above became the de facto standard. One school making a unilateral decision about a single incident is definitely not enough to create a "slippery slope" scenario.
That's how the participants in the fight like to frame it, because then it forces you to pick a side. The key is to not fall into that trap and call out whoever is behaving badly.
They might start only admitting kids who have done community service, out of some quaint notion that "good" people (by Harvard's arbitrary definition) might volunteer to help others.
They might start only admitting kids who answer an arbitrary essay question in some way that Harvard deems acceptable.
They might start only admitting kids who were on team sports because Harvard has decided that they arbitrarily value this "ability" to work together as some kind of character worthy of Harvard.
It's a truly slippery slope we are on when these colleges get to decide what kind of a person attends.
Antifa? Alrighty. So let me get this straight - Harvard can have almost completely arbitrary entry criteria, so long as it doesn't violate a government-protected class. Harvard can select kids preferentially based on community service, extra-circulars, grades, essay answers, interviews, etc. All in an effort to get whatever they deem to be a "Harvard" caliber candidate. Yet, somehow, Facebook posts are a line you aren't willing to cross?
Regulations are good and necessary to a free market, but established players tend to get regulations which are not good or necessary for a free market tacked on. Governments get in on the action to try to extract money and craft perks for their special interests. Sometimes the unnecessary regulations are simply the result of well-meaning officials who think they are improving upon what a free market could deliver, but in reality have the effect of freezing the state of the art.
Yeah, the cops are staging terror attacks... that's a much simpler explanation than religious fanatics. Do you have an alternate explanation about how they REALLY put toothpaste in the tube?
I mostly do this now - when traveling for pleasure, I only bring a cheap Chromebook so that if it is lost/stolen I just buy a new Chromebook locally and move on with life. For business I bring a company laptop, but my data is all backed up so a loss/theft would be a PITA but once on the VPN with a local laptop I'd be back in business.
Slashdot Mirror
You can draw a line between two points. You can make a prediction from that. Not a very good prediction, but if it makes you happy go for it.
I think maybe you replied to the wrong guy? I would agree with you.
Example; If some private christian college decided "okay, anyone who has supported abortion, immigration, et al is not welcome at our school" there would be outcry
I would be shocked if this was not already their policy. In fact, I'd be surprised if you weren't required to take some kind of oath swearing that you would never support abortion. I mean, they attack it in their student handbook! Immigration? Eh, not sure that's really a Christian school kind of issue - in fact I think evangelicals tend to favor immigration on humanitarian grounds.
Math is hard, isn't it?
Apparently not as hard as appreciating a joke.
So the problem is that you went and assumed that I'd conceded that Harvard had really changed anything. Last week, Harvard used arbitrary criteria to decide who was and who wasn't "Harvard material". They still use arbitrary criteria to keep their little club very exclusive. There's no slope.
That's kinda the definition of a slippery slope.
So without any evidence that this actually changes anything, I'm going to push back and say that it is not a slippery slope. Harvard always has and continues to have an arbitrary standard for students that they admit. They have always considered "character", whatever the hell that means, and this is simply another example - not a departure from the norm.
The right to free speech does not mean forcing others to do your bidding - it just means you can say/publish whatever you want without criminal liability.
I don't think the statement that "regulations are good an necessary to a free market" is nearly as "obvious" to others as it is to you. Thanks for really adding to the discussion.
With apologies to XKCD, if you interpolated how many wives I would have based only on the day before my wedding day and the actual day, you'd assume that I'd have several thousand wives by now.
On the other hand, you can't tell the direction of the slope from a single data point.
Was I supposed to be outraged that they weren't forced to write a message from the bible that they disagreed with on a cake?
Sad is projecting your own black-and-white view of the world onto people who deal in shades of grey.
None of these things are a problem unless the very competitive and diverse US college market suddenly were to become homogeneous and the scenarios you describe above became the de facto standard. One school making a unilateral decision about a single incident is definitely not enough to create a "slippery slope" scenario.
Probably. Or at least you'd force someone into their safe space.
That sounds like a value judgement. Clearly that should have no place in university admissions. Slippery slope.
I'm trying but you keep posting it.
That's how the participants in the fight like to frame it, because then it forces you to pick a side. The key is to not fall into that trap and call out whoever is behaving badly.
Clearly one of the "trusted members" wasn't so trustworthy.
but what will it be tomorrow?
That is scary!
They might start only admitting kids who have done community service, out of some quaint notion that "good" people (by Harvard's arbitrary definition) might volunteer to help others.
They might start only admitting kids who answer an arbitrary essay question in some way that Harvard deems acceptable.
They might start only admitting kids who were on team sports because Harvard has decided that they arbitrarily value this "ability" to work together as some kind of character worthy of Harvard.
It's a truly slippery slope we are on when these colleges get to decide what kind of a person attends.
Antifa? Alrighty. So let me get this straight - Harvard can have almost completely arbitrary entry criteria, so long as it doesn't violate a government-protected class. Harvard can select kids preferentially based on community service, extra-circulars, grades, essay answers, interviews, etc. All in an effort to get whatever they deem to be a "Harvard" caliber candidate. Yet, somehow, Facebook posts are a line you aren't willing to cross?
One can object to the political situation in the middle east without invoking racial or ethnic slurs.
Christ, stop spamming us with his mental illness.
Regulations are good and necessary to a free market, but established players tend to get regulations which are not good or necessary for a free market tacked on. Governments get in on the action to try to extract money and craft perks for their special interests. Sometimes the unnecessary regulations are simply the result of well-meaning officials who think they are improving upon what a free market could deliver, but in reality have the effect of freezing the state of the art.
Yeah, the cops are staging terror attacks... that's a much simpler explanation than religious fanatics. Do you have an alternate explanation about how they REALLY put toothpaste in the tube?
Uhhhh, yeah, I'm not in any kind of national security kind of work. If the Chinese government wants to watch me work they can go right ahead.
I mostly do this now - when traveling for pleasure, I only bring a cheap Chromebook so that if it is lost/stolen I just buy a new Chromebook locally and move on with life. For business I bring a company laptop, but my data is all backed up so a loss/theft would be a PITA but once on the VPN with a local laptop I'd be back in business.