people who experienced a negative behavior stopped contributing to a project
Well, in that case, we should definitely not start importing the incredibly negative, hostile, hateful, bigoted SJW agenda into projects and drive away 97% of the contributors.
Uh, yeah, that actually is illegal and the person who did the punching can go to jail for it. Did you flunk kindergarten? They teach you that when you're 6.
You can see it all throughout this thread, actually - it's a particularly disturbing tendency of leftists to say, "you believe X, and other people who believe X also believe Y, and I hate people who believe Y, so I hate you and you deserve everything bad!"
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Yes it does. That's the definition, in fact. These kids don't have freedom of speech in regards to the admissions process at Harvard. You think that's a Good Thing (I'm on the fence). But freedom of speech, by definition, means freedom of consequences.
Free speech is only in regards to... the government
No, the first amendment of the constitution of the United States is. "Free speech" is a concept that could be applied to somebody in France, too, where they have a completely different set of laws.
Yeah, that was my thought... an awful lot of opinions can be considered "undesirable". What's funny is that all of the people saying, "good, I hope they die" undoubtedly have at least a few opinions that somebody else would be equally willing to sentence them to death for. If holding opposing opinions than those in power is grounds for termination, you'd sure as hell better hope the people you like stay in power...
Not that I agree with anything that these kids (allegedly) said or even that I disagree with what Harvard did... I find it very interesting, to say the least, that every time somebody is punished for expressing a thought, leftists appear seemingly out of the woodwork to remind us, before anybody even has a chance to contradict them, that the concept of freedom of speech "only applies to the government" (it doesn't, although the laws that enshrine it do) and that it doesn't matter anyway because you DID say it, so whatever happens afterward, you still had freedom of speech in the moment. This thread is at 212 comments now, and I count exactly 0 people suggesting that Harvard did the wrong thing, or that the free speech of these applicants was somehow abridged, but that hasn't stopped Antifa from coming in here and moralizing at us that Harvard did the right thing, and that even if it was the wrong thing, they were within their rights to do it because they weren't the United States government. To me it's mostly just funny, because if they succeed in getting the world that they want, the first group of people it will be used against is them - they laid the groundwork, for example, for Donald Trump's election by creating an imperial presidency and an activist supreme court.
See, this is the problem with you leftists (and why, incidentally, your opinions should be dismissed out-of-hand, especially in matters of public policy): nobody said anything about the law - specifically the first amendment of the constitution of the United States which you're wuoting. He just said "free speech". But to you, that's the same thing. You left-wing nut jobs aren't capable of separating law from concept - as though the two were equivalent. Hyper-religious people do the same thing, but with the bible rather than the law. In either case, they should be sent to the children's table where they belong.
I'm not surprised you're confused, since you don't even understand what "free speech" means. Read a few books (heck, shoot for just one to start with) and come back.
Ah, the classic reductionist, "you have free speech no matter what we do to you in retaliation for it as long as you were able to say it in the first place" anti-free speech canard.
I think it's interesting (and telling) that nobody said "free speech", but these Antifa types have shown up almost immediately to remind us that we have only a very narrow constitutional right to "free speech" and that private institutions and businesses can do whatever they want, whenever they want, because they're not the government.
Not that I read the article or anything, but it seems to me that any of the students could claim that the whole thing was fabricated (maybe by somebody interested in keeping them out of Harvard?) Maybe in this case, the whole thing is ironclad, but now that the cat is out of the bag, next time around it may not be. There's a good reason that (yes, even privately owned) companies/institutions are better off being upfront - and _consistent_ - with their policies.
Slashdot Mirror
people who experienced a negative behavior stopped contributing to a project
Well, in that case, we should definitely not start importing the incredibly negative, hostile, hateful, bigoted SJW agenda into projects and drive away 97% of the contributors.
Reverse discrimination is like unicorns. Often spoken about but never seen.
Actually, more like air. Spoken about, but so pervasive you stop even noticing it.
Oh shut the fuck up, snowflake
When you know you've lost the argument...
don't be surprised when someone punches you
Uh, yeah, that actually is illegal and the person who did the punching can go to jail for it. Did you flunk kindergarten? They teach you that when you're 6.
You can see it all throughout this thread, actually - it's a particularly disturbing tendency of leftists to say, "you believe X, and other people who believe X also believe Y, and I hate people who believe Y, so I hate you and you deserve everything bad!"
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences.
Yes it does. That's the definition, in fact. These kids don't have freedom of speech in regards to the admissions process at Harvard. You think that's a Good Thing (I'm on the fence). But freedom of speech, by definition, means freedom of consequences.
Free speech is only in regards to ... the government
No, the first amendment of the constitution of the United States is. "Free speech" is a concept that could be applied to somebody in France, too, where they have a completely different set of laws.
Yeah, that was my thought... an awful lot of opinions can be considered "undesirable". What's funny is that all of the people saying, "good, I hope they die" undoubtedly have at least a few opinions that somebody else would be equally willing to sentence them to death for. If holding opposing opinions than those in power is grounds for termination, you'd sure as hell better hope the people you like stay in power...
do you become a prime target
Or just rejected out of hand
everyone isn't forced
Didn't RTA did you? They actually tried to keep their opinions private, they were outed and then punished.
How did I know this SJW idiot would be in this thread?
You'd better hope your definition of "reasonable" continues to be societies.
Ah, well, I guess when you put it so succinctly, I must digress.
Not that I agree with anything that these kids (allegedly) said or even that I disagree with what Harvard did... I find it very interesting, to say the least, that every time somebody is punished for expressing a thought, leftists appear seemingly out of the woodwork to remind us, before anybody even has a chance to contradict them, that the concept of freedom of speech "only applies to the government" (it doesn't, although the laws that enshrine it do) and that it doesn't matter anyway because you DID say it, so whatever happens afterward, you still had freedom of speech in the moment. This thread is at 212 comments now, and I count exactly 0 people suggesting that Harvard did the wrong thing, or that the free speech of these applicants was somehow abridged, but that hasn't stopped Antifa from coming in here and moralizing at us that Harvard did the right thing, and that even if it was the wrong thing, they were within their rights to do it because they weren't the United States government. To me it's mostly just funny, because if they succeed in getting the world that they want, the first group of people it will be used against is them - they laid the groundwork, for example, for Donald Trump's election by creating an imperial presidency and an activist supreme court.
See, this is the problem with you leftists (and why, incidentally, your opinions should be dismissed out-of-hand, especially in matters of public policy): nobody said anything about the law - specifically the first amendment of the constitution of the United States which you're wuoting. He just said "free speech". But to you, that's the same thing. You left-wing nut jobs aren't capable of separating law from concept - as though the two were equivalent. Hyper-religious people do the same thing, but with the bible rather than the law. In either case, they should be sent to the children's table where they belong.
Gotta love the "all white people are born with silver spoons in their mouths, everybody else was born in the slums" logic.
I'm not surprised you're confused, since you don't even understand what "free speech" means. Read a few books (heck, shoot for just one to start with) and come back.
All the ones that didn't get rejected.
Or tenure.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences
Um, yes, that's exactly what it means. That is, in fact, the definition.
Ah, the classic reductionist, "you have free speech no matter what we do to you in retaliation for it as long as you were able to say it in the first place" anti-free speech canard.
You just got rejected from Harvard.
I think it's interesting (and telling) that nobody said "free speech", but these Antifa types have shown up almost immediately to remind us that we have only a very narrow constitutional right to "free speech" and that private institutions and businesses can do whatever they want, whenever they want, because they're not the government.
Not that I read the article or anything, but it seems to me that any of the students could claim that the whole thing was fabricated (maybe by somebody interested in keeping them out of Harvard?) Maybe in this case, the whole thing is ironclad, but now that the cat is out of the bag, next time around it may not be. There's a good reason that (yes, even privately owned) companies/institutions are better off being upfront - and _consistent_ - with their policies.
I go in to the office because I know my wife and kids won't follow me there.