Hacker News Reader

Comment by rumanator | Hacker News Reader

> This seems like a valid position to me.

I don't. It makes no sense to intimidate and threaten anyone just because that person happens to not agree with you on a position you singled out as being relevant.

View on HN

It may make no sense to you (or me, much of the time), but should they be allowed to say it? I think so.

To me, I think it’s valid for a group of people to organize and write a letter criticizing someone, and then to send that letter to the person’s peer group. They can also criticize the employer of that person. That’s part of what of what being in a free speech society entails.

I don’t agree with the positions, but I think the complainers should have a space too, even if it’s outside of the relevant institution.

I also don’t like that universities threaten people’s jobs over this such complaints. I agree with mc32 in that such places should tolerate unpopular or contrarian opinions. And that’s where I view the problem appearing: it’s not the angry internet mob, it’s the university giving in to them. It’s up to the university to show thought leadership in their own spaces, and to ignore such ridiculous controversies. If signatories on my imagined letter threatened to stop working with the institution if not have their requests met, it might be best to cut ties with them, not the allegedly problematic peer. The university has to show that leadership.

(edit: grammar)

It doesn’t make sense and is wrong. Kind of like the Westboro Baptist church protesting funerals is wrong.

Not sure there’s anything to really do about it in a free society though. All the talk about cancel culture doesn’t seem to propose any solution.

There's a world of difference between expressing an opinion on how you feel something is wrong, and demanding that anyone who doesn't show enough enthusiasm for your personal cause should be punished and persecuted out of existence or relevance.

You don’t propose a solution but you seem to imply, given the context of what I said, that you want to prevent people from being able to say things, and maybe given the context of this case prevent people sending letters asking for honorary titles to be withdrawn from members of their society as in this case. Is that right?

> but you seem to imply, given the context of what I said, that you want to prevent people from being able to say things,

Please don't put your words on anyone else's mouth. If you didn't understood what someone said then try do get information instead of trying to attribute to others the absurd and entirely baseless statements that you're fabricating.

Let me adjust it: You don’t propose a solution but I infer, given the context of what I said, that you want to prevent people from being able to say things, and maybe given the context of this case prevent people sending letters asking for honorary titles to be withdrawn from members of their society as in this case. Is that right?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com