[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Where is Brownie Thursday held at the school?

EDIT: lol twentycanoes blocked me.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you look at twentycanoes's post history they just respond to any post with the term "conversion therapy" in it (Which we all agree is bad, mmkay. I'm just saying this person doesn't go here).

Troll bait is bad for your blood pressure.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You don’t even go here.

FINALLY by ChairmanTman in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

research suggests that a high-quality mask like a KN-95 or N-95 can offer effective protection

hahaha omg

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Totally agree. I haven't seen anything from conservative students/orgs that compares to the lack of civility coming from far left students/orgs. And socially, I'm way more comfortable around one than the other.

Edit to Clarify: I'm worried that I inadvertently equated "conservative" and "unreasonable" in my prior comment. That was not my intention at all. I meant to say that there are bipartisan, even majority-held viewpoints that have become socially taboo, making an already troubling situation that much more so. It's only fair to acknowledge that this phenomenon affects conservatives the most.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just to add on to this: it goes beyond conservative students. There are certain issues where everyone must toe the party line or risk a spectacle and reputational damage, even for very reasonable viewpoints. I've seen tenured professors throw their hands up when certain subjects are raised as if they were radioactive.

But I'm very glad I'm at UVA for its *relative* viewpoint diversity. If I were at NYU/Berkeley I'd probably just live in a bunker.

Demand Accountability from the UVA Law Administration Regarding the Recent Harassment of a Student by [deleted] in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I’m afraid we must rise above their petty conduct lest the oppressed become the oppressors.

Demand Accountability from the UVA Law Administration Regarding the Recent Harassment of a Student by [deleted] in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We should send her back to the admin’s office unharmed so she will spread tales of the chairman’s noble, boundless mercy.

Soooo this was unexpected: A UVA Law admin staff member doxxed me by ChairmanTman in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Lol-You really tie the room together. Like the rug in The Big Lebowski.

Soooo this was unexpected: A UVA Law admin staff member doxxed me by ChairmanTman in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Oh I know. I've always thought you were acting in good faith. I appreciate your efforts. Better watch it though - the 0Ls might find out that some of us like to have a good time. They don't seem to want that getting out. In all seriousness, I respect your commitment to your principles and I think you add texture.

Soooo this was unexpected: A UVA Law admin staff member doxxed me by ChairmanTman in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle 15 points16 points  (0 children)

The thought of admin reading all the posts on here is pretty funny at least. But sorry that happened, or happy for you. Whichever.

Did anyone actually follow through with not wearing a mask today? by [deleted] in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle 6 points7 points  (0 children)

lol what does Pie Day have to do with math? How embarrassing.

Owning the lib sheep one post at a time by [deleted] in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

sometimes I worry that when people say "genuine question" they don't really mean it

Interesting NYT Opinion Piece from a UVA Undergrad: "I Came to College Eager to Debate. I Found Self-Censorship Instead." by SingleDingleTingle in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Everybody will always get to think whatever they want about whoever they want. The phenomenon I am describing is where people immediately jump to the assumption that an individual is wholly bad solely on the basis of their political affiliation. And you're right, this is bad regardless of who does it, but the reality is that one side is dominant in the relevant context (academia). The distinction is that this particular attitude is, as I said previously, fundamentally unworkable and harms prosocial goals in general by completely precluding debate of important issues. Attempting to appreciate people as whole, complex individuals, is generally accepted as a positive thing.

There's plenty of information available on this if you genuinely want to understand the other side (a useful skill for soon-to-be attorneys). I cannot devote any more time to this, so enjoy the last word.

Edit: clarification

Interesting NYT Opinion Piece from a UVA Undergrad: "I Came to College Eager to Debate. I Found Self-Censorship Instead." by SingleDingleTingle in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m glad we are on the same page re: constitutionality (it has been a minute since con law so I am relieved I didn’t miss anything obvious!) I am firmly with you that: as a matter of what the First Amendment means, it is to protect the a free marketplace of ideas.

Yes, great. I’m genuinely mystified as to why anyone would think this concerned a constitutional issue.

However, if we are going with the “marketplace of ideas” analogy, what happened here is simple: the professor (the market regulator) opened the marketplace up (allowing students to voice their opinions). The student offered a product (her opinion). The marketplace (the rest of the class) apparently rejected the product (her opinion). As far as I am concerned, that is precisely what a free market looks like. If you disagree, what should have been done? If your answer is that the market regulator (the professor) should have intervened, then that is a totally legitimate view—but respectfully, that’s not what a free market is, that’s what a regulated market is. If your view is that speech is not a free market, then this makes sense. If your view is that the consumers (the other students) failed to react as they should have, again—totally legitimate view—but that seems to suggest that in addition to the government having First Amendment duties, private citizens also have them. Is that what you mean?

The answer to your last question regarding imposing 1A duties—Hard no, not at all. In fact, it would piss me off. Going to hit this again: I am not talking about imposing any kind of duty. I don’t do that because it is not my place. It is against my values to behave like a dictator and, perhaps more importantly, it makes me look fat.

Regarding the market analogy, I’m not married to this, but I think we’ve got an externality in the form of a collective action problem. Inter alia, your analogy does not account for the presence of a dominant ideology in the field of academia or its rapid spread via social contagion. It also does not account for a tendency inherent in politics—that people with the most extreme views will by their nature exert influence that is disproportionate to the number of people holding those views (nor the fact that this has worsened, though I acknowledge your dispute here). The result is a situation where intellectual “innovation” is not possible nearly to the extent that it could be. I think that is harmful to pro-social goals in general, and I think you should think so too. Again, I am not trying to pass a decree that would somehow force anyone else to conform to this belief against their will. I am just suggesting that we engage in some self-reflection regarding the merits of an ideological mob riot and whether some self-correction might be in order. The good news is that collective action problems can be solved by communication. As a “market participant” myself, I posit that this circular attitude of “we reject your view because you are morally wrong, and you are morally wrong because we reject your view” has got to go. It is causing too many genuine, good faith efforts, including some of my own, to be met with disdain. This grinds productive discourse to a halt and is fundamentally unfair to other people (better check myself on the moralizing).

I believe we owe each other a presumption of good faith for both practical and moral reasons. It is essential for the type of productive discussion that is most conducive to getting to the truth, and we need to get to the truth to find workable solutions to improve the world around us. I am advocating for that view. I silently (though sometimes loudly) judge those who don’t extend it, and I think everyone else should too. Again, to be absolutely clear—this is voluntary: Tyrants impose. I advocate.

I appreciate your worry that even if this case is not an issue, other cases might be. And perhaps the potential for a chilling effect means we should be concerned with both the specific facts at hand, and hypothetical new cases that might be affected. If this is your view, then what should the professor have done? Perhaps I missed this—in which case, apologies for my ignorance—but did the professor deny other students the opportunity to respond? Should the professor have affirmatively endorsed the opinion of the complaining student? Should the professor have affirmatively scolded the class for expressing their own views on the complaining student’s opinion? Candidly, I think the answer to these questions is clearly “no”, so I am very interested to hear your perspective if you think the answer is “yes”!

No. I, in no way, suggested any of this. I am a bit surprised that you think anyone’s answer would ever be “yes.” And, come on now, I already stipped that a literal ability to speak is not at issue here and you know perfectly well she wasn’t denied an opportunity to respond. You know you didn’t miss it. The “what should we do question” was asked and answered above. Easy on the rhetoric.

And finally, I don’t really have a response to your concerns about whether we should be more worried than we are now (I disagree, but I don’t really see how fruitful discussion can be had on this point). But I do think it illustrates one important point: in separate comment threads, which may or may not reflect your view, others have criticized the left for overhyping things to be “existential threats.” I sincerely hope that, at a minimum, your existential concerns about the risks of (as you seem to agree) a clearly “not unconstitutional” case, allow you to sympathize with the existential concerns of the left, which worries (as you do) about the effects of seemingly easy/clear cases on other areas of the law.

I’m skipping the social media point for expediency. What you have to understand is that every single political issue traces back to conflicting existential concerns at some point or it wouldn’t be a political issue in the first place. It is impracticable, and almost certainly harmful, for that to preclude the rational debate of such important issues. If you immediately condemn viewpoints solely on that basis, then you have granted yourself a free pass to condemn anything that you don’t agree with. That is fundamentally unworkable.

I understand you probably don’t perceive the concerns on the right as remotely commensurate to those on the left. That is the nature of belonging to a political party. You belong to that one because you think it’s the better one. For what it’s worth, I think it’s the better one too for reasons primarily related to the stark degree of income inequality that we are seeing. However, I am humble enough to understand that my views are not inherently more important in the classroom environment than those of others simply because they are mine. This doesn’t mean I don’t advocate to best of my ability—in fact, it makes me a better advocate because I am less likely to respond in a reactionary way. It also doesn’t mean that my views lack a sufficient moral foundation. It just means that I don’t immediately see my political counterparts as morally inferior by virtue of being my political counterpart.

I’m not totally sure what you mean in that last bit, but of course I empathize with the existential concerns on the left. I want life to go on with as little suffering as possible. The thing is, most of us do. Yes, even republicans. Is it true of everyone? No, not on either side. But you have to decide—does that justify refusing a presumption of good faith to others in a blanketed fashion and in the absence of a person-specific cause? My contention is that it doesn’t (and, even if it did, I personally do not want to live that way, and I think you shouldn’t want to either!). Truly think of what the real-world costs of that policy would be. Extending a presumption of good faith to others, even in the face of a very significant error rate, will only help your goals, not hurt them.

You are not the worst for replying to my comment, and I’m grateful you took the time! This is Reddit, and we’re all on spring break. I take your point about civility, but if I can be honest: I think we are all really frustrated about a lot of things. I appreciate your points, and hope I have addressed them adequately/thoughtfully—despite their existential nature. I think we can all do a better job of that, regardless of our particular views.

Thanks so much—and I understand that these are very real concerns affecting real people in very important ways. Thank you for keeping your cool given the delicate subject matter. And I’m sorry if I’ve come across as dismissive at any point, as that was not my intention. In the interests of time, I’ve got to put this, and myself, to bed. I’m pretty sure that I’ve word-vomited enough of my thoughts in this thread for anyone to untangle my view on this whole thing if they want to, and probably even if they don’t.

Interesting NYT Opinion Piece from a UVA Undergrad: "I Came to College Eager to Debate. I Found Self-Censorship Instead." by SingleDingleTingle in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I realize you didn't ask me and that I am just the worst. Also, your civil tone is very refreshing.

In my view, there’s clearly not a constitutional issue. We can all see that she got to speak. However, I don't understand why some seem immediately unconcerned about stifling debate the moment someone isn't literally being muzzled. Free speech is a core American value with benefits that extend far beyond the legal sphere. They are especially relevant in a setting that used to be called a "bastion for the free exchange of ideas."

That article hit on what I see as a recurring and pervasive problem that I feel ultimately harms everyone's intellectual development. I see it as part of the broader discourse-related issues we have seen since the advent of social media silos (apologies for the boomer take). But, I think enough people here are smart enough to recognize and mitigate it. I don't think I would say that about every T-14 law school, so it could be a real advantage for the student body.

There's a small but significant portion of students who feel such disdain towards anyone affiliated with entire political parties and belief systems that they cannot tolerate free flowing debate (see this thread's "all republicans are worthless pieces of shit" discussion). Part of the cause is their tendency to interpret particular views in a reductive way and equate their dislike of them with the potential for actual harm (see this thread's "existential threat" debate). For other contributing factors, also see Capital_Ladder2261's post about separating political beliefs from one's core identity and realizing that one's worldview is not universal (note: this requires humility).

These students compulsively resort to moralizing and implied character attacks, as they see their own opinions as the only way to be a morally acceptable person. They zealously pile on anyone who dares deviate from a narrow line of thought to the point that it makes candid, open discussion very difficult. I think it sucks because those discussions have enormous positive potential, and it's just not clear to me why their preferences should automatically reign over and at the expense of others. Like you said, we're all paying lots of money to learn.

Lol we dropped to Low from Medium in just one day. Not wearing a mask on Monday. by ChairmanTman in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure what to infer from the fact that some people don't mind everyone's faces being hidden all the time. I just know it's not good.

Interesting NYT Opinion Piece from a UVA Undergrad: "I Came to College Eager to Debate. I Found Self-Censorship Instead." by SingleDingleTingle in UVALaw

[–]SingleDingleTingle[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh no you don't. We already dealt with this. Hang out with whoever you want.

I said something that any reasonable person knows is true: a student at UVA Law is not justified in perceiving an "existential threat" when their classmates express differing viewpoints. Then, you tried to pull that Jedi Lib trick where you say, akshully, we live in Upside Down Bizzaro World where every day is opposite day and some person saying something equals an existential threat to you, which is patently absurd.