Harvard Rescinds Admission To Conservative Kyle Kashuv Over Private Racist Remarks He Wrote At 16

[Metaphor]

Where do these qualifiers spring from? People don't copyright their nudes. People can get into arguments after nudes have been sent. It doesn't mean you have the right to distribute somebody's nudes. It's called revenge porn.

In any case, my point is that there is a very obvious difference between the two cases.



This is getting a little off topic, but I will say this - if I sent a nude to another adult without their consent, the non-insane thing for somebody to do is to block and delete (unless I've really turned their eye, in which case they can respond positively). It is a widely held expectation that people do not want to share intimate pics with the entire public, which is why they send them to individuals, not post them on the internet with their name and address.



Good lord, I'm reframing nothing. I'm pointing out that the word private means what it has always meant. I assume that Google document was private: it was invite only and limited to the students invited to work on it.

I can't believe how hard it is to accept what should be an absolutely uncontroversial statement, that filming and then broadcasting your views deliberately on the internet is different to putting those views in a closed group Google document.

It's not a closed group google document. Bullshit. It's a document people made with the original purpose for school. The school may have set it up or not. Any deviation from the original agreement by participants invalidates the implied confidentiality.

So, if you meet your friend in a library study room to confidentially study and he whips his dick out in the private room, you are under no obligation to keep it secret.

Your conflation of a closed group with offensive actions by an individual in the group is based on fallacious logic.

Do you have more information about this document than I do? Do you know what the "original agreement" was for the document??

I'm not sure what you mean by 'conflation'. I haven't 'conflated' anything. I did the opposite. I said the scenarios were different. I didn't even fucking say one person deserved a ban and the other didn't.

Why is there such a fevered response over my correct use of the word private???

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Where do these qualifiers spring from? People don't copyright their nudes. People can get into arguments after nudes have been sent. It doesn't mean you have the right to distribute somebody's nudes. It's called revenge porn.

In any case, my point is that there is a very obvious difference between the two cases.



This is getting a little off topic, but I will say this - if I sent a nude to another adult without their consent, the non-insane thing for somebody to do is to block and delete (unless I've really turned their eye, in which case they can respond positively). It is a widely held expectation that people do not want to share intimate pics with the entire public, which is why they send them to individuals, not post them on the internet with their name and address.



Good lord, I'm reframing nothing. I'm pointing out that the word private means what it has always meant. I assume that Google document was private: it was invite only and limited to the students invited to work on it.

I can't believe how hard it is to accept what should be an absolutely uncontroversial statement, that filming and then broadcasting your views deliberately on the internet is different to putting those views in a closed group Google document.

It's not a closed group google document. Bullshit. It's a document people made with the original purpose for school. The school may have set it up or not. Any deviation from the original agreement by participants invalidates the implied confidentiality.

So, if you meet your friend in a library study room to confidentially study and he whips his dick out in the private room, you are under no obligation to keep it secret.

Your conflation of a closed group with offensive actions by an individual in the group is based on fallacious logic.

Do you have more information about this document than I do? Do you know what the "original agreement" was for the document??

You are claiming the offensive document inherited the implied privacy of an alleged group setting. The assumptions are all yours. Any agreement over assumptions I make in communicated with you is to show your fallacious logic.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'conflation'. I haven't 'conflated' anything. I did the opposite. I said the scenarios were different. I didn't even fucking say one person deserved a ban and the other didn't.

Why is there such a fevered response over my correct use of the word private???

Because the document wasn't private.

I have already disproved your claims of privacy expectations with a single counterexample and two in a previous post. You refuse to deal with a disproof of your fallacious conflations and instead claim people are responding feveredly.

Again, the students created the document as a study guide for an AP history class. That was the agreed upon reason to create a document in google documents. Someone participating obviously didn't like the resulting discussion as much as you might not like a guy whipping it out in the back room of a library after agreeing to study. You would be just as free to tell people so-and-so whipped his dick out as one of Kashuv's classmates would be to talk about Kashuv using the n-word gratuitously.

Neither Kashuv nor the dick guy would have an expectation of privacy.

 

[Metaphor]

You are claiming the offensive document inherited the implied privacy of an alleged group setting. The assumptions are all yours. Any agreement over assumptions I make in communicated with you is to show your fallacious logic.

Even if I was wrong, I'd be wrong about the facts, not the 'logic'.

Because the document wasn't private.

I'm sorry, how do you know? Do you reject the concept of a private document or is there something that indicates that it was open to the public that I've missed?

I have already disproved your claims of privacy expectations with a single counterexample and two in a previous post. You refuse to deal with a disproof of your fallacious conflations and instead claim people are responding feveredly.

Gospa moja, you haven't disproved anything. You've claimed that saying something offensive waives your right to an expectation of privacy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Even if I was wrong, I'd be wrong about the facts, not the 'logic'.




I'm sorry, how do you know? Do you reject the concept of a private document or is there something that indicates that it was open to the public that I've missed?

I have already disproved your claims of privacy expectations with a single counterexample and two in a previous post. You refuse to deal with a disproof of your fallacious conflations and instead claim people are responding feveredly.

Gospa moja, you haven't disproved anything. You've claimed that saying something offensive waives your right to an expectation of privacy.

You are claiming there was an expectation of right to privacy and that further that right extends to unwanted behaviors of one participant.

1. There was no legal right to privacy.
2. Any socio-cultural expectation of privacy is superseded by, i.e. NOT EXPECTED SOCIO-CULTURALLY to extend to unexpected, non-agreed upon behaviors. I have demonstrated by counter example how ridiculous this claim is.
3. You are conflating the nature of a "private" group with private behaviors.

 

[Metaphor]

1. There was no legal right to privacy.

I haven't claimed a right, legal or otherwise, to privacy. I said there was an expectation of privacy.

Indeed, I find it obvious that there was this expectation, because the student didn't make such remarks in public and didn't expect them to be leaked. You can argue he was wrong to expect it, but even if he was, that's still not the same as wrongly expecting privacy versus openly recording and broadcasting your views.

2. Any socio-cultural expectation of privacy is superseded by, i.e. NOT EXPECTED SOCIO-CULTURALLY to extend to unexpected, non-agreed upon behaviors. I have demonstrated by counter example how ridiculous this claim is.

So, if I sent a nude to you, but in fact I had meant to send it to somebody with a similar phone number, my violation of this non-agreed behaviour would entitle you to do what, exactly? Take my nude and publish it?

3. You are conflating the nature of a "private" group with private behaviors.

I'm not the person who imagined private meant one person or one other person only. I'm not conflating anything. I'm using a widely understood definition of the word private.


Honestly though, this dialogue is too absurd to continue, even on a private message board like this one.

 

[blastula]

No, they didn't "do the same thing". It was two different students in circumstances different enough that they didn't do "the same thing".

No, they did the same in any relevant factor. You have the facts wrong about what happened.

 

[SimpleDon]

<snip>​

Honestly though, this dialogue is too absurd to continue, even on a private message board like this one.

That is undoubtedly true. But remind us why you think that it is relevant to the thread.

What does it matter how the racist spewings of this young gentleman came to light? Do you think that he is any less of a racist because he thought that the golden rule of the internet, that it never forgets, somehow didn't apply to him?

 

[Metaphor]

<snip>​

Honestly though, this dialogue is too absurd to continue, even on a private message board like this one.

That is undoubtedly true. But remind us why you think that it is relevant to the thread.

What does it matter how the racist spewings of this young gentleman came to light? Do you think that he is any less of a racist because he thought that the golden rule of the internet, that it never forgets, somehow didn't apply to him?

This is all really quite extraordinary. I was responding to somebody who said the situations were the same. They're not the same. The situations differ in substantial ways. Precisely why this second person who isn't Kashuv is somehow more relevant to this thread than me responding that the situations are different, I'm sure I don't know.

In any case, I'm over it. I'm really fucking over it. Apparently making obvious statements about the dictionary definition of "private" are unwelcome here. Apparently there's no difference between being a legal minor and being an adult. Apparently claiming two situations are different means I endorse racism. Gospa moja it's exhausting.

 

[laughing dog]

<snip>​

Honestly though, this dialogue is too absurd to continue, even on a private message board like this one.

That is undoubtedly true. But remind us why you think that it is relevant to the thread.

What does it matter how the racist spewings of this young gentleman came to light? Do you think that he is any less of a racist because he thought that the golden rule of the internet, that it never forgets, somehow didn't apply to him?

This is all really quite extraordinary. I was responding to somebody who said the situations were the same. They're not the same. The situations differ in substantial ways. Precisely why this second person who isn't Kashuv is somehow more relevant to this thread than me responding that the situations are different, I'm sure I don't know.

In any case, I'm over it. I'm really fucking over it. Apparently making obvious statements about the dictionary definition of "private" are unwelcome here. Apparently there's no difference between being a legal minor and being an adult. Apparently claiming two situations are different means I endorse racism. Gospa moja it's exhausting.

If it makes you feel better that you championed a distinction that makes no difference, then fine. Something that is viewed by more than one or two people cannot really be thought as being confidential, especially a study guide. More importantly, whether or not it was private is irrelevant to the content that was written.

 

[SimpleDon]

<snip>​

Honestly though, this dialogue is too absurd to continue, even on a private message board like this one.

That is undoubtedly true. But remind us why you think that it is relevant to the thread.

What does it matter how the racist spewings of this young gentleman came to light? Do you think that he is any less of a racist because he thought that the golden rule of the internet, that it never forgets, somehow didn't apply to him?

This is all really quite extraordinary. I was responding to somebody who said the situations were the same. They're not the same. The situations differ in substantial ways. Precisely why this second person who isn't Kashuv is somehow more relevant to this thread than me responding that the situations are different, I'm sure I don't know.

In any case, I'm over it. I'm really fucking over it. Apparently making obvious statements about the dictionary definition of "private" is unwelcome here. Apparently, there's no difference between being a legal minor and being an adult. Apparently claiming two situations are different means I endorse racism. Gospa moja it's exhausting.

I don't think that you endorse racism. But I do think that you are on shaky ground if you believe that a 16-year-old's racism should be glossed over, that is, ignored, for his college application. The school only has his minority actions to judge him by after all. I believe that by 16 he should have learned that racism is not acceptable in society. You can make a case for the information not being made public, while accepting that it was inevitable, but not that the school shouldn't act on the information.

I am possibly still misunderstanding and therefore, misrepresenting your position. What do I know? I am baffled by the idea of racism, it has so little grounding in logic, in reality. I also believe that adults should realize that racism is unacceptable, so deep are my delusions. And yet, we have people on this board defending racism every day. We have a political party and an entire political movement in the US that relies on racists in their hunt for policial power.

I was blown away that there were approximately fifteen pages of this non-argument non-discussion that I wanted to understand it after investing the time to read it all.

But some things were not meant to be.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

To my knowledge neither I nor anyone else accused Metaphor of endorsing racism. His posts and bizarre tangents going down unecessary rabbit holes are baffling. The absurdity of the discussion is only matched by the absurdity of the drama surrounding the posts, which is why I am dropping it. There is no value.