So socialist? Or communist? I hear Marxist a lot here but that is a good point, it’s about the only one I’ve seen named after one guy.

So socialist? Or communist? I hear Marxist a lot here but that is a good point, it’s about the only one I’ve seen named after one guy.

A fair amount of people here are actually very much not liberal and dislike liberals heavily. I’m not sure what the right label is (Marxist perhaps) but they use “libs” just like the far right does.

Well, I did ignore him. I don’t keep up with conservative media and did not know who he was. I heard about this initially because I’m alum of a related university and didn’t know until your article who began the agenda against Dr. Gay. Problem is, when the broken clock is correct, it’s correct, and that led to normal people talking about it.

That said, would you really ignore literally everything he or his ilk say even if it was true? I feel like all we’ve done is talk about this one guy that 99% of people probably don’t know, and not the merits of the actual events. I genuinely feel it is bad for one to ignore even truthful things just because it came from a piece of shit. That could easily be weaponized— he could champion a good cause just to throw it under the bus.

Why not? Thought is free, I don’t read internet discussions to think little. Lemmy was heralded as a place for thoughtful discussions, and shouldn’t strive for less substance than Reddit had.

I understand that the agenda against Dr. Gay was started by a piece of shit, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong. Broken clock and all. I’m not pleased about it either, but if I discounted literally everything said by pieces of shit, I’d be giving up my own integrity for the sake of owning the cons.

Serious, in the case of academic dishonesty, is narrower than the actual actions indicate. In that article, her advisor indicates that his book “encourages scholars that use the method to describe things in those ways”. He can say that, but by describing things in exactly those ways without quotes, it muddies the water on whose thoughts you’re reading (as it would if I hadn’t quoted the above, which would have read as my words). I recall an independent review indicating she improperly cited but it wasn’t misconduct— respectfully, students doing the same thing before this would probably not be allowed that much leeway. Imagine being back in school days, would you paste paragraphs worth of words without quotes and expect to survive a dishonesty board?

Therein lies the issue: allowing that behavior is genuinely very serious, though it can look less so if you’re not literally thinking back to your own university experience. Moreover research isn’t done for the sake of writing stuff down for a grade, it’s done to progress society. Properly noting which thoughts are yours, and which are being quoted as supporting evidence or if your theories were built on others’, is important if merely for clarity’s sake. It could get worse than that though. Allowing this would allow researchers to ape words without sufficiently crediting them, and that could be taken to more sinister degrees.

Dr. Gay is an excellent academic, this aside, and she understands the danger in allowing her own behavior to go unaddressed. She corrected several of her own works and will probably correct more of them as issues continue to be found.

I kept this comment limited to analysis of the situation, but I’m gonna inject a little bit of personal opinion. I do genuinely think this sucks because, while I believe it was plagiarism, I hate when the conservatives win. But I also don’t see this as a real loss for Harvard or academia as a whole— Harvard will find another President and academic standards only improve. I also don’t want to make the conservative mistake of standing by someone whose conduct is detrimental to their own cause, simply because they are the enemy or target of a group I consider to be abhorrent.

And I think that’s ultimately the thing here. We don’t want the conservatives to take this one, especially because they themselves would likely throw academic standards into the wind if it weren’t personally advantageous in this moment. But if we remove the view of “the enemy,” this is just a President resigning because her academic history is less than flawless, and a President should always have a record capable of withstanding even the sharpest scrutiny. Any less and they are actively at risk of eroding standards which exist for a reason.

The plagiarism allegations were serious and, once entire paragraphs were found to be copied, it was always going to end like this. Everyone remembers how strict their university was about academic dishonesty. While the claims of antisemitism sped it up, it’s very likely someone would eventually discover it and when that happened, she would still have resigned.

How was an academic dishonesty board supposed to deal with students accused of plagiarizing if the President did it too? Terrible situation in academia. Unlike money, unethical behavior does trickle down, if just because it hinders the tools of enforcement (see America since 2017).

It’s not even that big of a sacrifice honestly. Wearing a mask is pretty trivial. Restaurants have outdoor tables. The indoor-only ones that don’t but are still worth going to tend to seat less than 15 people so I occasionally deem it worth the risk.

Long Covid seems way, way worse than a mask. When we have a cure for that I’ll drop it, but until then it’s not even that inconvenient.

Plus, you don’t even have to get the worst symptoms for it to affect you. A couple people I know lost their taste and smell in 2020/2021 and have yet to regain it. That, I think, ruins restaurants more than sitting outside.

This is actually pretty crazy to me, I watch <1hr of TV a week but can immediately tell OLED from LCD. It’s the perfect absence of light on black screens, though I’ll admit I don’t see a lot of LCD and may just be encountering only mid ones.

I’m ex-tech so I don’t use my devices, barring my phone, a lot these days but I can’t unsee the difference. I always get OLED when available; had a “next best thing” miniLED iPad that was unbearable in the dark. But I’d rather not care like you do: objectively speaking you miss out on nearly nothing and don’t have to frown at remaining non-OLED devices like car screens or laptops. Even going weeks without computer usage I’ll still notice, and honestly after typing all this I’m kind of jealous.

And y’know, perfect black aside, I don’t think I’d notice otherwise. Really unfortunate thing that my brain notices without thinking about and it’s cost me thousands + fear of static screens causing burn in

Not saying this about you specifically cause the other person did it too but I miss when the internet sourced claims instead of just being like “no that’s wrong” with zero elaboration or evidence. Very few people are convinced by “nah not true” and nothing else

The comment I responded to was basically “what else could they have done?” To most people that’s condoning.

And the logic of “they feel it’s justified” could be extended to Israel as well. It’s clear that a lot of people think that Hamas butchering civilians means Israel can too. Doesn’t make it right either.

And well, why don’t you condemn just as strongly Hamas’s killings, or understand why Israel might feel they’re justified? That’s kind of what I mean— there’s these little slants, as if to say “at least they’re not the other side”.

Call me sensitive or whatever but I don’t like the violent undertones I get here (not your comment, Lemmy in general). Repeating Hamas’s justifications for slaughter is no better than repeating Israel’s, and imo drags down the general quality of any discussion

Lemmy is the only place where I see people being like “butchering civilians is okay as long as it was done to further their goal”. It’s real weird to see that kind of rhetoric not only accepted but upvoted.

I’m sure if I hung out on the extremist right sites, there would be that kind of stuff about Israel. That’s kind of the thing though, it’s really starting to feel like Lemmy is an extremist place and I could see it petering out because of that.

I feel like part of a shrinking minority that’s not cool with mass killing civilians no matter what. I’m a strong supporter for an independent Palestine but I don’t see how killing civilians is leading to that. To me it seems like that only gave Israel the opportunity to unleash massive violence of their own, and they’re clearly far better at it.

I know a lot of you don’t see violence or violent rhetoric as taboo, and I guess I’m not really trying to get you to stop saying it. It’s just kind of sad to see, and I do think it’ll turn Lemmy into one of those sites regular people avoid because it’s too extreme. I don’t even know why I typed this comment, perhaps I don’t like the way Lemmy is sliding and felt the need to comment on it while it’s still in that early stage Voat feel.

The US has been doing such a good job at demonizing journalism probably aiming to do this and not be called out. A functioning democracy based society should care a lot about journalist killings, but it barely blips the radar now.

Yeah fair point. I guess I meant more in the capacity of direct action, didn’t really think about it in that way

HFY (humanity, fuck yeah) was a sub for short stories about humans being cooler than aliens. Not in a self congratulatory way, but like how humans could feasibly have good or useful traits that alien species might not. Such as creativity or physical prowess due to being top of the food chain in a competitive ecosystem.

There’s a Lemmy alternative but not a lot of traction.

Yup, expressly worse exactly like what Boris did. See, Boris didn’t take the only expressly worse slot in the whole world. Iran can also go cause harm for nothing.

We can whatabout all day and it doesn’t change that Iran “intervening” has no benefits. It’s clear that people disagree with me here, but not once has anyone attempted to express any upside to Iran inserting themselves in the way the article is detailing. You’re getting caught up in everyone else doing bad things that you… want Iran to do their own bad things, kill more people, have their people killed, and achieve nothing?

Don’t feel the need to respond unless you have something besides “but what about [the next horrible act]?” I’m not here defending everyone else’s crimes. I just think it’s stupid for Iran to add to the bodycount for no reason, and that purposeless violence should be avoided. I’m not on Lemmy to pointlessly argue on the internet like the olden days and I don’t want to waste your time either. I fully respect your concerns about other people doing bad things but they have no effect whatsoever on the topic set by this article, and whataboutism has never led to an interesting discussion, so if you want to talk please try something engaging. If you don’t have other thoughts, don’t feel the need to create one just to respond either, real conversations shouldn’t be forced.

And like I said elsewhere, please don’t take any of this as hostile. In recent years I’ve tried to remove negative emotions from my internet usage (we should all be here for a good time) and oddly I think it made me sound less friendly.

I feel like even in that first comment alone I repeated that I’m against this specific case of intervention because it would be “committing atrocities of their own” despite “zero chance that Israel would back down,” and that adding “more violence with absolutely no chance of preventing loss of life”.

That’s three separate quotes from three separate paragraphs, very narrowly commenting only on Iran’s proposed intervention. I’m not sure how I could have made it more clear that I’m only against the pointless killing this specific intervention, the one indicated by the article would lead to? Like even now I don’t see how it could have been clarified, and I’m genuinely interested in knowing how. This thread isn’t even about intervention in general, just the exact instance I was commenting on.

Apologies if this sounds even the slightest bit hostile— I genuinely don’t mean it to have that tone, and I haven’t gotten into a single argument on Lemmy. I just cannot see how it wasn’t abundantly clear when I paid extra effort to comment very very very narrowly across three paragraphs in the first comment alone.

Iran is an uninvolved third party poised to add to the bloodshed with no possible gain, unlike with Ukraine where lives in the future may be saved. I’m not saying there should be no third party interventions in general. Simply that Iran coming in to make things expressly worse— I think we can all see there will be absolutely nothing improved by their intervention— is of unparalleled uselessness and would result in pointless loss of life. If they could contribute, all power to them, but they cannot do anything but make it worse.

They might not be wrong about Israel committing atrocities. They would be wrong to add to it by committing atrocities of their own. The article certainly doesn’t seem to indicate they’ll “intervene” in a benign manner, and their track record is as blemished or worse.

This is doubly dumb if Israel is like they say. There is zero chance Israel would back down if Iran intervened; really, they’d probably have no issue extending the rampage to Iran as well. More people will die horribly.

It’s not right to sit and watch everyone commit various crimes against humanity. But adding your own violence with absolutely no chance at preventing loss of life, as Iran is implying they will do here, is somehow worse than apathy.

Oh, also do the immigration paperwork online. Ezpz and saves you time on arrival. Give some leeway for learning transport, a lot of Americans don’t have or use public transport and my first time I struggled to get places on time.