I am curious to understand - why was it flagged?

For the same reasons that people like Boghossian and anyone else who dares to speak outside of the desired narrative gets harassed by the mob: to quell dissent.

It is an oddity of the current crop of authoritarians that they in one breath manage to claim that there is no absolute truth but a multitude of 'lived experiences' while at the same time decrying anyone who dares to speak outside of the desired narrative. Of course the same people deny the validity of logic by calling it an example of 'white supremacy' so its application to their behaviour is a losing proposition.

Once enough people have been pushed out of those parts of academia which have been infected by critical theory it stands to reason that they will end up creating new venues for academic research structured in such a way that they can not be taken over - as to what this structure would look like is still up for grabs. Given that those new institutions can be assumed to be based on meritocracy where identity politics and 'diversity initiatives' are driving factors in their previous institutions it is likely that the former will end up producing higher-quality research than the latter - which will promptly be labelled as the result of some combination of *-isms/*-phobias by the authoritarians.

Personally, I find it rather uninteresting and not the kind of article that raises the standard of HN comments, which are the reason I visit. I perceive these types of threads as not-useful flame wars supported by opinions presented as insights.

The amount of projection in this thread regarding the collective motivations of the HN Hive Mind is fascinating.

The subject is dear to heart for many, if not most people who frequent HN. Boghossian is a well-known author in this context who was instrumental in bringing these issues up for discussion outside of academia. He was the last of the authors of the grievance studies hoax articles who was still employed in academia so his resignation is sort of a milestone, in what direction remains to be seen. The discussions around these issues often do end up in polarised factional disputes but that is part and parcel of the problem and not something which can be avoided by not discussing it in the first place.

For me the desired outcome of these discussions is that those who have been supportive of the introduction of indentitarian policies in academia realise the deleterious effects these have on institutional and, lately, societal cohesion - more or less in the same way that Marxists in the 20's of the previous century started to realise that the Soviet Union did not develop into the workers and farmers paradise they were told it would. This can only happen if the subject can be discussed in those places where it matters, in other words in places frequented by people who have been part of or are still part of academia. HN is one of those places.

Fair perspective, I grant you. I just don’t think it’s particularly well suited to the HN that I want to see. It seems more fitting for a philosophy board than a startup/technology board.

I do realize that politics is sometimes ok on Hn. I’m just saying I think that degrades the quality of the forum, and dilutes the topics I prefer.

Each unto their own.

> I just don’t think it’s particularly well suited to the HN that I want to see. It seems more fitting for a philosophy board than a startup/technology board.

Had the problem been limited to academia - and, more specifically, the humanities - I would have concurred. Now that it escaped out into the wild where it is wreaking havoc with societal institutions and commercial entities it has become something which directly concerns the areas of interest for this board and as such should be dealt with.

One of the best ways for dealing with these authoritarians is for people to just say "no, I will not be bullied into submission". As long as there are only a few people doing so they can be singled out, demonised and de-platformed by the authoritarian 'new puritans' but this becomes ineffective in the face of growing resistance. Once they can no longer scare people into submission they will lose their power, once they lose power the problems they created can be dealt with and true academic freedom can return. Once true academic freedom returns there will still be space in academia for critical theory and related 'grievance studies' [1] but they will no longer be able to force their ideologies upon the institutions.

Resistance is not futile, we will not be assimilated.

[1] ...although I suspect they will not be able to find enough funding to keep going nor will there be many employment opportunities for those with a degree in one of these fields - which will eventually lead to their demise.

there's a bunch of liberal progressives on HN who flag stuff like this.

I wonder if it's someone else. I'm a liberal progressive and found this story interesting and worth the read.

Probably. I don't think all progressive liberals downvote things like this.

There's nothing "liberal" or "progressive" about that kind of activity, though.

I'd choose another term, but those seem to all be used (and abused) by those kind of people when they talk about their ideological opponents.

Within the unversity cluster that Boghossian worked, this activity is predominantly progressive liberal because that describes the makeup of the campus. There is a very different orthodoxy if you visit conservative colleges.

I prefer the term 'illiberal progressives' as it does a good job of explaining their position and doesn't confuse them with 'classical liberals'.