(05-07-2024, 04:52 PM)putnam6 Wrote: MIT cracking down on those who refuse to break their small encampment with suspensions. Doesn't things like this affect who will or will not hire you? Especially in the defense industry

(05-07-2024, 06:33 PM)DBCowboy Wrote: I would never hire any of the "protestors".

I hope they stave on the Ivy League diplomas.

(05-07-2024, 07:11 PM)Maxmars Wrote: I hope we're on friendly enough terms to discuss this further.  I'm not challenging you here. 

I mean to say I am uncertain that engaging in protest activity is a "bad" thing.  We can't just "say" it is a right, and then vilify those who protest when we disagree. 

I think I understand that you mean this in terms of the "cause" of their protest.  (There are a analogous amount of students not in Ivy league schools that also feel this way and are, in fact, protesting. A considerable amount of them are in fact present in the current Ivy League school "public nuisance" mix right now.)

This is to say, I assume that they support the violence as "communication" side.  At least in this we agree.  But I've seen similar destructive behavior in so call 'good causes' involving protest... I'll try not to belabor the point excessively.

The 'protester' problem is in how they are behaving.  They seem to be "led" to think that they are "helping" their cause.  But they are not, because they are not speaking to the world, they are speaking to themselves.  It doesn't take a genius to see them fail and recognize it for what it is.  But they are not listening, only speaking... just like their activist leadership...  Meanwhile their cause remains unchanged and not inclined to change in any way... because: reasons they can't control.

They are being taught that tantrums must be thrown.  It's not just in our country but everywhere.  Got a cause?  Make a ruckus!  

When has that really (actually) worked? and more importantly how would that success measure up to your "protest?"  This never gets across their minds, and so they spend a lot of money, scream and make a nuisance of themselves, then slowly withdraw while their "leaders" pat them on the back.... Oh,.... and the money.

If we want this garbage out of our lives, we can't just punish the weak and socially swept up...  now, none of my kids has ever participated in one of these kinds of things... and now, I have to add "yet," but if they ever did, I would hate to think you wouldn't hire them just because of that.  I would rather they got to have an employer like you, if you'll pardon the compliment.

(05-07-2024, 05:07 PM)Maxmars Wrote: Such employment opportunities that require background checks might gather information like this for their consideration. 

But remember, this can also be called a "civic" choice, and thus cannot be applied prejudicially without further expanding information. 

It remains (nominally) that "protest" is not a crime.... no matter how it is characterized by the aggrieved and its supporters.  But "crime" does have a definition, and anything that can be criminally brought to court changes all that presumed 'protection' from consequences.

Right now the students are being addressed by the educational institution, not the courts...

presumably the protesters are now all set to run for political office... maybe this is a career-path thing for some of them... "Protesting" sells well in our political parties... hint hint.

(05-07-2024, 10:16 PM)Maxmars Wrote: "Teens" is different now...

I think that age curve is changing... what we used to think of as youthful naiveté and lack of an ability to detect guile extends nearly to the 30s now.

They are socially where we see their age group in 1950s. Bereft of mindfulness... and resentful about it.