From Congress on the lame testimony from these 3 bitches about antisemitism. Comforting to see a bipartisan condemnation. Haven't seen that for a while
Pretty strong shit
- Thread starter Loyal Coug1
- Start date
Kinda surprised after 225 views no one has commented on this. That letter, signed by 74 bipartisan members of Congress, was pretty damn scathing.
UPenn's President just resigned, as well as their Board President. $5 sez Harvard and MIT are right behind. These are Ivy league universities folks. Kinda pathetic that UPenn's Prez will keep her tenured faculty position. That's how it works in Higher Ed. Always got a pillow to fall back on, no matter how bad you F up.
Dunno if anyone besides me actually read or viewed their testimony about students, etc. at their institutions advocating the extermination of Jews, but it was beyond F-ed up. Their tepid testimonies that "it depends on the context" was so F-ed up.
I didn't make it through the PDF you shared but I did watch some of the hearings that it was based upon.
Pretty F'd up.
I think Victor Davis Hanson has written some of the best info on the topic.
https://nypost.com/2023/12/08/opini...nd-a-top-school-degree-may-soon-be-worthless/
Pretty F'd up.
I think Victor Davis Hanson has written some of the best info on the topic.
https://nypost.com/2023/12/08/opini...nd-a-top-school-degree-may-soon-be-worthless/
The question posed was “does calling for the genocide of Jews violate their schools’ bullying and harassment policies? ”
The answer was that it depends on the context of the statement. And…it does. Who said it, to what audience, and was it said with the intent of actually instigating/inspiring violent acts? If so, then yes, it violates policy (although possibly not bullying or harassment policies, which generally require the statements reach a level of “sufficiently severe and/or pervasive.”)
Or, was it satirical? Or just someone spouting off? Or the ranting of a fool?
The mistake these officials made is not giving the answer the PC police want. Those people want only the answers they’ve already come up with - not the truth. It’s the worst sort of confirmation bias, and it’s a significant concern. Freedom of speech erodes quickly when you’re not allowed to speak truth, regardless of how inconvenient that truth is.
I've spent a good part of my life arguing with University Presidents and their limited vision on lots of issues. I readily agree that these three Presidents made a public relations mistake by coming off as legalistic instead of outraged about possible calls for genocide. Still, I really think a lot of the outrage over their appearance before the House committee is over blown. They did denounce genocide but their comments got buried in attempts to point out that some of the student speech was protected by the Ist Amendment. They aren't actually wrong about that but Stefenic and others on the Committee weren't terribly interested in the nuance. Whether speech is protected or not quite frequently does depend on the context. A student chanting "from the river to the sea let Palestinians be free" might well be uniformed of the history of this obnoxious chant but it is far from clear that they should be prohibited from saying it on a college campus.
I'm sorry, I don't buy that at all. You don't call for the extermination of a religion or a country ever, under any context. That is just wrong, wrong, wrong. The "context" of a statement that Jews should be genocided? That is Nazi Germany.
If someone says all politicians or all lawyers should be shot in the head, is that bullying or harassment? What if instead it’s all illegal immigrants? Or all inmigrants? At what point is it bullying/harassment, and when is it taken seriously?
Well, all lawyers and most politicians should be taken out and shot. Half kidding, sorta.
That's a little different than extermination of an entire religion or country.
Oh and did you mean ingrates? Calling for the extermination of all WW patrons is a bit harsh.
Delving into these issues is like dipping your sack into a hornets nest. If you support Israel, an entire religious mega-culture does not like you. If you don’t support retaliation that uses non targeted attacks where civilians die, you’re antisemitic. I already spend most my days as an oppressor, colonizer, straight man, privileged etc. Don’t want to heap more shit on the pile.
Not sure if those terms are congruent.
Hey it's a mess all the way around. But we sit here in America (Thank Odin - oops God) pretty immune from all that shit except for our service people. So G-D glad I am not in a country that wants to take us over (Ukraine) or exterminate us (Israel). Not to mention shitloads of other countries that are fighting, killing, etc.
Hate to break it to you, but you probably live in the country that the most people want to exterminate. Even most of our allies don’t really like us very much.
Of course there is a LIMITED, SMALL amount of context involved, such as were they joking, etc. BUT it would have to be a PRETTY BLOODY DAMN FCKING OBVIOUS JOKE, etc.
And even things like joking is questionable.
A COMPARISON:
In the workplace, if you tell a funny sexual joke, either in front of women, or a woman walks by and overhears it, theoretically you can be fired for Sexual Harassment, be successfully sued for Sexual Harassment, then be charged, arrested for verbal sexual harassment abuse, assault, and goto jail, goto court, get convicted, etc.
Calling for the GENOCIDE of ANY DEMOGRAPHIC, even in jest, etc, is BLOODY DAMN WORSE then a workplace sexual harassment joke.
The problem, almost no matter what the context, except in a clinical history education class, etc, is that CALLING for GENOCIDE, even in jest is a CALL TO ACTION.
Your ESSENTIALLY, TECHNICALLY telling somebody to do something BAD, ILLEGAL, etc, and IF IF someone listens, and follows and OBEYS, FOLLOWS, DOES that CALL to ACTION and actually tries to GENOCIDE, the person or group that SAID the CALL TO ACTION IS RESPONSIBLE for INCITING, PROVOKING, INSTIGATING the CRIME, etc.
There is a limit to free speech. You can't say FIRE FIRE in a theater, etc. You can't tell somebody to Shoot somebody. If you do, even if somebody does not listen to you and does not shoot somebody, it's still TECHNICALLY, THEORETICALLY ILLEGAL to tell somebody to Shoot somebody.
Calling for Genocide is telling somebody to kill somebody, and is technically, theoretically illegal unless, except it's rhetorical in a clinical history class kind of thing.
And even if it were not illegal, it should be, and it's pretty damn FCKING bad, evil, etc, as if that kind of HATE SPEECH is allowed, tolerated, that's how HITLER, NAZI GERMANY CAME INTO POWER AND HOW THE HOLOCAUST HAPPENED.
Germany is a FREE, DEMOCRACY, that pretty much has free speech, but even in Germany, it's illegal to Call for Genocide because they don't want another Holocaust to happen.
And even if something isn't illegal, etc, just because you can do, say something, does not mean that you should say, do that something, and doesn't mean that there won't be consequences, etc.
Calling for GENOCIDE IS WRONG, BAD, EVIL, ETC. And if you say it, people will RIGHTFULLY OSTRACIZE YOU, CRITICIZE YOU, FIRE YOU, KICK YOU OUT OF SCHOOL, etc.
It's not just a simple matter of it being politically incorrect, etc. You wrongfully seem to say, imply that it shouldn't be politically incorrect, that people should be able to say it without getting ostracized, fired, kicked out of school, etc.
If that's your attitude, view, it's people like you that lived in Nazi Germany, with that view, that allowed Hitler, Nazi party, 3rd Reich, etc, to rise to power.
Calling for Genocide absolutely is abusive, harassment, bullying, except for the extremely limited exceptions that I mentioned, etc.
And when the congress asked the presidents if calling for Genocide was against the no bullying, harassment policies of the schools, the congress wasn't talking about the Exceptions.
Yeah their technical words technically allowed for exceptions, BUT if you LISTEN BETWEEN THE LINES AT THE CONGRESSES INTENT, WHAT THEY ARE REALLY ASKING, and that is, minus the exceptions, is it ok at your college to CALL for Genocide?, then the MORALLY, MAYBE EVEN LEGALLY RIGHT ANSWER is: NO CALLING FOR GENOCIDE IS NOT OK, AND IT GENERALLY IS AGAINST OUR COLLEGE'S ANTI BULLYING, HARRASSMENT POLICIES, AND I AND OUR COLLEGE CONDEMN CALLING FOR GENOCIDE.
SAYING IT DEPENDS IS NOT OK, BECAUSE EVEN IF TECHNICALLY, THEORETICALLY TRUE, SAYING IT DEPENDS GIVES, SAYS THE WRONG MESSAGE BY SAYING IT MIGHT BE OK TO SAY IT, AND BIGOTS, RACIST CAN THEN SAY, WELL THE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT SAID IT DEPENDS, SO THAT MEANS THAT IT CAN BE OK FOR ME TO WALK UP TO A JEW AND CALL FOR THE GENOCIDE OF JEWS.
Seriously any college president who doesn't, fails to condemn calling for Genocide, should be taken to task by the congress in the strongest way possible, and the presidents should be fired, resign, etc.
And you seemingly defending the presidents is WRONG.
If you want to defend the university presidents and say it's ok to call for genocide because it's supposedly free speech, then go hop into a time machine and go live in Nazi Germany.
Chanting from the river to see, etc, is way the FCK different then CALLING FOR GENOCIDE.
IF they factually, exactly say something like "GENOCIDE THE JEWS", etc. THAT IS NOT OK. THAT IS WRONG. SHOULD BE CONDEMNED. IS ILLEGAL HATE SPEECH, INCITES, INSTIGATES, PROVOKES, STOKES, CAUSES VIOLENCE, CRIME, GENOCIDE, MURDER, ETC.
SUCH SPEECH IS NOT TO BE TOLERATED, ACCEPTED.
Spot on Mik. Sometimes you come up with some really cogent shit.
Edit - and the more I reflect on this, helped by the Penn President resigning in shame, (hopefully followed by the other two), their comments were so wrong. "Depends on the context". WTF is that from PhD's? And this Jewish professor at USC catches major shit and is horribly misquoted by calling protesting students ignorant (true) and saying he hoped Israel kills all of the Hamas murderers. I do too.
And even the "from the River to the Sea" crap coming from 21-ish year olds. Those geographic decisions were made over 75 years ago. It is what it is. Using that crap to justify the horrific atrocities committed by Hamas - who are Palestinians BTW - is so wrong and every one of those students should be kicked out of school. And deported if they are not US citizens. Give them a rifle when they get off the plane and bus them to Gaza, Maybe we should give Texas back to Mexico as well.
This shit just makes my blood boil. Our country is so F-ed. Our compass is so broken. And Higher Ed is at the apex of f-edness. As I've said numerous times - I worked in it for 28 years. So many of them are so f-ed up, at many levels.
Last edited:
Technically, theoretically, if you say "Shoot, kill all lawyers", etc, legally it's a technical, theoretical threat, call to action, even if joking.
It's just that if it's said jokingly, it isn't cracked down on, enforced.
There is some blurry, gray area on whether it should be cracked down on, etc.
Maybe if we as a society allow kill all lawyers to be said, while not allowing Genocide all Blank, then maybe we are being hypocritical, inconsistent, etc.
Saying either Kill all lawyers, or Genocide all Blank are both wrong, technically illegal, etc, and it's up to those in authority, to decide whether to enforce, etc.
But if the congress ask you to say whether saying Kill all lawyers, or Genocide all Blank, is ok, is against school policy, etc, then you condemn saying those things, and say that against school policies.
Because saying it depends sends the wrong message to all the people who will listen to that and say "The President said it depends, so it must be ok to kill all lawyers, Genocide all Blank, so because of that time to kill all lawyers, genocide all blank(And then they literally start killing lawyers, genociding all blank)
Kill all the lawyers is a verse from an Eagles song, as you may know. "Get over it" is the song. "Kill all the lawyers, kill them tonight".
And lawyers are the single worst thing that has happened to this country. Most of them are blood-sucking leaches. Here in YakiVegas, you can't drive down any street without seeing a personal injury lawyer billboard. So why despite what I might have said, I really don't advocate for mass murder of them, but.
A bus full of lawyers went off a cliff. what's the bad news? There was an empty seat. What do you call 100 skydiving lawyers? Skeet. What do you call 100 lawyers buried up to their heads in sand? Not enough sand.
Oh Gawd - to lighten this trainwreck up (who started this damn thread anyway?) I keep going back to the John McKay interview while at Tampa Bay after a loss:
Q: "What do you think about the Offense's execution?
McKay: "I'm in favor of it"
I disagree with everything you say here. PR mistake? No - way way beyond that. Student speech protected by the First Amendment? I guess like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is protected by the 1st Amendment? Outrage was overblown? Tell that to the many donors who are pulling their donations. And their comments did not get buried. They said what they said, and it was horribly wrong.
Literally everything in that hearing was rife with hypocrisy. Stefanik trying to cancel university presidents, and the side stepping answers the presidents provided to her blow hard questions.
I believe these were all private universities. The First Amendment doesn’t apply.
I would say semi-targeted attacks that provide a plausible basis for minimizing civilian casualties. The difficult part is HAMAS flatly does not care about Palestinian lives.
Then let them refuse all Govt funds and promote their “principals” privately.
Harvard Board is on the clock.
I wonder just how much "nuance" those dipshits would find in the speech of some KKK members saying that all those subhuman blacks needed to go back to Africa, or even that their boats should all sink while on the way? Or what if the "free speech" was directed at gays or trans people, saying that because they were abnormal that they should all be rounded up and put on a desert island somewhere? I bet you a buffalo head nickel that nuance would be thrown right out the door and they would be on full blown attack mode against those folks doing "hate speech".
The Eagles? I hope you know a guy named William Shakespeare coined that phrase a couple of years before the Eagles?
There’s actually some debate about his intent. Most feel he was actually saying (through his character’s speech) that you first needed to kill all the lawyers (guardians of the law) before you could then run roughshod over the rule of law and establish a totalitarian government.
But there is an alternative interpretation where the speaker is said to be showing his disdain for lawyers as being the protectors of the upper class, and removing them would allow for revolution against the upper class.
The speaker of the quote is “Dick the Butcher”, a nasty henchman of Jack Cade - who is leading a revolt against King Henry VI.
Hey, OLD man! What are you doing up so early. I would think that someone as old as you would be sleeping until noon, with only a short pee break or two interrupting your snoring. ;-)
LOL……
Up and at ‘em early on my B-Day. Already been to gym and back now.
No rest for the wicked………
Speaking of old man…..YOUR B- Day is coming up soon. So doncha be talkin smack to me. I’m still younger than you, after all. 😛
You are free to disagree with everything I say but that hardly makes your claims more reasonable.
I agree with you that the President's should have been far more upfront in loudly denouncing genocide. But when you (or Stephanic) starts asking them whether certain speech by students should be punished than you have to look at what was actually said and the context within which it was said. You say you agreed with Mik but Mik (maybe unintentionally) actually agreed with me. The examples I have seen of student protest on various campuses were of students chanting things like "from the river to the sea" and as Mik tried to point out that is way different than directly calling for genocide. You can dismiss these chants if you want but saying those decisions were made 75 years ago isn't much of an argument. In any case it is far from clear that what they were chanting should be prohibited. For better or worse the Ist Amendment protects a lot of things that are wrong or mistaken. While it is true as dgibbons says that these specific Universities are private and not technically required to follow the Ist Amendment they all have speech codes that seek to adhere to Ist Amendment principles. If your point is that Israel has an absolute right to exist and calls for genocide are as you put it "wrong wrong wrong" I absolutely agree with you. What is obvious to me but apparently not to you is that most of what the pro-Palestinian protesters have been chanting is in fact protected speech whether you and I agree with it or not.
Bullshit.
Flip the script and see what happens. If anyone ever called the the systematic genocide of Black's, Asians, gays... etc cities would burn, regardless of any context implicit or assumed. By current definition genocide is hate speech, which we've been informed time and again is NOT protected speech.
Unless the targetd group are white/ Jewish, then anything goes of course.
If the protestors are Chanting, saying things like "From River to the Sea", that, those things are free protected speech.
If the protestors are saying things like "GENOCIDE THE JEWS", then that is illegal, is, should be against school policy, and is NOT protected first amendment free speech, and is threatful, incitative, instigative, HATE, Illegal call to action speech.
I don't think 74 members of Congress would have done what they did over "From the River to the Sea" speech, and would have only did, said what the Congress said over "GENOCIDE THE JEWS", type of speech.
Wow.
First happy bday.
Second, had no idea so many posters knew each other personally.
I suspect your last sentence here is wrong. I'm not at all sure that these members of Congress have actual examples of the type of speech you mention. If such examples exist I have no problem with schools prohibiting it.
No.
Because we insert ourselves as the “world’s police” and have set up an empire of military occupation throughout the globe
Even though we can’t control our own borders.
If I may meet your BS with my BS…. what the answer Stefanik was looking for was “there were many fine people on both sides”.
well that or the players as their was blood on Witherspoon jersey and soil on Purdy’s pants.
And George Santos was scheduled to replace Geno …
Last edited:
Military occupation throughout the globe? I don't recall seeing or reading anywhere that our allies want us to leave. Does Germany want us to leave? Taiwan? Who exactly is calling for the US to GTFU of their countries? And yeah we have been the world's police since WW2. I frankly don't like it as I am an isolationist and wish we would get out of every country and let them destroy each other, but it is who we are. Someone needs to be the moral leader - and that would be the US.
I think our border situation is totally F-ed up. Why do we even let them cross the border in the first place? But it begs the question - why do so many immigrants want to come to the US?
And I know I'm replying to 95's post not yours (copied a pasted for context), but exactly who around the world wants to exterminate the US? Russia, China, North Korea, Iran? Probably.
Canada, Mexico, any country in NATO? I don't think so.
Oh and even our allies don't like us too much? Exactly who is that? We get the most shit when we don't do enough to support or bail them out. Again I wish we would just GTF out. But they rely on the US whether they grouse about mistakes we might make or whatever.
Well, without a doubt George Santos is a big putz, but as long as we are on the "Throw them out for lying train", how soon do we start with Pocahontas Warren, Eric Swallwell, Ilhan Omar, ??? Bowman, Dick Blumenthal, Joey Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, etc?
Well….there are a ton of liars out there . If you ran a business, and he completely lied about where he worked, went to school and he was Jewish, and misappropriated funds in the first nine months on the job would you keep him around . My guess is “sure”
And there are a couple people on the other side of the aisle make the folks you mentioned look like rookies.
Agree with the comments above that the entire hearing was a joke. That said, those Presidents were more worried about potential lawsuits and legalese than what was right and it's blowing up on them.
Of course, the biggest irony of the hearing was Republicans trying to crack down on hate speech while licking the nutsack of a wannabe dictator who routinely attacks people from other countries. Hate speech only matters when they don't agree with it.
Of course, the biggest irony of the hearing was Republicans trying to crack down on hate speech while licking the nutsack of a wannabe dictator who routinely attacks people from other countries. Hate speech only matters when they don't agree with it.
