Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here, I guess my question is with the premise- is antifadah genocide?

I understand it means violent resistance, whether that is rocks or something more. I wouldn’t have understood it to be genocide.

I suppose the term is loose and can include a lot of things, but I wasn’t sure why the presidents didn’t simply reject her premise.

They are screaming “globalize the intifada” meaning that globally people should violently resist or “shake off”. Who do you think people are going to “shake off” globally? Innocent Jews, hence the genocide.

What is the difference between that and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and no denunciation of that? The Palestinian holocaust is happening right now not is some imagine future hypothetical situation.

I have to assume you are joking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They bobbed and weaved like proper politicians avoiding truthful answers. It was appalling.

Sorry what was appalling? That the university presidents stand by the first amendment? That no matter how offensive the speech, as long as it doesn’t cross into active bullying or misconduct, it will be allowed? This goes both ways! No one is questioning the Israeli rally where they held posters like finish the job. Finish what job? Of killing all the Palestinian children?

There is nothing offensive about the word intifada or the phrase from the river to the sea. Intifada literally means uprising and yes it’s uprising against the Zionist occupation and the injustices the Palestinians suffer at their hands. It does not mean killing all the Jews or calling for the annihilation of Israel! Zionists need to pstop being so insecure. Why are you so hell bent on suppressing free speech?

It calls for killing some of the Jews then per your statement

How ironic that you want to suppress free speech that is not actually causing anyone harm but you don’t want to speak up against Israel literally killing thousands of civilians every single day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here, I guess my question is with the premise- is antifadah genocide?

I understand it means violent resistance, whether that is rocks or something more. I wouldn’t have understood it to be genocide.

I suppose the term is loose and can include a lot of things, but I wasn’t sure why the presidents didn’t simply reject her premise.

They are screaming “globalize the intifada” meaning that globally people should violently resist or “shake off”. Who do you think people are going to “shake off” globally? Innocent Jews, hence the genocide.

What is the difference between that and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and no denunciation of that? The Palestinian holocaust is happening right now not is some imagine future hypothetical situation.

I have to assume you are joking

Why would it be a joke? The first amendment gives everyone the right to say whatever they want as long as they are not causing actual harm to anyone. The first amendment guarantees free speech and allows students to speak up against the Palestinian genocide currently taking place. If you are so threatened by the students exposing Israel’s war crimes that’s your problem not a constitutional one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason why many people are upset isn’t the hairsplitting of if “intifada” can be defined as genocide.

It is extreme discrimination or selective application of free speech by these universities. For example, Harvard specifically punishes students for making racist comments in private chats by rescinding their offers of admission.

Yet now Harvard welcomes free speech when the speech is calling for the death (if not outright genocide) of Jews.

Other universities have either fired or pushed out professors for having controversial or unpopular viewpoints that were in no way violent. In one incident, a professor was fired for showing a painting of Mohammad after informing students they would see such images.

It is complete hypocrisy and it is dangerous and wrong.

I agree. It’s the hypocrisy. There are consequences for saying something racist. But antisemitic speech is allowed. That’s not okay.

Did you see the video from Columbia University where the speaker at a pro-Palestine rally praised Hamas for their creativity on October 7, which allowed them to achieve “great feats”? The school administrators allegedly handed out umbrellas to them so they couldn’t be identified. No consequences for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here, I guess my question is with the premise- is antifadah genocide?

I understand it means violent resistance, whether that is rocks or something more. I wouldn’t have understood it to be genocide.

I suppose the term is loose and can include a lot of things, but I wasn’t sure why the presidents didn’t simply reject her premise.

They are screaming “globalize the intifada” meaning that globally people should violently resist or “shake off”. Who do you think people are going to “shake off” globally? Innocent Jews, hence the genocide.

What is the difference between that and what Israel is doing to the Palestinians and no denunciation of that? The Palestinian holocaust is happening right now not is some imagine future hypothetical situation.

I have to assume you are joking

Why would it be a joke? The first amendment gives everyone the right to say whatever they want as long as they are not causing actual harm to anyone. The first amendment guarantees free speech and allows students to speak up against the Palestinian genocide currently taking place. If you are so threatened by the students exposing Israel’s war crimes that’s your problem not a constitutional one.

Why don’t people ever understand the First Amendment? It just keeps the government from suppressing speech, and it never protects you from the consequences of what you say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason why many people are upset isn’t the hairsplitting of if “intifada” can be defined as genocide.

It is extreme discrimination or selective application of free speech by these universities. For example, Harvard specifically punishes students for making racist comments in private chats by rescinding their offers of admission.

Yet now Harvard welcomes free speech when the speech is calling for the death (if not outright genocide) of Jews.

Other universities have either fired or pushed out professors for having controversial or unpopular viewpoints that were in no way violent. In one incident, a professor was fired for showing a painting of Mohammad after informing students they would see such images.

It is complete hypocrisy and it is dangerous and wrong.

+100
I didn’t think I could be more appalled at the left’s hypocrisy, and yet every day they reach a new low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They bobbed and weaved like proper politicians avoiding truthful answers. It was appalling.

Sorry what was appalling? That the university presidents stand by the first amendment? That no matter how offensive the speech, as long as it doesn’t cross into active bullying or misconduct, it will be allowed? This goes both ways! No one is questioning the Israeli rally where they held posters like finish the job. Finish what job? Of killing all the Palestinian children?

There is nothing offensive about the word intifada or the phrase from the river to the sea. Intifada literally means uprising and yes it’s uprising against the Zionist occupation and the injustices the Palestinians suffer at their hands. It does not mean killing all the Jews or calling for the annihilation of Israel! Zionists need to pstop being so insecure. Why are you so hell bent on suppressing free speech?

DP. You can’t be serious. Do you even know what “from the river to the sea” means? A Berkeley professor polled 250 students across the nation about what they were blindly chanting. Most had no idea what river or what sea was even being referenced. They are just stupid sheep, following the next “cause” that they are completely ignorant about.

“Only 47% of the students who embrace the slogan were able to name the river and the sea. Some of the alternative answers were the Nile and the Euphrates, the Caribbean, the Dead Sea (which is a lake) and the Atlantic. Less than a quarter of these students knew who Yasser Arafat was (12 of them, or more than 10%, thought he was the first prime minister of Israel). Asked in what decade Israelis and Palestinians had signed the Oslo Accords, more than a quarter of the chant’s supporters claimed that no such peace agreements had ever been signed. There’s no shame in being ignorant, unless one is screaming for the extermination of millions.

In all, after learning a handful of basic facts about the Middle East, 67.8% of students went from supporting “from the river to sea” to rejecting the mantra. These students had never seen a map of the Mideast and knew little about the region’s geography, history or demography. Those who hope to encourage extremism depend on the political ignorance of their audiences. It is time for good teachers to join the fray and combat bias with education.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/from-which-river-to-which-sea-anti-israel-protests-college-student-ignorance-a682463b?st=shwibtmc2jdbasc&reflink=article_copyURL_share

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason why many people are upset isn’t the hairsplitting of if “intifada” can be defined as genocide.

It is extreme discrimination or selective application of free speech by these universities. For example, Harvard specifically punishes students for making racist comments in private chats by rescinding their offers of admission.

Yet now Harvard welcomes free speech when the speech is calling for the death (if not outright genocide) of Jews.

Other universities have either fired or pushed out professors for having controversial or unpopular viewpoints that were in no way violent. In one incident, a professor was fired for showing a painting of Mohammad after informing students they would see such images.

It is complete hypocrisy and it is dangerous and wrong.

Agree with PP that the problem is not that they are “standing on the side of free speech” here, acting as if their hands are tied due to constitutional protection.

Setting aside that Harvard is a private institution that can create and enforce their own codes of conduct, there are MANY instances where—as PP points out—they do not choose to shrug off speech they don’t like.

The entire problem though with “hate speech” laws and codes is that the application is subjective according to who is judging the speech.

And this Harvard President showed tiday that she’s just simply not all that bothered by rhetoric that incites and encourages violence toward Jews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason why many people are upset isn’t the hairsplitting of if “intifada” can be defined as genocide.

It is extreme discrimination or selective application of free speech by these universities. For example, Harvard specifically punishes students for making racist comments in private chats by rescinding their offers of admission.

Yet now Harvard welcomes free speech when the speech is calling for the death (if not outright genocide) of Jews.

Other universities have either fired or pushed out professors for having controversial or unpopular viewpoints that were in no way violent. In one incident, a professor was fired for showing a painting of Mohammad after informing students they would see such images.

It is complete hypocrisy and it is dangerous and wrong.

CNN covered it this morning. When Stefanik comes across as the reasonable and sensible one, you know there's a problem.

Watching the presidents of Harvard and Penn be almost giddily dismissive of the concerns of Jews on campus was appalling to watch. When they tried to "contextualize" genocide, you knew these two were so deep into the progressive rabbit role that they were no longer part of the real world. They came across as smirking un-empathetic ideologues who felt they were far too superior to sully themselves with a Congressional hearing.

There is no chance these two are still presidents of their institutions next year. They've lost their alumni. They've lost their donors. They've brought nothing but bad press to Harvard and Penn. If they haven't already, they will lose their boards soon.

[Anonymous]

Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

[Anonymous]

So, the presidents were not supporting someone actually calling for “genocide of Jews”, I mean the exact words, no sane person can support that statement. What Stefanik is saying is that “Intifada” and “From the River to Sea” translates to genocide of Jews and I disagree, she was literally putting words into their mouths.

Lately, any single word coming out of the mouth of Israel protestors is labeled as genocide of Jews, when you go down this path then actual words lose meaning.I think all 3 presidents did good in supporting all their students and not just ones with donations and political influence. Moreover, free speech protects all groups not just select few.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

This is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They bobbed and weaved like proper politicians avoiding truthful answers. It was appalling.

Sorry what was appalling? That the university presidents stand by the first amendment? That no matter how offensive the speech, as long as it doesn’t cross into active bullying or misconduct, it will be allowed? This goes both ways! No one is questioning the Israeli rally where they held posters like finish the job. Finish what job? Of killing all the Palestinian children?

There is nothing offensive about the word intifada or the phrase from the river to the sea. Intifada literally means uprising and yes it’s uprising against the Zionist occupation and the injustices the Palestinians suffer at their hands. It does not mean killing all the Jews or calling for the annihilation of Israel! Zionists need to pstop being so insecure. Why are you so hell bent on suppressing free speech?

Their attachment to free speech is quite recent. https://www.city-journal.org/article/harvards-double-standard-on-free-speech

And seems really cynical. This school has had free speech issues for decades. Plus, fwiw, its campus seems ugly and Philadelphia is a hell hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pathetic on the part of the university presidents. It is hard to believe that the words uttered by some of these protesters do not violate the universities' policies WRT intimidation and bullying.
Their responses sounded like they spent too much time consulting with university legal counsel instead of using common sense and truth.

Even those on the left agree:

This is so misleading, nobody supports the words “genocide of Jews”, Stefanik ‘s actual question was that Intifada and River to the Sea translates to genocide of Jews and that’s an incorrect interpretation. Stefanik as always is vile and despicable.

nope.

[Anonymous]

Magill's belated attempted walk-back seemed odd.