Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WSJ

The real issue on campuses isn’t antisemitism but the anti-Western ethos that has colonized large swaths of the curriculum. Elite schools once disdained Jews because they were seen as outsiders to Western civilization. Now they are reviled as that civilization’s very embodiment. Students explain that their hatreds come from what they learn in class—that the West is built on white supremacism and oppression. Israel is cast as the Western settler-colonialist oppressor par excellence.

The Columbia University chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine explained that “our classes regularly discuss the inevitability of resistance as part of the struggle for decolonization. We study under renowned scholars who denounce the fact that the media requires oppressed peoples to be ‘perfect victims’ ”—that is, not to commit acts of terrorism—“in order to deserve sympathy.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dei-drives-campus-antisemitism-harvard-ivy-ackman-israel-bds-b19ebd12

This all is why Palestine supporters are so shocked and offended that some think 10/7 was uncalled for and that Israel is allowed to show full force in retaliation. 10/7 was justified and Israel should just understand its culpability and fall back.

The WSJ opinion page = right wing fantasy land.

When you can’t argue with the content, argue with the source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So was there ever anything said or done that would be considered antisemitic by normal standards?

At the literary festival?

Roger Waters (he of Nazi uniform infamy) was invited.

A speaker had previously called for “death to Israel”.

Another called Israel “a demonic, sick project” and added that she “can’t wait for the day we commemorate its end.”

So nothing was said or done? It was all based on what might have been said before the literary festival? Seems very weak. I was looking for Holocaust deniers or Jews will not replace us. Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story is yet another reminder that Joe Biden is going to be very tough to beat in 2024. He’s taken a lot of heat for aligning himself with Israel, but clearly, given the acclamation and praise Stefanik is now receiving, the man has solid political instincts and is very good at sidestepping landmines.

Lol Biden is done. The pro Israel crowd does not realize what has happened. Biden is the first US politician who will lose because of his support for Israel.

Are the anti-Israel protesters thinking Trump and the Republicans will be more sympathetic to their agenda?

Their choice is Biden or a Republican. The American electorate is not going to elect Talib or Omar to the presidency any time soon.

I think the anti-Israel protestors who use this as a reason to not support Biden are going to follow a crazy bring on the end times script to force their Revolution. They want Trump to get elected, really bad things to happen, and everything we bourgeois folks hold dear to be destroyed and burned down, and then they will seize the moment for promoting their Marxist utopia on the ruins of Western civilization.

You’re right. This person is probably posting from Moscow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the WSJ

The real issue on campuses isn’t antisemitism but the anti-Western ethos that has colonized large swaths of the curriculum. Elite schools once disdained Jews because they were seen as outsiders to Western civilization. Now they are reviled as that civilization’s very embodiment. Students explain that their hatreds come from what they learn in class—that the West is built on white supremacism and oppression. Israel is cast as the Western settler-colonialist oppressor par excellence.

The Columbia University chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine explained that “our classes regularly discuss the inevitability of resistance as part of the struggle for decolonization. We study under renowned scholars who denounce the fact that the media requires oppressed peoples to be ‘perfect victims’ ”—that is, not to commit acts of terrorism—“in order to deserve sympathy.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dei-drives-campus-antisemitism-harvard-ivy-ackman-israel-bds-b19ebd12

This all is why Palestine supporters are so shocked and offended that some think 10/7 was uncalled for and that Israel is allowed to show full force in retaliation. 10/7 was justified and Israel should just understand its culpability and fall back.

The WSJ opinion page = right wing fantasy land.

When you can’t argue with the content, argue with the source.

Jewish Dem here who has criticized Israel and has no love for the WSJ but they nailed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So was there ever anything said or done that would be considered antisemitic by normal standards?

Well Israel was criticized for bombing civilians and there were calls for a ceasefire and the phrase from the river to the sea was mentioned. You know all these things are very anti semitic right and threaten the existence of Jews

I cannot believe people are getting upset at students for voicing their opinions when they caused no harm to anyone let alone anyone Jewish. Some people are so insecure about their Jewish identity.

You haven't touched on what 's been said and done.

I have and it keeps getting deleted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This story is yet another reminder that Joe Biden is going to be very tough to beat in 2024. He’s taken a lot of heat for aligning himself with Israel, but clearly, given the acclamation and praise Stefanik is now receiving, the man has solid political instincts and is very good at sidestepping landmines.

Lol Biden is done. The pro Israel crowd does not realize what has happened. Biden is the first US politician who will lose because of his support for Israel.

Are the anti-Israel protesters thinking Trump and the Republicans will be more sympathetic to their agenda?

Their choice is Biden or a Republican. The American electorate is not going to elect Talib or Omar to the presidency any time soon.

I think the anti-Israel protestors who use this as a reason to not support Biden are going to follow a crazy bring on the end times script to force their Revolution. They want Trump to get elected, really bad things to happen, and everything we bourgeois folks hold dear to be destroyed and burned down, and then they will seize the moment for promoting their Marxist utopia on the ruins of Western civilization.

You’re right. This person is probably posting from Moscow.

There is no way foreign intelligence is bothering to post on this board. What would the point be? Besides, Americans don’t need extra help being divisive, we manage just fine on our own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

[Anonymous]

^^^ readily *expect*

[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.

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

I think democrats themselves appalled after reviewing the congressional hearing. Upenn and Harvard presidents already issued a clarification and apologies. No one believes their statements of course, they are just fighting for their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

As soon as you answer the question you lose. This is a joke. I hope she stays on. This is not Israel where people are arrested and thrown in prison.

Many of us prefer a leader who has the intelligence and integrity to answer a question sincerely and candidly without hedging, dodging, and sounding like an attorney. It seems as if you prefer someone who is not honest.

She answered the question honestly and correctly and your problem is that she sounded “like an attorney.” Oh no! She’s not your therapist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Just because they identify themselves as women does not mean they are women.

Yeah that’s funny, but really, I think there’s something to my point here. For the record, I am a Harvard alum and a conservative and dislike the school’s favoritism toward progressives. But her answer was, objectively, correct, and it seems like the complaint boils down to them seeming too cold. I don’t see that reaction toward a man saying the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Nope. She made it clear that students chanting in support jewish genocide was acceptable per code of conduct, whether they actually did or not. This was not the legal answer but purely incorrect and seemingly emotional.

She’s being called on it because she missed an easy layup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Nope. She made it clear that students chanting in support jewish genocide was acceptable per code of conduct, whether they actually did or not. This was not the legal answer but purely incorrect and seemingly emotional.

She’s being called on it because she missed an easy layup.

But it doesn’t violate the code of conduct unless it’s not just a “call” (speech) but accompanied by some sort of action (conduct) like backing kids into a library, following them around, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Magill is under fire because the university held a Palestine Writes Literature Festival. Rich donors attacked the university because of this event and said it was antisemitic?
Now Magill is being targeted because she was asked a hypothetical question about something that did not occurs?

This is McCarthyism.

But why was it so hard to just condemn the hypothetical. It was a slam dunk. Her feelings on the issue were exposed.

The problem was she answers WITHOUT feelings in a (correct) legalistic manner and that hurt your feelings. I agree the university presidents should have done a better job of emoting in sympathy with Jewish students before discussing the cold hard legal answer but does their failure to do so really warrant firing them??

I almost wonder if their failure of empathy is playing out so much worse for them because they are women from whom people readily accept caring emotions. Maybe a dude playing it like they did would not have come across so “cold”?

Nope. She made it clear that students chanting in support jewish genocide was acceptable per code of conduct, whether they actually did or not. This was not the legal answer but purely incorrect and seemingly emotional.

She’s being called on it because she missed an easy layup.

But it doesn’t violate the code of conduct unless it’s not just a “call” (speech) but accompanied by some sort of action (conduct) like backing kids into a library, following them around, etc.

Tthe real attack on Harvard is not that the above is incorrect — it’s not — but that they don’t enforce that policy consistently and do punish speech alone when it suits them, which they absolutely should not.