Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[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?

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

Uh huh, but “from the river to the sea” is fine when it’s in Netanyahu’s party platform? I’m so sick of this crap. It’s not only the pro-Palestinian protestors who are ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This. Free speech protections mean nothing if they don’t cover offensive (to you) speech.

[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.

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.

If this were about free speech you would see universities acting consistently. Rather they seem to have just rediscovered the importance of free speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If this were about free speech you would see universities acting consistently. Rather they seem to have just rediscovered the importance of free speech.

Better late than never.

[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.

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.

Harvard cannot just enforce whatever wants. It takes federal funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If this were about free speech you would see universities acting consistently. Rather they seem to have just rediscovered the importance of free speech.

Better late than never.

I am actually fine if they have just “discovered religion” on free speech but it needs to be applied consistently since I’m quite opposed to hate speech laws. But the next time a race or gender issue arises they can’t about face again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If this were about free speech you would see universities acting consistently. Rather they seem to have just rediscovered the importance of free speech.

Better late than never.

Yep there is no free speech when it comes to Israel. All descent and truth that does not fit the Israeli narrative must be suppressed so the genocide can continue. This is just another form of McCarthyism. It will take time but Americans will see Israel and its supporters for what it and they are. You can see the huge and deep fissures opening under Israel support in the US. The values of Israel are antithetical to western and US values.

[Anonymous]

Supporters of the Israeli genocide are just insecure that their war crimes are being exposed so they want to suppress all free speech so the stays who can continue and the Israelis can keep stealing Palestinians land and shooting their kids in broad daylight.

As long as no one is being harmed by the speech, it is allowed. You know what speech is dangerous? When the president falsely talks about 40 beheaded babies and then a 6 yr old Palestinian boy loses his life. When the media downplays Palestinian life and some white guy from Vermont shoots at three young innocent guys leaving one paralyzed. Just stop with the hypocrisy. We know you want to protect the status quo and it’s killing you that the world is becoming aware of the atrocities committed by Israel. Criticism of Israel is not anti semitism. Chanting from the river to the sea does not mean genocide of Jews. It’s laughable that it’s actually the Israelis who are actively carrying out the genocide of Palestinians but then attacking student protestors for speaking up. How pathetic.

[Anonymous]

*so the status quo can continue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think you are the one who doesn’t understand the first amendment. It allows anyone to say whatever they want without causing actual harm and the government or any private entity cannot bring then to court. It’s an individual right. Also what are the consequences of their speech? In fact the only consequences I have seen so far in the news are a 6 yr old stabbed to death and three teenagers shot at in Vermont.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If this were about free speech you would see universities acting consistently. Rather they seem to have just rediscovered the importance of free speech.

Better late than never.

Yep there is no free speech when it comes to Israel. All descent and truth that does not fit the Israeli narrative must be suppressed so the genocide can continue. This is just another form of McCarthyism. It will take time but Americans will see Israel and its supporters for what it and they are. You can see the huge and deep fissures opening under Israel support in the US. The values of Israel are antithetical to western and US values.

So the reason why the US has been supportive of Israel is because of its alignment with Western and US values.
Or do you think Palestinians are more aligned with Western values?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If this were about free speech you would see universities acting consistently. Rather they seem to have just rediscovered the importance of free speech.

Better late than never.

Yep there is no free speech when it comes to Israel. All descent and truth that does not fit the Israeli narrative must be suppressed so the genocide can continue. This is just another form of McCarthyism. It will take time but Americans will see Israel and its supporters for what it and they are. You can see the huge and deep fissures opening under Israel support in the US. The values of Israel are antithetical to western and US values.

So the reason why the US has been supportive of Israel is because of its alignment with Western and US values.
Or do you think Palestinians are more aligned with Western values?

Values have nothing to do with the reason U.S is supporting Israel, donations are the reason and to some extent geo political benefit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If this were about free speech you would see universities acting consistently. Rather they seem to have just rediscovered the importance of free speech.

Better late than never.

Yep there is no free speech when it comes to Israel. All descent and truth that does not fit the Israeli narrative must be suppressed so the genocide can continue. This is just another form of McCarthyism. It will take time but Americans will see Israel and its supporters for what it and they are. You can see the huge and deep fissures opening under Israel support in the US. The values of Israel are antithetical to western and US values.

So the reason why the US has been supportive of Israel is because of its alignment with Western and US values.
Or do you think Palestinians are more aligned with Western values?

Values have nothing to do with the reason U.S is supporting Israel, donations are the reason and to some extent geo political benefit.

Yes, the geopolitical advantage to supporting a nation aligned with US values (a nation surrounded by nations with antithetical values)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If this were about free speech you would see universities acting consistently. Rather they seem to have just rediscovered the importance of free speech.

Better late than never.

Yep there is no free speech when it comes to Israel. All descent and truth that does not fit the Israeli narrative must be suppressed so the genocide can continue. This is just another form of McCarthyism. It will take time but Americans will see Israel and its supporters for what it and they are. You can see the huge and deep fissures opening under Israel support in the US. The values of Israel are antithetical to western and US values.

So the reason why the US has been supportive of Israel is because of its alignment with Western and US values.
Or do you think Palestinians are more aligned with Western values?

Values have nothing to do with the reason U.S is supporting Israel, donations are the reason and to some extent geo political benefit.

Yes, the geopolitical advantage to supporting a nation aligned with US values (a nation surrounded by nations with antithetical values)

Umm the U.S. personally couldn’t care less about Israel. It provides the U.S. no advantages. The U.S. only cares because the election campaigns are financed by the Zionists in this country and that is why they have such a strong influence on this country. Why do you think every presidential candidate runs to AIPAC as their first stop?

[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?

Even if you want to say that the word intafada is open to interpretation, when Stefanik asked the clarifying question, if “calling for the genocide of Jews” was against the universities' code of conduct as it relates to hate speech, the answer was "it depends on the context." Now switch the word Jews for any other group and say that sentence aloud and ask yourself if that's hate speech.