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?

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.

Exactly. These universities punish students for using the wrong pronouns yet there is no punishment for publicly calling for death to Jews.

Can you imagine how Harvard would respond if large groups of students protested calling for the deaths of other ethnic groups? It would never happen. Thankfully this shameful episode is waking people up to insidious double standards imposed by leftist activists with their critical theory nonsense.

[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?

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.

But that’s the issue right there. No one has called for the genocide of Jews. The word intifada is open to interpretation and the phrase from the river to the sea does not mean the genocide of Jews either. So why give a specific meaning to some word or phrase when there is no such meaning associated with it. The only reason I can think of is they want to suppress free speech and silence the voices of thousands of students.

And yes if they were saying kill all the Jews or explicitly call out for the genocide of all Jews, that would indeed be very problematic and be considered hate speech.

And I can’t believe you all are supporting Stefanik. That woman is always up to no good and always intent on doing cheap publicity stunts.

[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?

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.

Exactly. These universities punish students for using the wrong pronouns yet there is no punishment for publicly calling for death to Jews.

Can you imagine how Harvard would respond if large groups of students protested calling for the deaths of other ethnic groups? It would never happen. Thankfully this shameful episode is waking people up to insidious double standards imposed by leftist activists with their critical theory nonsense.

Give me ONE example where the students have called for the death of Jews. Why do you all keep conflating Israel with Jews?! The rallies are criticizing Israel not Jews. Where does Jewish Voice for Peace stand then who has been one of the most vocal groups against Israel?

[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?

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.

But that’s the issue right there. No one has called for the genocide of Jews. The word intifada is open to interpretation and the phrase from the river to the sea does not mean the genocide of Jews either. So why give a specific meaning to some word or phrase when there is no such meaning associated with it. The only reason I can think of is they want to suppress free speech and silence the voices of thousands of students.

And yes if they were saying kill all the Jews or explicitly call out for the genocide of all Jews, that would indeed be very problematic and be considered hate speech.

And I can’t believe you all are supporting Stefanik. That woman is always up to no good and always intent on doing cheap publicity stunts.

You are being deeply disingenuous. Stefanik asked whether calls for Jewish genocide violated the various student codes of conduct. None of them answered yes. We can disagree whether intifada means genocide or not, but that isn't the point.

You claim that no one has called for the genocide of Jews. Let's assume that's true - it's irrelevant. These three university presidents said that calls for Jewish genocide wouldn't necessarily be against student conduct rules. That's appalling - particularly in light of the recent focus on microaggressions (!!!), which I woudl hope we can all agree are significantly less harmful than calls for genocide.

I am a liberal democrat, and I think Stefanik is a deeply disingenuous MAGA goon. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. One of the surest signs that someone is a close-minded partisan not interested in a rational discussion, but in defending a particular point of view or speaker is refusal to consider that people they normally may disagree with have made a good point. I invite you to go back and reread your own posts in light of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But that’s the issue right there. No one has called for the genocide of Jews. The word intifada is open to interpretation and the phrase from the river to the sea does not mean the genocide of Jews either. So why give a specific meaning to some word or phrase when there is no such meaning associated with it. The only reason I can think of is they want to suppress free speech and silence the voices of thousands of students.

And yes if they were saying kill all the Jews or explicitly call out for the genocide of all Jews, that would indeed be very problematic and be considered hate speech.

And I can’t believe you all are supporting Stefanik. That woman is always up to no good and always intent on doing cheap publicity stunts.

You are being deeply disingenuous. Stefanik asked whether calls for Jewish genocide violated the various student codes of conduct. None of them answered yes. We can disagree whether intifada means genocide or not, but that isn't the point.

You claim that no one has called for the genocide of Jews. Let's assume that's true - it's irrelevant. These three university presidents said that calls for Jewish genocide wouldn't necessarily be against student conduct rules. That's appalling - particularly in light of the recent focus on microaggressions (!!!), which I woudl hope we can all agree are significantly less harmful than calls for genocide.

I am a liberal democrat, and I think Stefanik is a deeply disingenuous MAGA goon. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. One of the surest signs that someone is a close-minded partisan not interested in a rational discussion, but in defending a particular point of view or speaker is refusal to consider that people they normally may disagree with have made a good point. I invite you to go back and reread your own posts in light of that.

DP. Harvard has acted hypocritically, yes, and I think their microaggression stuff is ridiculous. But they just happen to be correct here regarding free speech. And if they do future nonsense shutting down free speech about LGBT whatever or BLM issues, then that’s when I’ll criticize them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Exactly. These universities punish students for using the wrong pronouns yet there is no punishment for publicly calling for death to Jews.

Can you imagine how Harvard would respond if large groups of students protested calling for the deaths of other ethnic groups? It would never happen. Thankfully this shameful episode is waking people up to insidious double standards imposed by leftist activists with their critical theory nonsense.

Give me ONE example where the students have called for the death of Jews. Why do you all keep conflating Israel with Jews?! The rallies are criticizing Israel not Jews. Where does Jewish Voice for Peace stand then who has been one of the most vocal groups against Israel?

We all know exactly what from the river to the sea means. Stop being disingenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But that’s the issue right there. No one has called for the genocide of Jews. The word intifada is open to interpretation and the phrase from the river to the sea does not mean the genocide of Jews either. So why give a specific meaning to some word or phrase when there is no such meaning associated with it. The only reason I can think of is they want to suppress free speech and silence the voices of thousands of students.

And yes if they were saying kill all the Jews or explicitly call out for the genocide of all Jews, that would indeed be very problematic and be considered hate speech.

And I can’t believe you all are supporting Stefanik. That woman is always up to no good and always intent on doing cheap publicity stunts.

You are being deeply disingenuous. Stefanik asked whether calls for Jewish genocide violated the various student codes of conduct. None of them answered yes. We can disagree whether intifada means genocide or not, but that isn't the point.

You claim that no one has called for the genocide of Jews. Let's assume that's true - it's irrelevant. These three university presidents said that calls for Jewish genocide wouldn't necessarily be against student conduct rules. That's appalling - particularly in light of the recent focus on microaggressions (!!!), which I woudl hope we can all agree are significantly less harmful than calls for genocide.

I am a liberal democrat, and I think Stefanik is a deeply disingenuous MAGA goon. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. One of the surest signs that someone is a close-minded partisan not interested in a rational discussion, but in defending a particular point of view or speaker is refusal to consider that people they normally may disagree with have made a good point. I invite you to go back and reread your own posts in light of that.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But that’s the issue right there. No one has called for the genocide of Jews. The word intifada is open to interpretation and the phrase from the river to the sea does not mean the genocide of Jews either. So why give a specific meaning to some word or phrase when there is no such meaning associated with it. The only reason I can think of is they want to suppress free speech and silence the voices of thousands of students.

And yes if they were saying kill all the Jews or explicitly call out for the genocide of all Jews, that would indeed be very problematic and be considered hate speech.

And I can’t believe you all are supporting Stefanik. That woman is always up to no good and always intent on doing cheap publicity stunts.

You are being deeply disingenuous. Stefanik asked whether calls for Jewish genocide violated the various student codes of conduct. None of them answered yes. We can disagree whether intifada means genocide or not, but that isn't the point.

You claim that no one has called for the genocide of Jews. Let's assume that's true - it's irrelevant. These three university presidents said that calls for Jewish genocide wouldn't necessarily be against student conduct rules. That's appalling - particularly in light of the recent focus on microaggressions (!!!), which I woudl hope we can all agree are significantly less harmful than calls for genocide.

I am a liberal democrat, and I think Stefanik is a deeply disingenuous MAGA goon. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. One of the surest signs that someone is a close-minded partisan not interested in a rational discussion, but in defending a particular point of view or speaker is refusal to consider that people they normally may disagree with have made a good point. I invite you to go back and reread your own posts in light of that.

+1

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But that’s the issue right there. No one has called for the genocide of Jews. The word intifada is open to interpretation and the phrase from the river to the sea does not mean the genocide of Jews either. So why give a specific meaning to some word or phrase when there is no such meaning associated with it. The only reason I can think of is they want to suppress free speech and silence the voices of thousands of students.

And yes if they were saying kill all the Jews or explicitly call out for the genocide of all Jews, that would indeed be very problematic and be considered hate speech.

And I can’t believe you all are supporting Stefanik. That woman is always up to no good and always intent on doing cheap publicity stunts.

You are being deeply disingenuous. Stefanik asked whether calls for Jewish genocide violated the various student codes of conduct. None of them answered yes. We can disagree whether intifada means genocide or not, but that isn't the point.

You claim that no one has called for the genocide of Jews. Let's assume that's true - it's irrelevant. These three university presidents said that calls for Jewish genocide wouldn't necessarily be against student conduct rules. That's appalling - particularly in light of the recent focus on microaggressions (!!!), which I woudl hope we can all agree are significantly less harmful than calls for genocide.

I am a liberal democrat, and I think Stefanik is a deeply disingenuous MAGA goon. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. One of the surest signs that someone is a close-minded partisan not interested in a rational discussion, but in defending a particular point of view or speaker is refusal to consider that people they normally may disagree with have made a good point. I invite you to go back and reread your own posts in light of that.

+1 Thank you!!

[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?

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.

But that’s the issue right there. No one has called for the genocide of Jews. The word intifada is open to interpretation and the phrase from the river to the sea does not mean the genocide of Jews either. So why give a specific meaning to some word or phrase when there is no such meaning associated with it. The only reason I can think of is they want to suppress free speech and silence the voices of thousands of students.

And yes if they were saying kill all the Jews or explicitly call out for the genocide of all Jews, that would indeed be very problematic and be considered hate speech.

And I can’t believe you all are supporting Stefanik. That woman is always up to no good and always intent on doing cheap publicity stunts.

In modern history, “Intifada” is characterized by violent terrorism.

When violent terror acts occur, they for years have been praised by hamas as “Intifada”.

Word games are so tiresome. Stop gaslighting us. We see you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But that’s the issue right there. No one has called for the genocide of Jews. The word intifada is open to interpretation and the phrase from the river to the sea does not mean the genocide of Jews either. So why give a specific meaning to some word or phrase when there is no such meaning associated with it. The only reason I can think of is they want to suppress free speech and silence the voices of thousands of students.

And yes if they were saying kill all the Jews or explicitly call out for the genocide of all Jews, that would indeed be very problematic and be considered hate speech.

And I can’t believe you all are supporting Stefanik. That woman is always up to no good and always intent on doing cheap publicity stunts.

You are being deeply disingenuous. Stefanik asked whether calls for Jewish genocide violated the various student codes of conduct. None of them answered yes. We can disagree whether intifada means genocide or not, but that isn't the point.

You claim that no one has called for the genocide of Jews. Let's assume that's true - it's irrelevant. These three university presidents said that calls for Jewish genocide wouldn't necessarily be against student conduct rules. That's appalling - particularly in light of the recent focus on microaggressions (!!!), which I woudl hope we can all agree are significantly less harmful than calls for genocide.

I am a liberal democrat, and I think Stefanik is a deeply disingenuous MAGA goon. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. One of the surest signs that someone is a close-minded partisan not interested in a rational discussion, but in defending a particular point of view or speaker is refusal to consider that people they normally may disagree with have made a good point. I invite you to go back and reread your own posts in light of that.

DP. Harvard has acted hypocritically, yes, and I think their microaggression stuff is ridiculous. But they just happen to be correct here regarding free speech. And if they do future nonsense shutting down free speech about LGBT whatever or BLM issues, then that’s when I’ll criticize them.

PP you replied to - I don't disagree with that. I think the universities have gone too far in policing speech, that students should be allowed to say what they want, and that they can suffer the real world consequences of that. In a perfect world, this would signal a rethinking of the universities' polices. But we all know that isn't the case. This isn't a policy change, it's them being unwilling to police certain speech in the same manner that they have policed other (far less harmful) speech. It's not just policing speech, it's policing speech based on content.

[Anonymous]

The first amendment free speech means you cannot be punished by your government. It is not a blanket license to say whatever you want without repercussions in a private settings. These are private universities. They are not required to take a neutral position nor do they have to simply allow all speech. They can censor and punish.

The presidents asked if these statements constituted harassment and violated the code of conducts of the universities. Then the Harvard president was asked whether calling for the genocide of AA students would violate the code of conduct and she refused to answer.

It really shouldn’t matter what side you’re own, but twisting yourself into knots to jurists the genocide OF ANYONE is mind blowing and appalling. What has society come? Do we say the genocide of all trans students is ok? gays? Asians?

Those three presidents obviously agreed to repeat the exact same PR statement when testifying. My mind was exploding. They sounded like members of congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But that’s the issue right there. No one has called for the genocide of Jews. The word intifada is open to interpretation and the phrase from the river to the sea does not mean the genocide of Jews either. So why give a specific meaning to some word or phrase when there is no such meaning associated with it. The only reason I can think of is they want to suppress free speech and silence the voices of thousands of students.

And yes if they were saying kill all the Jews or explicitly call out for the genocide of all Jews, that would indeed be very problematic and be considered hate speech.

And I can’t believe you all are supporting Stefanik. That woman is always up to no good and always intent on doing cheap publicity stunts.

You are being deeply disingenuous. Stefanik asked whether calls for Jewish genocide violated the various student codes of conduct. None of them answered yes. We can disagree whether intifada means genocide or not, but that isn't the point.

You claim that no one has called for the genocide of Jews. Let's assume that's true - it's irrelevant. These three university presidents said that calls for Jewish genocide wouldn't necessarily be against student conduct rules. That's appalling - particularly in light of the recent focus on microaggressions (!!!), which I woudl hope we can all agree are significantly less harmful than calls for genocide.

I am a liberal democrat, and I think Stefanik is a deeply disingenuous MAGA goon. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. One of the surest signs that someone is a close-minded partisan not interested in a rational discussion, but in defending a particular point of view or speaker is refusal to consider that people they normally may disagree with have made a good point. I invite you to go back and reread your own posts in light of that.

Calls for genocide of Jews is hate speech. It’s not my fault if the university presidents didn’t acknowledge that. But there have absolutely been NO calls of Jewish genocide in these rallies. There have been calls for ceasefires and for Israel to stop bombing children and engaging in continual land grab. Maybe the university presidents didn’t acknowledge that because these calls never actually happened. Again saying intifada and from the river to the sea does NOT mean genocide of Jews. I’m sorry you cannot comprehend that and feel so threatened by such statement which in their true essence just mean resistance to the occupation and equal rights for the Palestinians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But that’s the issue right there. No one has called for the genocide of Jews. The word intifada is open to interpretation and the phrase from the river to the sea does not mean the genocide of Jews either. So why give a specific meaning to some word or phrase when there is no such meaning associated with it. The only reason I can think of is they want to suppress free speech and silence the voices of thousands of students.

And yes if they were saying kill all the Jews or explicitly call out for the genocide of all Jews, that would indeed be very problematic and be considered hate speech.

And I can’t believe you all are supporting Stefanik. That woman is always up to no good and always intent on doing cheap publicity stunts.

You are being deeply disingenuous. Stefanik asked whether calls for Jewish genocide violated the various student codes of conduct. None of them answered yes. We can disagree whether intifada means genocide or not, but that isn't the point.

You claim that no one has called for the genocide of Jews. Let's assume that's true - it's irrelevant. These three university presidents said that calls for Jewish genocide wouldn't necessarily be against student conduct rules. That's appalling - particularly in light of the recent focus on microaggressions (!!!), which I woudl hope we can all agree are significantly less harmful than calls for genocide.

I am a liberal democrat, and I think Stefanik is a deeply disingenuous MAGA goon. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. One of the surest signs that someone is a close-minded partisan not interested in a rational discussion, but in defending a particular point of view or speaker is refusal to consider that people they normally may disagree with have made a good point. I invite you to go back and reread your own posts in light of that.

Calls for genocide of Jews is hate speech. It’s not my fault if the university presidents didn’t acknowledge that. But there have absolutely been NO calls of Jewish genocide in these rallies. There have been calls for ceasefires and for Israel to stop bombing children and engaging in continual land grab. Maybe the university presidents didn’t acknowledge that because these calls never actually happened. Again saying intifada and from the river to the sea does NOT mean genocide of Jews. I’m sorry you cannot comprehend that and feel so threatened by such statement which in their true essence just mean resistance to the occupation and equal rights for the Palestinians.

If anything Stefanik was being disingenuous by conflating something completely different to calls of genocide. Sounds like dictatorship where meanings are assigned to words and phrases in an effort to shut down free speech. Just because these students are speaking up for the Palestinians doesn’t mean they disregard Jewish life. This is so reminiscent of the BLM movement where people came out with blue lives matter slogans. Let people protest for whatever they want to protest for. Stop curbing free speech because you personally feel threatened by it.

Still waiting for one example from these rallies where they called for genocide of the Jews or held slogans like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But that’s the issue right there. No one has called for the genocide of Jews. The word intifada is open to interpretation and the phrase from the river to the sea does not mean the genocide of Jews either. So why give a specific meaning to some word or phrase when there is no such meaning associated with it. The only reason I can think of is they want to suppress free speech and silence the voices of thousands of students.

And yes if they were saying kill all the Jews or explicitly call out for the genocide of all Jews, that would indeed be very problematic and be considered hate speech.

And I can’t believe you all are supporting Stefanik. That woman is always up to no good and always intent on doing cheap publicity stunts.

You are being deeply disingenuous. Stefanik asked whether calls for Jewish genocide violated the various student codes of conduct. None of them answered yes. We can disagree whether intifada means genocide or not, but that isn't the point.

You claim that no one has called for the genocide of Jews. Let's assume that's true - it's irrelevant. These three university presidents said that calls for Jewish genocide wouldn't necessarily be against student conduct rules. That's appalling - particularly in light of the recent focus on microaggressions (!!!), which I woudl hope we can all agree are significantly less harmful than calls for genocide.

I am a liberal democrat, and I think Stefanik is a deeply disingenuous MAGA goon. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. One of the surest signs that someone is a close-minded partisan not interested in a rational discussion, but in defending a particular point of view or speaker is refusal to consider that people they normally may disagree with have made a good point. I invite you to go back and reread your own posts in light of that.

Calls for genocide of Jews is hate speech. It’s not my fault if the university presidents didn’t acknowledge that. But there have absolutely been NO calls of Jewish genocide in these rallies. There have been calls for ceasefires and for Israel to stop bombing children and engaging in continual land grab. Maybe the university presidents didn’t acknowledge that because these calls never actually happened. Again saying intifada and from the river to the sea does NOT mean genocide of Jews. I’m sorry you cannot comprehend that and feel so threatened by such statement which in their true essence just mean resistance to the occupation and equal rights for the Palestinians.

I agree.

Same way that when my neighbor says “those people”, he means lawbreakers of all ethnicities.

Right?

Oh, wait…