Stefanik Ivy Presidentd

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To absolutely no one's surprise, the right wing "free speech" defenders are perfectly willing to sick the government on speech they don't like.

I’m a free speech advocate and I think other than direct threat (“I’m going to kill you”), any speech should be allowed.
People should be able to speak out about Lia Thomas without fear of repercussion. Anti-Israel protests should be allowed. Anything that doesn’t cause direct harm (and I don’t mean hurt feelings) should be allowed. It’s all or nothing for me.

Elise Stefanik and the rest of the GOP loudmouths disagree.

Ok and?

And no one cares what you think.

I was responding to PP. I am a free speech defender and I am not complaining to the government about speech I don’t like. You must have missed that part.

This is about how Stefanik and the rest of the GOP are a bunch of hypocrites. It's not about you.

My point is it’s not all of the rest of the GOP. Some on this thread even.

Are there GOP elected officials defending the free speech rights of these students and calling out the likes of Stefanik? I have not seen any. Do you have an example?

It’s interesting that the original assertion was “ To absolutely no one's surprise, the right wing "free speech" defenders are perfectly willing to sick the government on speech they don't like.”

I say I’m a free speech defender and I’m not doing that.

Now it’s “oh I’m talking about elected officials”

Lemme guess - if I found one of those the goalposts would change again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To absolutely no one's surprise, the right wing "free speech" defenders are perfectly willing to sick the government on speech they don't like.

I’m a free speech advocate and I think other than direct threat (“I’m going to kill you”), any speech should be allowed.
People should be able to speak out about Lia Thomas without fear of repercussion. Anti-Israel protests should be allowed. Anything that doesn’t cause direct harm (and I don’t mean hurt feelings) should be allowed. It’s all or nothing for me.

Elise Stefanik and the rest of the GOP loudmouths disagree.

Ok and?

And no one cares what you think.

I was responding to PP. I am a free speech defender and I am not complaining to the government about speech I don’t like. You must have missed that part.

This is about how Stefanik and the rest of the GOP are a bunch of hypocrites. It's not about you.

My point is it’s not all of the rest of the GOP. Some on this thread even.

Are there GOP elected officials defending the free speech rights of these students and calling out the likes of Stefanik? I have not seen any. Do you have an example?

It’s interesting that the original assertion was “ To absolutely no one's surprise, the right wing "free speech" defenders are perfectly willing to sick the government on speech they don't like.”

I say I’m a free speech defender and I’m not doing that.

Now it’s “oh I’m talking about elected officials”

Lemme guess - if I found one of those the goalposts would change again

Are you gonna answer whether you're a minority or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To absolutely no one's surprise, the right wing "free speech" defenders are perfectly willing to sick the government on speech they don't like.

I’m a free speech advocate and I think other than direct threat (“I’m going to kill you”), any speech should be allowed.
People should be able to speak out about Lia Thomas without fear of repercussion. Anti-Israel protests should be allowed. Anything that doesn’t cause direct harm (and I don’t mean hurt feelings) should be allowed. It’s all or nothing for me.

Elise Stefanik and the rest of the GOP loudmouths disagree.

Ok and?

And no one cares what you think.

I was responding to PP. I am a free speech defender and I am not complaining to the government about speech I don’t like. You must have missed that part.

This is about how Stefanik and the rest of the GOP are a bunch of hypocrites. It's not about you.

My point is it’s not all of the rest of the GOP. Some on this thread even.

Are there GOP elected officials defending the free speech rights of these students and calling out the likes of Stefanik? I have not seen any. Do you have an example?

It’s interesting that the original assertion was “ To absolutely no one's surprise, the right wing "free speech" defenders are perfectly willing to sick the government on speech they don't like.”

I say I’m a free speech defender and I’m not doing that.

Now it’s “oh I’m talking about elected officials”

Lemme guess - if I found one of those the goalposts would change again

So I'll take that as a no, you have no examples of GOP elected officials defending these students' rights or calling out Stefanik.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should Jewish students not have a safe campus environment and not be able to walk across campus without threats?

The "polite" Jew haters here will respond with gaslighting claims that the threats aren't real.

On the flip side, some will view any utterance as a threat to stifle any kind of dissenting voices.

And I'm sure you dictate to other minorities about what does and does not constitute offensive or dangerous speech to them? Because you definitely do not have bias, conscious or unconscious, against Jews! In fact, you don't even believe that there is such a thing as unconscious bias against Jews, though there certainly is for every other minority group!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To absolutely no one's surprise, the right wing "free speech" defenders are perfectly willing to sick the government on speech they don't like.

I’m a free speech advocate and I think other than direct threat (“I’m going to kill you”), any speech should be allowed.
People should be able to speak out about Lia Thomas without fear of repercussion. Anti-Israel protests should be allowed. Anything that doesn’t cause direct harm (and I don’t mean hurt feelings) should be allowed. It’s all or nothing for me.

Elise Stefanik and the rest of the GOP loudmouths disagree.

Ok and?

And no one cares what you think.

I was responding to PP. I am a free speech defender and I am not complaining to the government about speech I don’t like. You must have missed that part.

This is about how Stefanik and the rest of the GOP are a bunch of hypocrites. It's not about you.

My point is it’s not all of the rest of the GOP. Some on this thread even.

Are there GOP elected officials defending the free speech rights of these students and calling out the likes of Stefanik? I have not seen any. Do you have an example?

It’s interesting that the original assertion was “ To absolutely no one's surprise, the right wing "free speech" defenders are perfectly willing to sick the government on speech they don't like.”

I say I’m a free speech defender and I’m not doing that.

Now it’s “oh I’m talking about elected officials”

Lemme guess - if I found one of those the goalposts would change again

Are you gonna answer whether you're a minority or not?

Pretty sure you already know the answer to that.

[Anonymous]

Black women do not owe you their citations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Should Jewish students not have a safe campus environment and not be able to walk across campus without threats?

The "polite" Jew haters here will respond with gaslighting claims that the threats aren't real.

On the flip side, some will view any utterance as a threat to stifle any kind of dissenting voices.

And I'm sure you dictate to other minorities about what does and does not constitute offensive or dangerous speech to them? Because you definitely do not have bias, conscious or unconscious, against Jews! In fact, you don't even believe that there is such a thing as unconscious bias against Jews, though there certainly is for every other minority group!

Do you deny that this phenomenon exists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will happen to the students who do not care about Israel? We know the Palestinian and anyone criticizing Israel will be gone from Ivies.

How are they going to enforce this?

It’s so fascinating to watch the grief, fury, and paranoia of leftists when they realize the apparatus they built can be turned on them too. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

So anyone who does not care about Israel, is Palestinian or criticizes Israel is a leftist? Wow!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what initial intentions student protesters may have for chants such as “globalize the intifada,” or any of the other slogans associated with eliminating Jewish people from Israel’s land, they can no longer pretend not to know that their use causes many people a reasonably felt sense of intimidation. On this matter, the Age of Innocence is behind us. If college campuses regularly had groups of kids chanting “White power,” I would not be comfortable sending my children there, even if those chanters never took a “targeted” action against a specific person.

Excellent Op-Ed by Danielle Allen in the Post: https://wapo.st/4aq36pA

What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

Read the article. It's well worth it.

I have read it. What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

From the article:

If the communications you use while protesting would constitute harassment if targeted at a specific individual, the presumption will be that the protest method is likely to create a pattern of generalized intimidation incompatible with a culture of mutual respect.

That doesn't answer the question.

Also, so you can't say "hell no we won't go" at a protest now? What about "whose campus, OUR campus" from protestors claiming not to feel a sense of belonging?

The whole notion of "reasonableness" starts to fall apart when the offense taken at a lot of these chants is grounded in various identity markers. To take it a step further, for some of these identity markers, the very act of protesting, in any form or fashion, is intimidating in and of itself, regardless of the words used.

Also from the article:

While protest, within acceptable limits, is protected by free speech, on this college campus those acceptable limits include that your method of protest not cause intimidation to other members of our community. Intimidation is behavior that involves a threat of violence to deter or coerce others.

Only intimidation if it "involves a threat of violence".

Yes, and those phrases could be read or "felt" as such. Not to mention the whole "words are violence" thing.

So are you advocating for full 1st amendment speech at (private) college campuses?

I can see the argument both ways, but on balance think that Allen's approach is probably a good one.

My thought is that a lot of what is currently "felt" on college campuses is unreasonable and should not be catered to lest other values critical to a liberal arts eduction be completely overrun, but you also cannot deny that these feelings seem to be increasingly and genuinely held, at least in the minds of the students. The locus of what is "reasonable", at least for a college student, seems to be shifting to a place where you cannot both safeguard these students from feeling intimated and preserve a healthy degree of academic freedom and discourse. In making determinations of "reasonableness" in situations like this, you also run into defaulting and baselining problems. How do you arrive at a suitable point of reference for something that is so inherently fraught and bound up in variegated questions of identity? Some of this thinking undergirds the whole crux of DEI and CRT efforts.

I don't even necessarily reject Danielle's framing per se because I think there will be issues and edge cases with any one, I am just trying to ascertain how it is workable by mapping it onto the current climate and pedagogy in university environments.

Extraordinarily difficult question, to which I don't have an answer.

I think "reasonably" has to do a lot of heavy lifting in order to limit the "felt/perceived" subjectivity.

Would a reasonable person view the speech as threatening violence in light of the totality of the circumstances?

Not sure there's a better solution.

[Anonymous]

In Georgia, a state Biden carried by a very narrow margin in 2020, registered voters say they prefer Trump (49%) over Biden (44%) for the presidency in a two-way hypothetical matchup. In Michigan, which Biden won by a wider margin, Trump has 50% support to Biden’s 40%, with 10% saying they wouldn’t support either candidate even after being asked which way they lean. In both Michigan and Georgia, the share of voters who say they wouldn’t support either candidate is at least as large as the margin between Biden and Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/cnn-polls-trump-biden-michigan-georgia/index.html

Israel support was the final straw. Biden is done. These pro Israel people do not give a sh#t about the US. Have fun with Trump. He will turn on Israel in a minute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will happen to the students who do not care about Israel? We know the Palestinian and anyone criticizing Israel will be gone from Ivies.

How are they going to enforce this?

It’s so fascinating to watch the grief, fury, and paranoia of leftists when they realize the apparatus they built can be turned on them too. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

So anyone who does not care about Israel, is Palestinian or criticizes Israel is a leftist? Wow!

DP.

Have you seen the polling data?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In Georgia, a state Biden carried by a very narrow margin in 2020, registered voters say they prefer Trump (49%) over Biden (44%) for the presidency in a two-way hypothetical matchup. In Michigan, which Biden won by a wider margin, Trump has 50% support to Biden’s 40%, with 10% saying they wouldn’t support either candidate even after being asked which way they lean. In both Michigan and Georgia, the share of voters who say they wouldn’t support either candidate is at least as large as the margin between Biden and Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/cnn-polls-trump-biden-michigan-georgia/index.html

Israel support was the final straw. Biden is done. These pro Israel people do not give a sh#t about the US. Have fun with Trump. He will turn on Israel in a minute.

It's actually the pro Palestine people who don't give a sh#t about the US.

Supporting Israel brings tangible benefits to the US (you can argue about the scope or cost v. value, but the fact is undeniable)

Supporting Palestinians brings exactly zero benefit to the US.

So the far left is going to sacrifice US interests and elect Trump, all in one fell swoop.

Brilliant strategy. Almost as good as "defund the police".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what initial intentions student protesters may have for chants such as “globalize the intifada,” or any of the other slogans associated with eliminating Jewish people from Israel’s land, they can no longer pretend not to know that their use causes many people a reasonably felt sense of intimidation. On this matter, the Age of Innocence is behind us. If college campuses regularly had groups of kids chanting “White power,” I would not be comfortable sending my children there, even if those chanters never took a “targeted” action against a specific person.

Excellent Op-Ed by Danielle Allen in the Post: https://wapo.st/4aq36pA

What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

Read the article. It's well worth it.

I have read it. What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

From the article:

If the communications you use while protesting would constitute harassment if targeted at a specific individual, the presumption will be that the protest method is likely to create a pattern of generalized intimidation incompatible with a culture of mutual respect.

That doesn't answer the question.

Also, so you can't say "hell no we won't go" at a protest now? What about "whose campus, OUR campus" from protestors claiming not to feel a sense of belonging?

The whole notion of "reasonableness" starts to fall apart when the offense taken at a lot of these chants is grounded in various identity markers. To take it a step further, for some of these identity markers, the very act of protesting, in any form or fashion, is intimidating in and of itself, regardless of the words used.

Also from the article:

While protest, within acceptable limits, is protected by free speech, on this college campus those acceptable limits include that your method of protest not cause intimidation to other members of our community. Intimidation is behavior that involves a threat of violence to deter or coerce others.

Only intimidation if it "involves a threat of violence".

Yes, and those phrases could be read or "felt" as such. Not to mention the whole "words are violence" thing.

So are you advocating for full 1st amendment speech at (private) college campuses?

I can see the argument both ways, but on balance think that Allen's approach is probably a good one.

My thought is that a lot of what is currently "felt" on college campuses is unreasonable and should not be catered to lest other values critical to a liberal arts eduction be completely overrun, but you also cannot deny that these feelings seem to be increasingly and genuinely held, at least in the minds of the students. The locus of what is "reasonable", at least for a college student, seems to be shifting to a place where you cannot both safeguard these students from feeling intimated and preserve a healthy degree of academic freedom and discourse. In making determinations of "reasonableness" in situations like this, you also run into defaulting and baselining problems. How do you arrive at a suitable point of reference for something that is so inherently fraught and bound up in variegated questions of identity? Some of this thinking undergirds the whole crux of DEI and CRT efforts.

I don't even necessarily reject Danielle's framing per se because I think there will be issues and edge cases with any one, I am just trying to ascertain how it is workable by mapping it onto the current climate and pedagogy in university environments.

Extraordinarily difficult question, to which I don't have an answer.

I think "reasonably" has to do a lot of heavy lifting in order to limit the "felt/perceived" subjectivity.

Would a reasonable person view the speech as threatening violence in light of the totality of the circumstances?

Not sure there's a better solution.

This is the difficulty of invoking reasonableness. In some legal contexts, it might be more workable when you are talking about a generalized behavior or perceptions applicable to all groups in torts or criminal law or whatever. But in this context it is much more difficult to apply a general notion of reasonableness to a situation for which only a narrowly circumscribed group can be targeted and thus feel intimidation or offense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless of what initial intentions student protesters may have for chants such as “globalize the intifada,” or any of the other slogans associated with eliminating Jewish people from Israel’s land, they can no longer pretend not to know that their use causes many people a reasonably felt sense of intimidation. On this matter, the Age of Innocence is behind us. If college campuses regularly had groups of kids chanting “White power,” I would not be comfortable sending my children there, even if those chanters never took a “targeted” action against a specific person.

Excellent Op-Ed by Danielle Allen in the Post: https://wapo.st/4aq36pA

What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

Read the article. It's well worth it.

I have read it. What is a "reasonably felt sense of intimidation"?

From the article:

If the communications you use while protesting would constitute harassment if targeted at a specific individual, the presumption will be that the protest method is likely to create a pattern of generalized intimidation incompatible with a culture of mutual respect.

That doesn't answer the question.

Also, so you can't say "hell no we won't go" at a protest now? What about "whose campus, OUR campus" from protestors claiming not to feel a sense of belonging?

The whole notion of "reasonableness" starts to fall apart when the offense taken at a lot of these chants is grounded in various identity markers. To take it a step further, for some of these identity markers, the very act of protesting, in any form or fashion, is intimidating in and of itself, regardless of the words used.

Also from the article:

While protest, within acceptable limits, is protected by free speech, on this college campus those acceptable limits include that your method of protest not cause intimidation to other members of our community. Intimidation is behavior that involves a threat of violence to deter or coerce others.

Only intimidation if it "involves a threat of violence".

Yes, and those phrases could be read or "felt" as such. Not to mention the whole "words are violence" thing.

So are you advocating for full 1st amendment speech at (private) college campuses?

I can see the argument both ways, but on balance think that Allen's approach is probably a good one.

My thought is that a lot of what is currently "felt" on college campuses is unreasonable and should not be catered to lest other values critical to a liberal arts eduction be completely overrun, but you also cannot deny that these feelings seem to be increasingly and genuinely held, at least in the minds of the students. The locus of what is "reasonable", at least for a college student, seems to be shifting to a place where you cannot both safeguard these students from feeling intimated and preserve a healthy degree of academic freedom and discourse. In making determinations of "reasonableness" in situations like this, you also run into defaulting and baselining problems. How do you arrive at a suitable point of reference for something that is so inherently fraught and bound up in variegated questions of identity? Some of this thinking undergirds the whole crux of DEI and CRT efforts.

I don't even necessarily reject Danielle's framing per se because I think there will be issues and edge cases with any one, I am just trying to ascertain how it is workable by mapping it onto the current climate and pedagogy in university environments.

Extraordinarily difficult question, to which I don't have an answer.

I think "reasonably" has to do a lot of heavy lifting in order to limit the "felt/perceived" subjectivity.

Would a reasonable person view the speech as threatening violence in light of the totality of the circumstances?

Not sure there's a better solution.

This is the difficulty of invoking reasonableness. In some legal contexts, it might be more workable when you are talking about a generalized behavior or perceptions applicable to all groups in torts or criminal law or whatever. But in this context it is much more difficult to apply a general notion of reasonableness to a situation for which only a narrowly circumscribed group can be targeted and thus feel intimidation or offense.

PP. I take your point though, and your framing is probably as close as you can get on something like this.

[Anonymous]

Steve I'm cares more about terrorism in Israel than she does about terrorism in the US. She supported the Jan 6 resurrection and Trump. She does not care that Capitol Police lost their lives protecting the US.