International Harvard/MIT/Penn Under Congressional Testimony - "Calling for the Genocide of Jews" may not violate hate speech depending on context

[William Munny]

Thats not what she asks, she is asking about bullying and harassment policies, which if you listen to the clear and obvious answers given, are centered around conduct directed at individuals.

I did listen to it. are you saying this isn't bullying or harassment? or in only certain "contexts.?"

lol

 

[Scerpi]

Its not a simple question - she's asking a very specific question, to which she wants a general answer. Its hackery done to get soundbites that appeal to dimwits.

Take
Ms. Stefanik asks, “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate the schools rules or code of conduct, yes or no?”
And Change to
Ms. Stefanik asks, “Does calling for the lynching of African Americans violate the schools rules or code of conduct, yes or no?”

And if they replied with

Ms. Magill (Penn) replied, “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.” “It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman.”

President Kornbluth (MIT): "If targeted at individuals and not making public statements."

President Gay (Harvard): "It can be depending on the context. Rhetoric when it crosses into conduct, that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct, and we do take action."


There ya go...

 

[dirtypablo]

I did listen to it. are you saying this isn't bullying or harassment? or in only certain "contexts.?"

lol

Do you understand that these aren't generic questions, she's asking about specific, written policies? And that those policies very like clearly specify that bullying and harassments is specifically behavior directed at an individual?

 

[dirtypablo]

Take
Ms. Stefanik asks, “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate the schools rules or code of conduct, yes or no?”
And Change to
Ms. Stefanik asks, “Does calling for the lynching of African Americans violate the schools rules or code of conduct, yes or no?”

That literally happened during the testimony, and when President Gay started to give the same, well its context dependent answer, the dipshit woman cut her off so she could get her soundbite.

 

[fishNjits]

Solid example of what I've stated numerous times in the Hamas-Israel thread: Israel's brutal war against the Palestinian people will push the US progressive left to reduce unconditional support for Israel. Pebbles become an avalanche.

The Far ("progressive") Left hasn't been pro-Israel in at least four decades. In 1983, there was a sit-in in Berkeley because tuition was going to be raised (from something like $300 per year to $1,000) for California residents. Of course, the people who participated were basically professional protestors - not may were actual students. This was the first time I saw a protest sign that said Zionism = Racism.

So it naturally follows: If Zionism equals racism, and Jews support Zionism, then Jews are racist.

As an aside, this position was accepted by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted in November 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), which called Zionism a form of racism and racial discrimination (three years after Munich, and two years after the Yom Kippur War). Although eventually revoked in 1991, it's little wonder that the Israelis really don't give a fuck what the UN or any of its organizations think.

 

[Renard]

The whole angle at play here is likely to buttress support for legislation that restricts free speech, under the guise of stopping "hate." They can even get conservatives, who are largely pro-Israel, to cheer for their own destruction by displaying dofuses like these as being the abusers of free speech. The real issue at play here is the legitimacy of hate speech as a category. If you think Harvard and MIT students' speech should be restricted because it's subjectively defined as hate (i.e. an opinion that is deemed offensive), that implies you're OK with the concept of hate speech and applying that concept to many other forms of "hate" that have nothing to do with the war in Israel. "Hate speech" as a concept doesn't exist in the constitution. There are already exceptions to the First Amendment against harassment and the incitement of violence. If you're conned into supporting more than that, then the immediate implication is that you're OK with weakening and significantly undermining the First Amendment.

 

[Scerpi]

I'm Jewish. Could you post some of these anti-white comments from Jews, please? We may be mostly liberals (I'm not), but we hardly bandy about how we can take down white America while we're in shul.

Blacks have a tendency toward anti-Semitism because they believe Jews exploited them in the inner cities. As Jews became wealthier, we moved out of places like Williamsburg and Bed-Stuy to the suburbs (like every other group that "made it"). Blacks moved in. But Jews continued to own the businesses and be the landlords (and admittedly some were nothing but slumlords), and Blacks believe Jews basically took money out of their communities leaving them in impoverishment.

Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They're Anti-White

Julianna Margulies got pummeled for being "transactional" when she asked why Blacks weren't there for us, when Jews were there for them during the Civil Rights movement. We were the white people at these marches. But Jews who are surprised by this lived with their heads in the sand. Farrakhan, Jeremiah Right, Elijah Muhammed, Malcolm X, James Baldwin and others signaled this would happen.

There's definitely low key resentment, even hatred of Jews, in the Entertainment Industry.

One thing that stuck in my head during the Harvey Weinstein fallout... when he was realizing things were falling apart, he desperately tried to organize yet another large Anti-Gun Fund raising event. He was a big Democrat donor and maybe virtue signalled his politics with his money to maintain a certain image. Did he actually feel that way or was it for show business?

I've never understood why the Jewish community tends to vote Democrat in general. Especially in places like California and New York.

So be it I guess. I don't need to understand... lol

 

[William Munny]

Do you understand that these aren't generic questions, she's asking about specific, written policies? And that those policies very like clearly specify that bullying and harassments is specifically behavior directed at an individual?

neverminded, you're lost . these were not "generic" questions. she made them as simple and direct as possible, even rephrasing them.

in any other context, or any other race/people involved, these would easily be actionable offenses.

I'll add you to the Hamas Fanboy list.

 

[Scerpi]

The whole angle at play here is likely to buttress support for legislation that restricts free speech, under the guise of stopping "hate." They can even get conservatives, who are largely pro-Israel, to cheer for their own destruction by displaying dofuses like these as being the abusers of free speech. The real issue at play here is the legitimacy of hate speech as a category. If you think Harvard and MIT students' speech should be restricted because it's subjectively defined as hate (i.e. an opinion that is deemed offensive), that implies you're OK with the concept of hate speech and applying that concept to many other forms of "hate" that have nothing to do with the war in Israel. "Hate speech" as a concept doesn't exist in the constitution. There are already exceptions to the First Amendment against harassment and the incitement of violence. If you're conned into supporting more than that, then the immediate implication is that you're OK with weakening and significantly undermining the First Amendment.

Agreed... But Harvard ditched any semblance of Free Speech on campus a long time ago.



So it's telling that Harvard's president is now trying to use Free Speech as an argument for letting Anti-Jew threats go unabated.

I think it says more about their views on Israel than on Free Speech.

 

[dirtypablo]

neverminded, you're lost . these were not "generic" questions. she made them as simple and direct as possible, even rephrasing them.

in any other context, or any other race/people involved, these would easily be actionable offenses.

I'll add you to the Hamas Fanboy list.

Weird you didn't answer my simple question. Yes or no, do you understand that these were questions about written policies that are specifically about behavior directed towards individuals?

 

[Tatra]

The goal of Jews was to make non-white people sympathetic to Israel by teaching them about the holocaust (Deborah Lipstadt is a perfect example) but at the same time these non-white people were being taught to hate white people and be sympathetic to the victims of 'white supremacy' throughout history. Now they're pulling their hair out because non-white people view Israel as a 'white supremacist oppressor' and the Palestinians as 'victims of white supremacy'. They're panicking because the youth of America is overwhelmingly anti-Israel and that pretty much spells Israel's doom. There's no chance whatsoever American youth will turn their backs on the Palestinians and start supporting Israel, regardless of how much propaganda Israel's supporters pump out ('Israel is the ONLY country in the middle-east that recognises LGBT people and gives them full rights!'). I've never come across a single anti-Israel leftist (Western or not) who falls for Israel's gay pride propaganda.

I'm sure most of you have seen this, but for those who haven't, here's ADL's emperor having a panic attack over realising Israel is fucked because of major MAJOR MAJOR generational differences in support for Israel. He knows Israel cannot possibly survive without America's backing.

 

[William Munny]

Weird you didn't answer my simple question. Yes or no, do you understand that these were questions about written policies that are specifically about behavior directed towards individuals?

this is what you fail to comprehend here. when you make "GENERALIZED", and Categorical comments, you are making them about a group of people. individuals comprise a group.

when you say things like:

"we need to genocide the jews.."

or

"put blacks back in chains and slaves"

you are making sweeping comments about a group of individuals. how TF is that not actionable?

 

[dirtypablo]

Why didn't you answer my simple yes or no question! Yes or no!

this is what you fail to comprehend here. when you make "GENERALIZED", and Categorical comments, you are making them about a group of people. individuals comprise a group.

when you say things like:

"we need to genocide the jews.."

or

"put blacks back in chains and slaves"

you are making sweeping comments about a group of individuals. how TF is that not actionable?

 

[fishNjits]

There's definitely low key resentment, even hatred of Jews, in the Entertainment Industry.

One thing that stuck in my head during the Harvey Weinstein fallout... when he was realizing things were falling apart, he desperately tried to organize yet another large Anti-Gun Fund raising event. He was a big Democrat donor and maybe virtue signalled his politics with his money to maintain a certain image. Did he actually feel that way or was it for show business?

I've never understood why the Jewish community tends to vote Democrat in general. Especially in places like California and New York.

So be it I guess. I don't need to understand... lol

Back in the day, many Jews were Socialists (my sister always says that Bernie Sanders reminds her of the old Jewish men we grew up with). Layer on top that the Republican Party was the party of WASPs (there's a term you never hear anymore). Then on top of that you have Roosevelt defeated the Nazis and Truman over ruled his advisors in the State Department (primarily WASPs back then, of course) and gave the instruction to approve the partition of Palestine (despite Ben Gurion and Israel being Socialist), and it naturally makes sense.

 

[PBAC]

The BLM movement is just a mix of anti-white racism, blacks looking for excuses to play victim and loot shit and a bit of money grabbing mixed in with some fools donating to them.

WLM and phrases like "it's okay to be white" are just harmless ways to point out how ridiculous the whole BLM movement is.

I told you what it's about. You are projecting a view on them from an outside perspective. The BLM movement started because blacks believe they are viewed as lessers in society. This is nothing new. Their original view is that basically if the same house keeps getting set on fire all the time you don't try to say it's alright because lots of houses get burned down. If the owner of the house keeps attesting that his house is under attack and this is met with ignorance/disregard and a frequent upsurge in attacks it will likely lead to anger. So the BLM movement is the house owner affirming that he is being frequently harassed. If he finds he is met with disregard it likely leads to resentment. The statement you made is you looking as an outsider observing the result of that disregard, and concluding they must be about violence because you see violence, but the violence is a result of people ignoring the original message. The response of white lives matter basically means "we don't give a fuck about your message." This is a message that is designed to be escallatory. It doesn't have any real message and isn't really saying anything other than that.

Comparing examples:
I have been tortured = lots of people have been tortured
you stole my wallet = lots of people have had their wallet stolen
poor people matter = rich people matter
disabled people should have their needs met = I think everyone should have their needs met
people in Gaza shouldn't be killed = no one should be killed

each statement focuses on a specific thing that is happening and peron B is responding by saying it either applies to everyone and shouldn't happen anyway. It is dismissing the actual point being presented by broadening it.

So there's a war on planet Jorbs in which citizens are being killed by the Gallak. The Jorbs says Jorbs lives matter and then everyone observing says "well all lives matter", which completely dismisses the factual situation, and basically says we don't care about your problems.

 

[oldshadow]

I don't have a problem with the people calling for the destruction of Israel. The whole "River to the sea" is free speech. However not free from non government consequences. That's what the left is crying "not fair" and back pedaling about.

People start pulling funds and refusing to hire their students and the crying starts.

 

[Scerpi]

Do you understand that these aren't generic questions, she's asking about specific, written policies? And that those policies very like clearly specify that bullying and harassments is specifically behavior directed at an individual?

Specific incidents like this?


Dude in the blue shirt with dreads is a professor

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Both are ironic. On one hand, if the same thing was being said and black, trans or any other groups, colleges would be outraged and banning the speech. But since it’s Jews, it’s freedom of speech.

On the other hand, you have people that claim to be freedom of speech absolutists, yet Palestine protests are too far for them and people must be silenced.

How about we just have freedom of speech across the board? I’m tired of the hypocrisy and using freedom of speech only when it serves your interest and beliefs.

 

[koquerelle]

Specific incidents like this?


Dude in the blue shirt with dreads is a professor

That was bad, but I saw another video and the Jewish student is the one who started shit.

 

[ringking1982]

Per the Presidents of these "Prestigious" Universities... Calls for Jew Genocide is

- "Context Dependent"
- Acceptable as "Public Statements"



How is the answer from these parties not an across the board "Yes, no exceptions". The waffling and avoiding a straight Yes or No answer is absolutely crazy.


It's not like Havard isn't known for overboard censoring


Try walking around one of these campuses with a "White Lives Matter" sign... lol

Or be a Feminist Speaker who isn't 100% on board with the Trans movement... Canceled

What a joke these institutions have become

Double standard. People call for the genocide of Muslims and white people all the time. Not a word. Not even acting they are outraged. On ticktock kill whitye. That's perfectly fine.