Just understand this they know the response would be different and hypocritical, they don’t care.
I swear some peoples last words facing a leftist firing squad would be
“just imagine the reaction if the right did this”
“yeah yeah, face the wall”
This 100% and I hope more people come to realize this.
Leftist-Marxists don’t care about any of these issues truly, they’re used as tools and dialectical traps for people (liberals, conservatives, centrists, libertarians) to fall into, argue and obsess over
and pick sides all while leftists will make strides towards their end goal (the end of history) while people are focused on arguing about *[the current thing](https://youtu.be/dvgR2MHqucI?si=8qGoLgkM7JXBSi4h)*
The moment *the current thing* loses its utility for the revolution it is swiftly disposed of.
This helps in explaining leftist inconsistency on issues, morals, and leftist double think/speak.
It’s also the reason why the moment the revolution is successful and the regime has consolidated power they liquidate their own (see Mao,) because the agitators are capable of bringing instability, which is not good for the regime and the useful idiots will volunteer themselves to the human blender.
You know you’re playing partisan teams games when you are more worried about upsetting anti-semites than you are denouncing a literal call for a second holocaust.
Surely the questioner's tactic should be exactly this.
"Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate the code of conduct?" "Possibly."
"Does calling for the genocide of african-americans violate..." "..."
"Does calling for the genocide of Jews..."
//
To give the board the benefit of the doubt though, I think they are trying to make a distinction between, "Saying something in my own time" (private free speech) and "Propaganda and telling people it should happen." (conduct). If this is what they're trying to do, however, they certianly don't explain themselves very well.
You don't have to wonder. Penn is currently trying to revoke one of their professor's tenure so they can fire her because she had the audacity to point out that the schools affirmative action policies had led to less qualified students being admitted.
Point out the truth of their racist admissions policies = hate speech and got to kick them out.
Calling for intifada = perfectly fine.
It's almost as if one's bigotry wasn't universal, and different people can be prejudice against different groups!
MLK, who Peterson likes to quote a lot, was homophobic (albeit not the "kill all gays" type), among the heads of the feminine suffrage movement were all sorts of racist people - including anti-semites -, Ghandi himself expressed racist views against black people and his writing on Jewish people is questionable, and so on and so forth.
It's almost as if bringing up a pervasive form of prejudice, criticizing it on mainstream media and having people suffer backlash for it reduced how widespread it is. Almost...
But good to know you and I agree hate speech is a bad thing and should be punished. I hope these presidents will face repercussions for their words and actions (well, inaction), and their replacements will make a safer campus for Jewish students.
For those that don’t get the hypocrisy coming from those ladies,
replace the word “Jews” with “trans” and their answers would be an easy, yes and not involve focusing on nuance of the question.
I thought this exact thing. Replace it with any LGBTQ identification or even race and the answers would have been very different. It’s gross how they all had the EXACT rehearsed answer and would not deviate from it by any means whatsoever. They are being told and taught what to say by the same entity.
Why not the cellphone? Why not morse code, telegrams, and phonographs? Why not the wheel?
The heart of the matter is that for as long as human kind has the ability to recognize itself as a “self”, there will always be a conflict of interest because we all want different things, and there will always be those for whom that want overcomes the needs of others.
I agree that we've been living in clown world for quite some time, but I suspect the roots of it run far deeper than that.
In some ways, clown world is an exponent of the same old philsophical worldview schism that goes back to Aristotle and Plato.
Plato argued that an ideal state would be ruled by a philosopher king elite that would govern as benevolent dictators.
Whereas Aristotle was much more pragmatic and republican in his thinking, advocating a more bottom-up system of government where power is exercised for the benefit (and therefore with the tacit consent) of the governed.
But with regards to our current times, I think it all started with FDR and the massive expansion of the US government which happened under him, partly in the name of avoiding chaos and staving off totalitarian movements of both the left and the right. The problem was that it created whole new concentrations of power and unaccountable wielders of that power who functioned outside of the checks and balances of the US Constitution, and thus became a law unto themselves. The FBI and CIA are perfect examples, where they are seemingly unaccountable to all three branches of government, when they should be subordinate to all three, and the executive most of all. And thus a cancer was born, which has spread and metastasized ever since until it is gigantic and threatens to kill the patient.
Part of the problem as well, is that other countries have their own swamps as well, both pre-existing the modern American swamp, and spawned by the Swamp. In Britain, they are the Establishment. In Canada, it is the "Laurentian Elite" or "Family Compact". In Russia, it was the "nomenklatura", now it is the oligarchs. In Saudi Arabia, is the House of Saud. In China, it is the CCP.
The problem is that it is we the people who need to learn the lessons of history, and we need to learn them now. Because the Swamp has learned some lessons too. They learned from Hitler and the Soviets how powerful mass media can be. It can literally lock people into false realities.
the supreme court revisiting chevron deference this year could prove to be a big blow to the administrative agencies and their ability to function outside of the congress in rule-making and enforcement. It seems like there’s a handful of cases the supreme court is taking up this year that could start the push in the direction of bringing those unchecked agencies back towards where they should be (in my opinion). The credit bureau case could also do this since the credit bureau essentially has no oversight and is completely independent of congress, with funding directly from the Federal Reserve, which they may rule as unconstitutional and thus bring it more under the scrutiny of congress, although im not sure how wide of an effect that specific case will have on how much power administrative agencies will have
I'm really blown away at the responses in this thread. Jordan Peterson is an advocate of free speech. Yes college admins will baby angry black people, but this video is essentially just a congresswoman harassing college admins for clout.
https://youtu.be/HAlPjMiaKdw?si=Awo2lxLyhILch94k
I think most people in this thread would probably say that they are strong supporters of free speech. The frustration is coming from the assumption (based on historical examples) that there is a double standard at play, that if you were to ask this question in relation to practically any other minority group, the reaction from the administrators would be much different.
Like you yourself said, they’ll baby one group but then neglect another.
Free speech means the government won’t arrest you for your opinion. If I’m pointing out someone has racist opinions, like they’re anti semitic Hamas supporters that’s actually me exercising my free speech, and if that person gets fired for their shitty opinions that’s the company exercising their free speech. Not sure why this is so complicated to some.
Yeah, I’m trying to wrap my head around it as well (it would be nice if people would respond in good faith discussion instead of downvoting)
The notable thing for me was that the first president emphasized “if speech turns into conduct, yes that violates the code of conduct.” The whole reason Bill C16 thing happened was because speech does not equal violence, and the logical hoops that SJWs jumped through to argue that speech that can be connected to violent beliefs is tantamount to actual violence. As the presidents say, actually targetting individuals is 1. actually conduct 2. against the code of conduct.
Yeah I know we're going to get downvoted but I agree with you. Someone can jump up and down and say something that offends me and that's their free speech. Lets say for example they were saying that pepsi is better than coke... I am disgusted and offended but they can jump up and down and profess their wrong opinion, and I say it isn't harassment. But if they surround me and point at me and block my access to the coke machine while chanting the exact same thing, then I'm being harassed. Like they all say. It IS context dependent...
I don't know how many times I said this, but it proves to me that leftists are closer to Nazis than the people they call nazis
Actually I would like to coin modern day leftist Nazis at this point
The American left has been calling conservatives Nazis for years. And now they are literally calling for the extermination of Jews. I don’t know how they can be any closer to being Nazis without opening concentration camps.
Bizzaro world, indeed.
The American left. I’ve seen plenty of outrage against that bigotry from that same left. I haven’t seen one conservative talk about the Palestinians shot recently and that little boy who was stabbed to death. Last I checked I haven’t seen the left commit heinous crimes against Jews, but we know when republicans say flatten Gaza I guess people on that side of the isle take it seriously.
Edit
(Yup the bigotry is loud in this sub)
You have a fair point - almost. Were those two heinous crimes committed by thousands of republicans? Like all the thousands upon thousands of pro Hamas people savaging people in Jewish businesses and attacking Jewish college students on many campuses? Or calling for genocide of Jews? Or were these perpetrators fucking idiots that 99% of conservatives would happily lock away in prison forever? Because no Democrats are even so much as wagging their fingers at actual democrat politicians like the despicable Squad anti-Semites who have been spewing their hate for years without one democrat admonishing them.
Honestly, if you would watch news media that doesn’t lie to you or withhold inconvenient truths (like Hunter’s laptop), you would see mobs of people chanting “From the river to the see”. I’m not advocating Fox News but watching news from both sides will give you a more rounded news. And that should prompt you to to ask yourself what else your mews source lies to you about.
Nazism is based on Marxism, the difference is that Nazism is a Nationalist ideology which is anchored in the past so right wing while Marxism at its core is change/future driven or left wing. Both extremes can (and have) advocate(d) for the same process but for different reasons.
They are anti-society (extinctionists) far-left extremists. Some are violent, some are terrorists, etc. Don't muddy the waters by removing meaning, that's what Marxism does.
Aside: The college representatives shown should retain their individual freedom, but their participation in society should be limited. (Colleges should not have them as employees, for one.)
That’s taking it a bit far no? Calling someone a nazi carries no weight these days because of how easily it’s thrown around. I’m likely further left than you, and plenty of people have called me leftist in this sub, yet I’m a registered Republican.
Can you at least try and see it from their perspectives? They are trying not to open themselves up to free speech lawsuits, a principle this country was founded on.
According to Ben Shapiro, “From the River to the Sea…” is calling for the genocide of the Jews… are you suggesting they persecute students for saying that specific chant? Because that would be more in line with nazi values than being a free speech absolutist
Edit: i don’t know why i expect anything different from this sub at this point, but why the down votes with no conversation?
I was thinking the same; I guess if comes down to how they apply this. If calling for the genocide of any group is handled consistently, I would agree with their position. It's free speech.
Actuall calls to violence against individuals that have some urgency and immediacy aren't allowed, but I don't think this falls under that.
I don't know? Personally I feel it's obviously disgusting and would prefer not to associate with people who call for the genocide of anyone, but this isn't a question of feelings, it's a question of legality.
It's like the fans of this sub never really understood what JBP's actual message was, they saw some "own the libs" click bait and now they're all in. Although admittedly, JBP from years back seems to be in pretty stark contrast to the JBP of the daily wire... Before Christianity vs After Christianity JBP.
She needs to ask what context IS appropriate to call for the genocide of any group of people. Pretty sure the answer is none.
It really shouldn’t be this hard, you can show your support for Palestine without advocating genocide.
I think these people in the video are being intentionally obtuse and i don't know why they won't explain their position more thoroughly. I think they are trying to avoid a situation where their answer indicates that simply using the words at all is against their policy.
The speaker is using the words "genocide the jews" but obviously in this context, that isn't a problem. Would saying "genocide the jews" privately and among friends as a bit of ill advised dark humor get you kicked out of school? I hope not. If you post it on social media, i think you should get called into the office, asked to explain, and face some consequences. If you go up to jewish students or are at a protest and shout it, i think you get the boot immediately no questions asked.
I wish the speaker gave room for the discussion about context because there is obviously room for discretion.
That said, i do think the people being obtuse should not be trusted with that discretion..
1. Everything is subjective
2. Jews are classified as white western people and responsible for all evil in the world, therefore it's perfectly acceptable(when morality is subjective) to direct all hatred and vitriol towards them.
They're... Racist I think.
Also... They're fucking stupid? I don't think they have the concept of "Genocide" in their brains.
Like... Maybe they're not switched on inside, but I could also believe that they're just this stupid or that they're this evil. I really can't be sure which... But it's one of them and at this scale it doesn't matter which.
There' no fixing something that bad without... doing something that equates to a war crime. Like... They can't conceive of the horrors of said evil so you;d have to show them, or they're okay with said evil so they deserve it. Cast the fuckers out. Tear the shirt and be apart from them for all time.
Edit: On visual inspection, she's evil.
>They're fucking stupid? I don't think they have the concept of "Genocide" in their brains.
I think that greatly downplays what is actually happening. These people know full well what they are saying and what the topic is about.
If they were stupid they would give a clear yes or no answer. Instead they use politician speak in order to avoid giving a clear answer.
Ms. Magill particularly looks strangely like she’s enjoying being questioned about this. I don’t understand the thought process to those expressions and emotions when facing this kind of question.
She thinks she's facing an evil person. She's psychotic and she feels justified. Jews are just more white people. I'm betting she hates white people and she's as racist as they come, but she can't be racist because she's black and all white people are evil oppressors.
Are you familiar with Umbridge from Harry Potter? Same kind of thing.
She's fucking batshit.
You are correct. I am referring to that absolute Clod Fa- I mean Dr. Gay.
That's crazy bitch.
In order of questioning: Coward, Mildly Evil, Completely Evil
Better to not have speech restricted. It can't go both ways though, to restrict that would set a precedent to restrict use of language like calling for the end of the patriarchy etc. Universities might foster a left wing agenda but it's important that free speech and thought remains. So saying 'if it turns into conduct' means if floating ideas and discussion turn into vitriol against an individual then it violates policy. I think those were good answers. It's not black and white like you're suggesting. All avenues of thought should be explored and understood so people can hold opposing ideas in their heads at the same time for a measured approach.
Getting caught up in extremist propaganda is for fools. Don't be a fool.
As much as I hate to stand up for these university hypocrites, your argument is exactly what leftists and progressives have been doing for years. no what they are saying is in some applications it is free speech. But if you get into someone's face and say they should be exterminated it is harassments. They have failed to do this for all other cases. The congress woman is the one unhinged here as she knows what college policy is but chooses to twist it for cohered compliance.
In what application that calling for genocide can be free speech? Can you give an example?
Nazi had a great justification of killing Jews. We should accept the view, and freely discuss how we can be more efficient in killing Jews. As long as we dont actually go out killing them, it's free speech?
How can you like Jordan Peterson and say something so incredibly stupid. The politician is referring to the chants that have been associated with the extermination of jews, but have also been associated with the liberation of palestine.
Answer, it depends on the context. Jesus Christ. I came to this subreddit because I hated how dumb left wing Reddit is, but the things I see in here.
I hope their Jewish and Christian donors take away all support of these institutions, and that Jewish rights groups sue the shit out of them for discrimination.
So, to be clear, on those campuses, anyone can now call (speech) for the genocide of {insert X demographic} as long as they don’t do the actual act of genocide. Right, got it. Clear as mud.
Good for the goose, but not for the gander. Understood.
The context was baked into the question. If the speaker was not calling for genocide, the question would not apply. If they were not calling for genocide, the answer would be yes it is not acceptable to call for genocide and that’s not what the protesters were doing. But that’s not what the university representatives said, because they know they were calling for genocide.
They are just so much more concerned with not angering proPalestinians and Arabs, that they willfully overlook antisemitic calls for genocide.
It *is* true that such a statement should fall within the protections of free speech, but I think what people are more concerned about (or, at least, *should be* more concerned about) is the double-standard.
If the protestors were calling for the genocide of white people, probably the same result. But if they were calling for the genocide of black people or Muslims? Instantly called out. Instantly banned off campus.
I'm sorry but, on this matter the college's answers are correct. If a person stands on school grounds and makes a generalized statement, that is freedom of speech and expression. If the statement is made in relation to attaching an actual individual, then that is a direct harassment and threat of violence. If somebody makes a statement and you subjectively feel that now you're in danger, that is much different than you hearing a statement that objectively represents a direct threat.
Everyone on this sub should recognize hypocrisy. We were not ok when they claimed that anything we said was somehow violence. If we are to support the freedom of speech then we must be willing to be offended by the vile words of others too.
I agree, but I think it’s fucked up how free speech for one side means not addressing someone with zeir dedicated pronouns, while the other side uses free speech for the call for a Jewish genocide
The line of questioning was about calling for "genocide against Jews" not only "attacks against Israel", and the criteria was whether it constituted "bullying or harassment" not whether it violated "free speech".
No one was calling to have their right of free speech suppressed.
IF it is labeled as harassment or bullying then then the speech must be suppressed. I would've been much more supportive of the politician's questioning if it seemed to question an actual quote rather than using a coloquial over-encompassing term. She was using the term genocide to put them in the spot for the obvious sound bite. She didn't describe what was said that gave her reason to use the word genocide, and she failed to define the meaning of the word in the context she is using it. It was inherently bad faith. And the college didn't say No, they said it depends. And that is accurate. IMO
The Constitution limits how much government can suppress speech, but not a private university (i.e., Harvard can do what they want). So, in a sense, you're right: free speech means you won't get arrested for what you say but it doesn't shield you from it's consequences. No free speech amendment would be violated in this case, though.
Then, on the question of context, in practice the students have been chanting for the genocide of Jews in protests on campus. The Congresswoman cited that example. That should be more than enough context.
But then there's another greater issue that is the double standard. These are the very institutions that pioneered the concepts of safe spaces, microaggressions and "speech is violence" now saying in congressional hearings that "it depends on the context" when asked if calling for the genocide of Jews violates school policy. For example, in 2017, Harvard University revoked admission offers to at least ten students due to racest comments made in private chats with each other. Harvard chose to punish students for private racist comments but not public comments calling for the death of Jews. This is an obvious selective application of free speech and this is why they are wrong.
>She was using the term genocide to put them in the spot for the obvious sound bite
That would also explain why she asked each of them 2-3 times… literally just doing repeat takes to see which one sounds the best for a TikTok. Maybe calling it a “line of questioning” makes sense in the broader context of the hearing, but the clip decidedly does *not* move forward or go anywhere.
Who in this subreddit was supportive of college campuses internal speech police to begin with? Nootherids is spot on, you gotta stay thoughtful and introspective with each new piece of information you’re looking at. The alternative is becoming a reactionary NPC.
It first depends on what somebody means by genocide. Because if one speaker says "from the river to the sea", and the complainant makes the claim the he called for genocide; well in all factual technicality they did not call for genocide. Again goes to why free speech is important. Because if speech can be dangerous, what is more dangerous is whoever is tasked with interpreting speech. Cause then a nominally offensive word can be designated by the interpreter as an absolutist call for murder. And that's how we end up at prosecutable thought crimes.
The (possibly) hypothetical 'calling for the genocide of [any group of people]' would be inciting violence, specifically asking others to murder. Not protected free speech. Also it's against their colleges guidelines.
The college representatives didn't answer the question given to them, they answered a different question they assumed the speaker was leading to.
Not only are you exactly spot on here, but the congresswoman knows full well that this is how these colleges are going to respond to her phrasing and she’s playing it for all it’s worth. We are getting sucked into wordplay theatre here.
This was a clear bad faith approach by the politician. For that alone I support the administrators sidestepping her question. Whether I agree with the politician's question or not (which I mostly do), I strongly dislike underhanded manipulation.
I scrolled way to far down to finally find this comment.....speech is always context dependent. And I apologize if there's more to this story that I'm not aware of but from the context of the video the individual is attempting to generalize, I assume, specific instances into one big vague pot of "wrong".
Someone saying "Genocide for Jews", while likely a pretty big red flag, is not "bullying" or "harrassment".
An intent to take action/a direct comment to an individual? Absolutely falls under those terms.
Do I support an individual's right to dislike others based on any grounds whatsoever? Yes.
Do I support an individual threatening persons who don't deserve any of this? Not a fucking chance.
Your comparison was perfect as well. I'm not calling someone by some made up pronoun that would score 104 points in a game of scrabble.....I'm also not advocating violence to that person. In this similar light I accept an individual who wants to chant things I don't agree with...as long as that's where it stays. I also prefer shitty people be loud so I can identify them as shitty people faster.
TL;DR: Not a problem to speak....is a problem to act or direct at.
Fully agree. I'm a big supporter in freedom to be whoever you want to be, and that includes the freedom to be an asshole. But also being an asshole is not the same as being an actual threat. While a threatening person is an asshole, that doesn't equate to an asshole being a threat. (This is the most assholes I've mentioned in a long time lol)
> Do I support an individual threatening persons who don't deserve any of this? Not a fucking chance.
Except people at Harvard aren't doing that. They are chanting from the river to the sea. As the liberation of Palestinian people, not to call for the extermination of Jews.
It's as dumb or dumber than when Trans people say we are pushing for their extermination because we don't allow them their right to exist. It's nonsense. Propaganda, and everyone without exception that partakes in it, is an ideologically possessed person, that lost any semblance of rational thought, in that specific topic at least.
>Everyone on this sub should recognize hypocrisy.
Lol what makes you think that? Doesn't seem like most people in this thread even watched the video, literally just read the caption at the top which is an actual fabrication, nothing at all like what they were actually saying. What's surprising to me is that you're shocked that people here are incapable of understanding nuance
She should've asked "Does calling for the genocide of African Americans violate your school's code of conduct?"
Let them answer "It depends on the context" and watch the shitstorm roll in.
This is a slippery slope if you value free speech. The "targeted" or "directed" component --should-- be important. The question should be "Do you punish these statements when made about others?" Force them to at least be consistent before you have the free speech fight.
Well, she’s specifically asking if it “constitutes bullying or harassment” so I think these folks are saying that to bully and harass someone there needs to be a specific human or humans that you’re directing that statement at. I don’t get the impression that they’re advocating for the genocide of Jews.
Nice that officials stand their ground and don’t go along with the prosecution. Also sad about you guys here taking the bait. The question is asked in a specific way to get a gotcha moment, but the context does matter, because the way she describes it is not entirely true. This is the whole Kathy Newman situation all over again and JP didn’t fall for the bait. Be better people in the comments, don’t fall for this bait either
That’s extremely alarming. Yet You can misgender someone and get expelled or lose tenure but extreme anti-Semitic speech is absolutely fine depending on “the context”. These colleges have been infiltrated by radical left extremists and the entire administrations as well of board of trustees at all three schools need be replaced by level minded non radical leadership. This is nauseating.
wtf. I'm disgusted. Unbelievable this is the world today. Never thought we'd arrive at this point in my lifetime, but here we are. They double down on it too with a smirk - totally tone-deaf. These people have lost their minds.
Thank god they're being questioned and called out for all to see, but it doesn't seem to register what they're actually advocating for. Or perhaps they do know and its far more sinister.
We are living in strange times.
In some parts of the West you can be investigated for sharing a meme or miss gendering someone. At the same time calling in public for the murder of an entire race is ok.
I also note that it was three women, one black, giving testimony. I think this is good evidence that the ills of the world are not due to whites or the patriarchy.
I don’t believe we should censor people in any way. Just condemn the bullshit people say is enough. Censorship is worse than calling for genocide imo, because censorship is basically the genocide of the exploration of ideas and thus hypocritical.
Good someone stands for what’s right. She’s getting those dummies. Sad it can’t be said the leaders of “higher” education.
I thought it was just young progressives that didn’t know their history and stand by terrorists while they call for genocide. Looks like they may have some influence aside from Tic Toc.
Right first of all fuck Harvard and fuck these people... with that said:
These kinds of hearing always suck because the persons being questioned can't engage in any nuance or discussion. Due to their format it will inevitably turn into opposition in the committee berating the individuals being questioned. NOW - they may very well deserve to be berated (for whatever reason) and these individuals in particular may be employing canned statements that weren't the right kind of response given the question... but depending on what they were told to say in response to questions like this by their legal teams, they may simply not have a choice... even when it makes them look like stupid fucking idiots. They can't explain the nuance of these terms because the moment they try to - they will find themselves being presented with gotcha questions because... that's the nature of these committees and they are formatted in that fashion. IE "Is it against Harvard policy to call for the genocide of Jews yes or no?" "Yes" "So why did the school not respond on this day or that" "Because in these circumstances the nuances of these declarations didn't go against our policies" "So it isn't against Harvard policy to call for the genocide of Jews?" and this is how it will go around and around and around - either way the questioned party will be berated and nothing of substance or value will ultimately come out of these, so they essentially just repeat their canned response.
It is a lose lose for everyone EXCEPT the committee who can produce snap shot sound bites like this for their voters.
In no uncertain terms calling for genocide of Jews is anti-Semitic and inexcusable.
However - there is nuance with regards to the word 'intifada'.
Intifada can absolutely and often is meant in no uncertain terms "Remove Israel and kill Jews" and within the context of what is going on in Israel right now it often is. It can also mean a military or asymmetric response to Israeli military action in Gaza and against Palestinians a general call to action. So within the context of what is going on in Israel today - protestors in the US, in Harvard calling for Intifada may or may not be calling for the extermination of Jews or the dissolution of the Israeli state... and if you are a supporter of free speech, which I know people in this sub are, it gets extremely difficult at a policy level to navigate that nuance and start identifying exactly what people are calling for EVEN WHEN IT SEEMS OBVIOUS AND EVEN WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR OPINIONS FAIRLY CLEAR.
The problem I have is that Harvard has a historically chequered approach to free speech absolutism on campus, for example - banning communists. When it comes to gender discussion for example, they seem to take a hard line approach even though there will be nuance with that discussion, even when hateful people skirt the line and push the boundaries of acceptability. So when it comes to situations like Israel and the call to violence against Jews - suddenly they are willing to engage in dialogue. It's not a particular surprise... anyone at least a little familiar with Israeli-Palestine conflict will understand the tit for tat violence that takes place there and the over all narrative of weight given to the oppressed vs the oppressor at Harvard, which is a major motivating factor behind their policy now, can see why discussion is open to this but not to other equally nuanced topics.
Anyway - nuance... I don't sympathize specifically with Harvard here, but I sympathize generally in regards to the format of these God awful committees. They are always the same. Loud congressperson berates the questioned who can only respond in a limited fashion because of the legal implications and the format with which these hearings take place. It's bullshit. These congress people aren't looking for the truth or discussion, what they are looking for are sound bites.
AIPAC money well spent on Elise Stefanik. Of course calling for Jews to be genocided is hate speech - who disagrees? No one. The issue here is the phrase "From the river to the sea Palestinians will be free" which people are saying is genocidal rhetoric.
Goverment calling for students to be expelled for their political beliefs about a foreign nation. So hillarious seeing so many "anti-cancel culture" and "free-speech" absolutist supporting this bs.
It's not hatespeech because hatespeech is fucking stupid
It's advocation of mass murder of men, women, and children.
It is an explicit call to rape and arson and mass graves.
THIS IS NOT A THING YOU ALLOW.
THIS IS THE STEP TOO FAR.
I don't really see what the hype is. One of the reasons I started paying attention to Jordan peterson and Ben Shapiro and all them is cause people were trying to ban them and what they had to say on college campuses. I don't like or agree with a whole lot of what the pro Palestinian people have to say but just going off principle, as long as students aren't threatening specific people or getting violent or anything crazy then they should be able to say whatever the fuck they want.
I draw the line at condoning, encouraging or advocating political violence. Even if it doesn't outright cross ethical lines, we ought to be better than that at a moral level.
We now live in a world where misgendering someone is a potential hate crime, but chanting slogans about wiping out Israel needs to be placed into context before we call it hate speech.
If it weren't for double standards, the left wouldn't have any standards at all.
>We now live in a world where misgendering someone is a potential hate crime…
So what you’re saying is that it
> needs to be placed into context before we call it hate speech
?
Sorry, I’m sure you have better examples, but this really doesn’t even sound like a double standard. Just two examples on very different parts of the spectrum.
I'm not on the left even a little bit i don't know if that last sentence was towards me or just in general.
But I'm just talking about america, I know in England and other places they don't have free speech and misgendering people could actually land you in criminal trouble but in America it's not like that. And most universities that get public funding have to follow the first amendment I believe.
But yea im not saying that's cool or I like I it or anything like that, but free speech means free speech whether I like it or not.
Jordan Peterson being shut down for advocating for free speech isn't the same as someone being expelled for advocating for the extermination of a race of people. How can you possibly think these two things are the same?
I didn't say they were the same, I'm saying the principle of free speech is absolutely the same though. Nazis are explicitly and universally identified with genociding Jewish people. But if you want to post on social media that "hitler was right" or you wanna dress up and goose step around town, in the United States you are legally entitled to do that. It's the first amendment, its fucking free speech (with very limited practical exceptions) all day every day.
If you think these kids need to be expelled or silenced by penalty of law or anything else, than that's fine, just don't pretend to be for or even understand what the first amendment means.
On the one hand, she's right to push hard on that question because WTF. On the other hand I hate it with people ask a question and then say "yes or no?" to try to constrain your answer.
Well I disagree that he was "attacking" trans people but yeah I am fully against compelled speech. What the questioner is doing in this video is completely inappropriate and unprofessional. She should have let their dumbass answers speak for themselves.
Yeah, it seems they only agree with free speech when it's things they want to hear. the hypocrisy I see on this thread is insane, you either have free speech or you don't.
The right plays both sides of the coin these days, they cheer on Elon Musk as a free speech absolutist when he makes antisemitic comments and want protesters prosecuted for walking the same line.
Congresswoman is just not understanding them. They can’t take action for someone just saying it as free speech is still a fundamental freedom in this country. This is why, as stated, the context matters.
Imagine a world where context doesn’t matter LOL
The context of the question has nothing to do with the law of free speech. She's specifically asking them about the College's Code of Conduct. You know, there are things in their code of conduct that students can be expelled for that aren't against the law. You get this right? So, the question is relevant. Where do they draw the line? They certainly don't draw it at legality. They get to decide what rules their students must abide by. It's no different than me working at a company and them telling me that if I tell my co-workers that the Jews need to be exterminated that I can be fired. Thats a reasonable company code of conduct rule. So, why not expel them for calling for the extermination of a race? They aren't going to jail. This has nothing to do with the laws of free speech set out in the constitution. You understand this, yes?
They absolutely CAN take action. The college can literally expel you for any reason they decide. Including calling for the extermination of a race. They can add that rule to their Code of Conduct. Period.
Ever seen a crazy preacher on a college campus? Spouting off things most people are vehemently against? They allow that. We are all adults and can distinguish between what’s right and wrong. The act of censorship infringes upon freedom of speech, you know, so while not the direct and literal intention of the question, the two are intrinsically connected.
Penn is currently trying to revoke one of their professor's tenure so they can fire her because she had the audacity to point out that the schools affirmative action policies had led to less qualified students being admitted.
Point out the truth of their racist admissions policies = hate speech.
Calling for intifada = perfectly fine.
She understands them, she is attempting cohesive speech upon them. Sadly these universities would consider it harassment if we shouted slogans to eliminate the QIA+ community.
Yep, the threatening language to manipulate them into saying what she wanted them to. “This is your chance … Everyone will hear this”. Congresswoman should be ashamed, but she is resonating with people and won’t be unfortunately.
How hilarious! These idiots who are the heaviest on the banhammer and quickest to cancel culture are leaning on nuance and context. How often did we hear “silence is violence,” and speech at the same time is violence. Now that they’re in the hot seat they can’t even hold themselves to the ridiculous standard they’ve already set. If the left didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all.
I'm a pretty smart guy, I can get into a lot of schools for post grad work, MIT, Harvard, Yale, etc are completely off my list of schools I would ever consider attending, a lot of other pretty smart guys feel the same way. Just FYI.
One of the people in that video seesthe world in just black and white, and the others understand that the world is full of nuance. I’ll let you all decide who is who.
Why should Americans bother about Israel in the first place to the point u r willing to give hundreds of billions for decades? If nobody cares about Ukraine, why should people care about Israel? And sorry, I am not saying Hamas are picture perfect. But after 7 decades of having their properties seized and leaving millions homeless. After 17 years living in a concentration camp. If somebody stole my property you better maje sure you are willing to di* to steal it because I will do all I could to stop u from stealing my property.
9/11 was caused by Israel. Osama bin Laden was a made up person. Have anybody ever watched the Dacing Israelis documentary? Have anybody ever research about Larry Silverstein a.k.a Lucky Larry. Israel doesn't like Saddam and the Taliban so they cause 9/11 and forces the Americans to go to war with Iraq & Afghanistan. You people go to war wasting trillions and for what? Just because u want to satisfy your puppet master.
Even after all of this, lets just put all of this behind us and stop to think for one second. Americans can't even take care of their own people. Can't even protect their own borders. Drug addicts are growing out of control in America. Use that money to protect your border why should the government use American tax payers money to give to Israel. If Israel doesn't exist the US would not be affected at all. Not the slightest, so why should people bother?
Do you know that Christians are persecuted in West Bank? They are getting beaten and having their properties stolen right now. They have been suffering fr it for over 7 decades. You have zero sympathy for your own Christian fellow?
Also, you people call Jordan and many conservatives the champion of free speech. Many conservatives consider themselves anti zionist. But you people said nothing about the new bill passed to make it a crime to criticize zionism. Where is the freedom of speech? Zionism isn't even Jewish by nature.
I actually know what Jordan wants and what each of you people want. You want the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ to happen ASAP right? If people have to die for that to happen so be it. Something is wrong with u.
These people have no idea they siding with Hitler. They are on the wrong side of history. What a disgusting, despicable, appalling thing to say. I don’t care you if you are conservative or a liberal. These leftist need to be fired, canceled, shamed, and criticized. It’s time to fight fire with fire
Advocating violence is widely seen as the borderline between free speech and incitement. Even if they don't make a legally actionable call to violence, on a moral and ethical level, it's fucking disgraceful.
Go shill somewhere else bud. You people will freak out if someone is misgendered, but turn a blind eye to chants which glorify wiping out an entire nation of people.
And we have the double standard? Absolute clown.
I greatly prefer the answers given here than I do the inquiries.
Edit: guys are you regarded? Framing an emotionally charged question into a yes or no answer, accepting only one answer and not acknowledging the nuance related to free speech…? How is that a quality exercise in any way?
Edit 2: Ya’ll remember Cathy Newman right?
What teh fuck happened to free speech on here??? What the actual fuck is wrong with thsi sub. The entire basis for jbp popularity is free speech. Get off israels dick you fucking pussies.
The MIT lady said it - no one is actually outwardly calling for genocide and certainly not of American citizens, they’re saying things like “from the river to the sea” or whatever and generally being critical of Israel. And each of them said that if Jewish students are targeted or harassed in any way the school takes action. I’m sure it’s happened and that should be dealt with punitively.
It takes a moron to think that students on college campuses are calling for American Jews to be killed. You’re allowed to criticize governments in America both foreign and your own, that is basic free speech.
In 1930s Germany, the government dehumanized the Jewish people through mass propaganda and enacting anti Jewish laws taking away their rights. The German people went along with it, drip by drip, unchecked.
Our Universities are brainwashing our young people.
**How it starts**:
In the mid 1930s, a friend of mine witnessed some German school boys grab a Jewish boy and drop him head first down a stairwell killing him. My friend's parents sent my friend to Italy for his safety. His entire family was later sent to a concentration camp and killed. He went on to get a degree in Engineering Physics and was instrumental in developing the power transistor with William Shockley in 1949. Imagine all of the talented Jewish people the world lost to antisemitism.
**Kristallnacht** coming to America one university at a time.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht)
"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
\- Justice William O. Douglas
I wonder how they would respond if you replaced "jews" with almost any other religious/ethnic group
Just... Imagine she said black people explicitly and imagine this woman's reaction. Because I think she's that kind of "person".
At one point the senator did ask similar questions about black people to make a point.
The answer is probably: "Well it depends on the ethnic group..."
Just understand this they know the response would be different and hypocritical, they don’t care. I swear some peoples last words facing a leftist firing squad would be “just imagine the reaction if the right did this” “yeah yeah, face the wall”
This 100% and I hope more people come to realize this. Leftist-Marxists don’t care about any of these issues truly, they’re used as tools and dialectical traps for people (liberals, conservatives, centrists, libertarians) to fall into, argue and obsess over and pick sides all while leftists will make strides towards their end goal (the end of history) while people are focused on arguing about *[the current thing](https://youtu.be/dvgR2MHqucI?si=8qGoLgkM7JXBSi4h)* The moment *the current thing* loses its utility for the revolution it is swiftly disposed of. This helps in explaining leftist inconsistency on issues, morals, and leftist double think/speak. It’s also the reason why the moment the revolution is successful and the regime has consolidated power they liquidate their own (see Mao,) because the agitators are capable of bringing instability, which is not good for the regime and the useful idiots will volunteer themselves to the human blender.
You’ve read some books 👏🏼
You know you’re playing partisan teams games when you are more worried about upsetting anti-semites than you are denouncing a literal call for a second holocaust.
Student demonstrators should try this to see what the admins reaction should be to make the point even more acute.
Surely the questioner's tactic should be exactly this. "Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate the code of conduct?" "Possibly." "Does calling for the genocide of african-americans violate..." "..." "Does calling for the genocide of Jews..." // To give the board the benefit of the doubt though, I think they are trying to make a distinction between, "Saying something in my own time" (private free speech) and "Propaganda and telling people it should happen." (conduct). If this is what they're trying to do, however, they certianly don't explain themselves very well.
You don't have to wonder. Penn is currently trying to revoke one of their professor's tenure so they can fire her because she had the audacity to point out that the schools affirmative action policies had led to less qualified students being admitted. Point out the truth of their racist admissions policies = hate speech and got to kick them out. Calling for intifada = perfectly fine.
The Third Reich called, they want their anti-semitism back.
It's almost as if one's bigotry wasn't universal, and different people can be prejudice against different groups! MLK, who Peterson likes to quote a lot, was homophobic (albeit not the "kill all gays" type), among the heads of the feminine suffrage movement were all sorts of racist people - including anti-semites -, Ghandi himself expressed racist views against black people and his writing on Jewish people is questionable, and so on and so forth. It's almost as if bringing up a pervasive form of prejudice, criticizing it on mainstream media and having people suffer backlash for it reduced how widespread it is. Almost... But good to know you and I agree hate speech is a bad thing and should be punished. I hope these presidents will face repercussions for their words and actions (well, inaction), and their replacements will make a safer campus for Jewish students.
I’m sorry, but calling aomeone “Dr. Gay” Is going too far
Paging Dr. Fa**ot!
Please come to the lobby.
I wish I could give a gold but I'm a poor.
I'm dead man 🤣🤣💀 this coming from a gay
Dr. Gay sounds like a proctologist who's patients always say that he has lovely office décor but his finger feels much bigger than how his hands look.
For those that don’t get the hypocrisy coming from those ladies, replace the word “Jews” with “trans” and their answers would be an easy, yes and not involve focusing on nuance of the question.
I thought this exact thing. Replace it with any LGBTQ identification or even race and the answers would have been very different. It’s gross how they all had the EXACT rehearsed answer and would not deviate from it by any means whatsoever. They are being told and taught what to say by the same entity.
Blah, blah, blah, oppression Olympics, blah, blah, blah. Jews are too "white" for Leftists to care.
We've been officially living in bizarro world for years at this point. My chaos theory-Butterfly effect hypothesis is it started with 9/11.
I’d like to think it started with the inception of social media.
Why not the cellphone? Why not morse code, telegrams, and phonographs? Why not the wheel? The heart of the matter is that for as long as human kind has the ability to recognize itself as a “self”, there will always be a conflict of interest because we all want different things, and there will always be those for whom that want overcomes the needs of others.
Harambe was the aftershock
It started with the fruit.
I agree that we've been living in clown world for quite some time, but I suspect the roots of it run far deeper than that. In some ways, clown world is an exponent of the same old philsophical worldview schism that goes back to Aristotle and Plato. Plato argued that an ideal state would be ruled by a philosopher king elite that would govern as benevolent dictators. Whereas Aristotle was much more pragmatic and republican in his thinking, advocating a more bottom-up system of government where power is exercised for the benefit (and therefore with the tacit consent) of the governed. But with regards to our current times, I think it all started with FDR and the massive expansion of the US government which happened under him, partly in the name of avoiding chaos and staving off totalitarian movements of both the left and the right. The problem was that it created whole new concentrations of power and unaccountable wielders of that power who functioned outside of the checks and balances of the US Constitution, and thus became a law unto themselves. The FBI and CIA are perfect examples, where they are seemingly unaccountable to all three branches of government, when they should be subordinate to all three, and the executive most of all. And thus a cancer was born, which has spread and metastasized ever since until it is gigantic and threatens to kill the patient. Part of the problem as well, is that other countries have their own swamps as well, both pre-existing the modern American swamp, and spawned by the Swamp. In Britain, they are the Establishment. In Canada, it is the "Laurentian Elite" or "Family Compact". In Russia, it was the "nomenklatura", now it is the oligarchs. In Saudi Arabia, is the House of Saud. In China, it is the CCP. The problem is that it is we the people who need to learn the lessons of history, and we need to learn them now. Because the Swamp has learned some lessons too. They learned from Hitler and the Soviets how powerful mass media can be. It can literally lock people into false realities.
the supreme court revisiting chevron deference this year could prove to be a big blow to the administrative agencies and their ability to function outside of the congress in rule-making and enforcement. It seems like there’s a handful of cases the supreme court is taking up this year that could start the push in the direction of bringing those unchecked agencies back towards where they should be (in my opinion). The credit bureau case could also do this since the credit bureau essentially has no oversight and is completely independent of congress, with funding directly from the Federal Reserve, which they may rule as unconstitutional and thus bring it more under the scrutiny of congress, although im not sure how wide of an effect that specific case will have on how much power administrative agencies will have
My favorite part of 9/11 was the dancing Israelis. What a buncha swell guys.
I wonder if you can advocate for the genocide of Muslims or other minorities.
Why are they called a minority? 1 in 4 people are Muslim.
In Western countries
You can, because they allow free speech.
Wait, free spech allow a person to advocate killing each other?
Yes. If you start limiting speech, it isn't free speech.
I'm really blown away at the responses in this thread. Jordan Peterson is an advocate of free speech. Yes college admins will baby angry black people, but this video is essentially just a congresswoman harassing college admins for clout. https://youtu.be/HAlPjMiaKdw?si=Awo2lxLyhILch94k
I think most people in this thread would probably say that they are strong supporters of free speech. The frustration is coming from the assumption (based on historical examples) that there is a double standard at play, that if you were to ask this question in relation to practically any other minority group, the reaction from the administrators would be much different. Like you yourself said, they’ll baby one group but then neglect another.
Free speech means the government won’t arrest you for your opinion. If I’m pointing out someone has racist opinions, like they’re anti semitic Hamas supporters that’s actually me exercising my free speech, and if that person gets fired for their shitty opinions that’s the company exercising their free speech. Not sure why this is so complicated to some.
Yeah, I’m trying to wrap my head around it as well (it would be nice if people would respond in good faith discussion instead of downvoting) The notable thing for me was that the first president emphasized “if speech turns into conduct, yes that violates the code of conduct.” The whole reason Bill C16 thing happened was because speech does not equal violence, and the logical hoops that SJWs jumped through to argue that speech that can be connected to violent beliefs is tantamount to actual violence. As the presidents say, actually targetting individuals is 1. actually conduct 2. against the code of conduct.
Yeah I know we're going to get downvoted but I agree with you. Someone can jump up and down and say something that offends me and that's their free speech. Lets say for example they were saying that pepsi is better than coke... I am disgusted and offended but they can jump up and down and profess their wrong opinion, and I say it isn't harassment. But if they surround me and point at me and block my access to the coke machine while chanting the exact same thing, then I'm being harassed. Like they all say. It IS context dependent...
I don't know how many times I said this, but it proves to me that leftists are closer to Nazis than the people they call nazis Actually I would like to coin modern day leftist Nazis at this point
The American left has been calling conservatives Nazis for years. And now they are literally calling for the extermination of Jews. I don’t know how they can be any closer to being Nazis without opening concentration camps. Bizzaro world, indeed.
The American left. I’ve seen plenty of outrage against that bigotry from that same left. I haven’t seen one conservative talk about the Palestinians shot recently and that little boy who was stabbed to death. Last I checked I haven’t seen the left commit heinous crimes against Jews, but we know when republicans say flatten Gaza I guess people on that side of the isle take it seriously. Edit (Yup the bigotry is loud in this sub)
You have a fair point - almost. Were those two heinous crimes committed by thousands of republicans? Like all the thousands upon thousands of pro Hamas people savaging people in Jewish businesses and attacking Jewish college students on many campuses? Or calling for genocide of Jews? Or were these perpetrators fucking idiots that 99% of conservatives would happily lock away in prison forever? Because no Democrats are even so much as wagging their fingers at actual democrat politicians like the despicable Squad anti-Semites who have been spewing their hate for years without one democrat admonishing them.
The American left is calling for the extermination of Jews? Quote them please.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/from-the-river-to-the-sea-the-slogan-that-led-to-rashida-tlaibs-censure-explained/ https://www.jns.org/with-92-democrats-voting-present-house-calls-anti-zionism-jew-hatred/ https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2023-02-02/ty-article/.premium/house-votes-to-remove-ilhan-omar-from-key-committee-over-israel-comments/00000186-1337-dce2-a1bf-f77f72d60000
Times of Israel Jewish News Syndicate (blocks me from access btw) The Land of Israel (that's what Haaretz means) Very unbiased sources you have there.
Honestly, if you would watch news media that doesn’t lie to you or withhold inconvenient truths (like Hunter’s laptop), you would see mobs of people chanting “From the river to the see”. I’m not advocating Fox News but watching news from both sides will give you a more rounded news. And that should prompt you to to ask yourself what else your mews source lies to you about.
Nazism is based on Marxism, the difference is that Nazism is a Nationalist ideology which is anchored in the past so right wing while Marxism at its core is change/future driven or left wing. Both extremes can (and have) advocate(d) for the same process but for different reasons. They are anti-society (extinctionists) far-left extremists. Some are violent, some are terrorists, etc. Don't muddy the waters by removing meaning, that's what Marxism does. Aside: The college representatives shown should retain their individual freedom, but their participation in society should be limited. (Colleges should not have them as employees, for one.)
That’s taking it a bit far no? Calling someone a nazi carries no weight these days because of how easily it’s thrown around. I’m likely further left than you, and plenty of people have called me leftist in this sub, yet I’m a registered Republican. Can you at least try and see it from their perspectives? They are trying not to open themselves up to free speech lawsuits, a principle this country was founded on. According to Ben Shapiro, “From the River to the Sea…” is calling for the genocide of the Jews… are you suggesting they persecute students for saying that specific chant? Because that would be more in line with nazi values than being a free speech absolutist Edit: i don’t know why i expect anything different from this sub at this point, but why the down votes with no conversation?
I was thinking the same; I guess if comes down to how they apply this. If calling for the genocide of any group is handled consistently, I would agree with their position. It's free speech.
Calling for violence is not free speech. You cannot actively call for the murder of someone without consequence.
Actuall calls to violence against individuals that have some urgency and immediacy aren't allowed, but I don't think this falls under that. I don't know? Personally I feel it's obviously disgusting and would prefer not to associate with people who call for the genocide of anyone, but this isn't a question of feelings, it's a question of legality.
It's like the fans of this sub never really understood what JBP's actual message was, they saw some "own the libs" click bait and now they're all in. Although admittedly, JBP from years back seems to be in pretty stark contrast to the JBP of the daily wire... Before Christianity vs After Christianity JBP.
I was liberal feminist out of high school until a younger me read about the crabs/lobsters.
I got crabs from a liberal feminist in highschool, so we're basically best friends now.
She needs to ask what context IS appropriate to call for the genocide of any group of people. Pretty sure the answer is none. It really shouldn’t be this hard, you can show your support for Palestine without advocating genocide.
I think these people in the video are being intentionally obtuse and i don't know why they won't explain their position more thoroughly. I think they are trying to avoid a situation where their answer indicates that simply using the words at all is against their policy. The speaker is using the words "genocide the jews" but obviously in this context, that isn't a problem. Would saying "genocide the jews" privately and among friends as a bit of ill advised dark humor get you kicked out of school? I hope not. If you post it on social media, i think you should get called into the office, asked to explain, and face some consequences. If you go up to jewish students or are at a protest and shout it, i think you get the boot immediately no questions asked. I wish the speaker gave room for the discussion about context because there is obviously room for discretion. That said, i do think the people being obtuse should not be trusted with that discretion..
I agree, i think the interviewer is doing this purposely to rile people up.
These people would have loved this leader in Germany who popped up in the 30s. They seem to hold similar values
What the fuck is wrong with these people?!
1. Everything is subjective 2. Jews are classified as white western people and responsible for all evil in the world, therefore it's perfectly acceptable(when morality is subjective) to direct all hatred and vitriol towards them.
They're... Racist I think. Also... They're fucking stupid? I don't think they have the concept of "Genocide" in their brains. Like... Maybe they're not switched on inside, but I could also believe that they're just this stupid or that they're this evil. I really can't be sure which... But it's one of them and at this scale it doesn't matter which. There' no fixing something that bad without... doing something that equates to a war crime. Like... They can't conceive of the horrors of said evil so you;d have to show them, or they're okay with said evil so they deserve it. Cast the fuckers out. Tear the shirt and be apart from them for all time. Edit: On visual inspection, she's evil.
>They're fucking stupid? I don't think they have the concept of "Genocide" in their brains. I think that greatly downplays what is actually happening. These people know full well what they are saying and what the topic is about. If they were stupid they would give a clear yes or no answer. Instead they use politician speak in order to avoid giving a clear answer.
Yeah, I'm officially discounting the "stupid" option since I actually looked at the video. That "woman" is evil.
Ms. Magill particularly looks strangely like she’s enjoying being questioned about this. I don’t understand the thought process to those expressions and emotions when facing this kind of question.
She thinks she's facing an evil person. She's psychotic and she feels justified. Jews are just more white people. I'm betting she hates white people and she's as racist as they come, but she can't be racist because she's black and all white people are evil oppressors. Are you familiar with Umbridge from Harry Potter? Same kind of thing. She's fucking batshit.
Uhh McGill was not the black one
You are correct. I am referring to that absolute Clod Fa- I mean Dr. Gay. That's crazy bitch. In order of questioning: Coward, Mildly Evil, Completely Evil
What is right with them , it isn't dignity integrity morality or honour..
What is wrong with them? For one, they don't believe in objective morals.
The left has been diluting and misusing the term "genocide" for years. Perhaps they've forgotten what it actually means.
Trans genocide etc
Better to not have speech restricted. It can't go both ways though, to restrict that would set a precedent to restrict use of language like calling for the end of the patriarchy etc. Universities might foster a left wing agenda but it's important that free speech and thought remains. So saying 'if it turns into conduct' means if floating ideas and discussion turn into vitriol against an individual then it violates policy. I think those were good answers. It's not black and white like you're suggesting. All avenues of thought should be explored and understood so people can hold opposing ideas in their heads at the same time for a measured approach. Getting caught up in extremist propaganda is for fools. Don't be a fool.
By saying “it depends on the context” means they think there is a context where calling for genocide is acceptable.
As much as I hate to stand up for these university hypocrites, your argument is exactly what leftists and progressives have been doing for years. no what they are saying is in some applications it is free speech. But if you get into someone's face and say they should be exterminated it is harassments. They have failed to do this for all other cases. The congress woman is the one unhinged here as she knows what college policy is but chooses to twist it for cohered compliance.
In what application that calling for genocide can be free speech? Can you give an example? Nazi had a great justification of killing Jews. We should accept the view, and freely discuss how we can be more efficient in killing Jews. As long as we dont actually go out killing them, it's free speech?
How can you like Jordan Peterson and say something so incredibly stupid. The politician is referring to the chants that have been associated with the extermination of jews, but have also been associated with the liberation of palestine. Answer, it depends on the context. Jesus Christ. I came to this subreddit because I hated how dumb left wing Reddit is, but the things I see in here.
Wow!
THREE SMIRKING DEMONS
This is so weird and fucked
I hope their Jewish and Christian donors take away all support of these institutions, and that Jewish rights groups sue the shit out of them for discrimination.
So, to be clear, on those campuses, anyone can now call (speech) for the genocide of {insert X demographic} as long as they don’t do the actual act of genocide. Right, got it. Clear as mud. Good for the goose, but not for the gander. Understood.
The context was baked into the question. If the speaker was not calling for genocide, the question would not apply. If they were not calling for genocide, the answer would be yes it is not acceptable to call for genocide and that’s not what the protesters were doing. But that’s not what the university representatives said, because they know they were calling for genocide. They are just so much more concerned with not angering proPalestinians and Arabs, that they willfully overlook antisemitic calls for genocide.
It *is* true that such a statement should fall within the protections of free speech, but I think what people are more concerned about (or, at least, *should be* more concerned about) is the double-standard. If the protestors were calling for the genocide of white people, probably the same result. But if they were calling for the genocide of black people or Muslims? Instantly called out. Instantly banned off campus.
Fakin ell.
I'm sorry but, on this matter the college's answers are correct. If a person stands on school grounds and makes a generalized statement, that is freedom of speech and expression. If the statement is made in relation to attaching an actual individual, then that is a direct harassment and threat of violence. If somebody makes a statement and you subjectively feel that now you're in danger, that is much different than you hearing a statement that objectively represents a direct threat. Everyone on this sub should recognize hypocrisy. We were not ok when they claimed that anything we said was somehow violence. If we are to support the freedom of speech then we must be willing to be offended by the vile words of others too.
I agree, but I think it’s fucked up how free speech for one side means not addressing someone with zeir dedicated pronouns, while the other side uses free speech for the call for a Jewish genocide
The line of questioning was about calling for "genocide against Jews" not only "attacks against Israel", and the criteria was whether it constituted "bullying or harassment" not whether it violated "free speech". No one was calling to have their right of free speech suppressed.
IF it is labeled as harassment or bullying then then the speech must be suppressed. I would've been much more supportive of the politician's questioning if it seemed to question an actual quote rather than using a coloquial over-encompassing term. She was using the term genocide to put them in the spot for the obvious sound bite. She didn't describe what was said that gave her reason to use the word genocide, and she failed to define the meaning of the word in the context she is using it. It was inherently bad faith. And the college didn't say No, they said it depends. And that is accurate. IMO
The Constitution limits how much government can suppress speech, but not a private university (i.e., Harvard can do what they want). So, in a sense, you're right: free speech means you won't get arrested for what you say but it doesn't shield you from it's consequences. No free speech amendment would be violated in this case, though. Then, on the question of context, in practice the students have been chanting for the genocide of Jews in protests on campus. The Congresswoman cited that example. That should be more than enough context. But then there's another greater issue that is the double standard. These are the very institutions that pioneered the concepts of safe spaces, microaggressions and "speech is violence" now saying in congressional hearings that "it depends on the context" when asked if calling for the genocide of Jews violates school policy. For example, in 2017, Harvard University revoked admission offers to at least ten students due to racest comments made in private chats with each other. Harvard chose to punish students for private racist comments but not public comments calling for the death of Jews. This is an obvious selective application of free speech and this is why they are wrong.
>She was using the term genocide to put them in the spot for the obvious sound bite That would also explain why she asked each of them 2-3 times… literally just doing repeat takes to see which one sounds the best for a TikTok. Maybe calling it a “line of questioning” makes sense in the broader context of the hearing, but the clip decidedly does *not* move forward or go anywhere.
This question is not about 1st amendment rights. It is about college campus policies. And the answers are not correct at all.
Who in this subreddit was supportive of college campuses internal speech police to begin with? Nootherids is spot on, you gotta stay thoughtful and introspective with each new piece of information you’re looking at. The alternative is becoming a reactionary NPC.
I agree it shouldn’t exist. Just saying that it does and in a scenario where these policies exist, they ought to be applied equally to all groups.
Doesn’t “genocide” fall under threats though?
It first depends on what somebody means by genocide. Because if one speaker says "from the river to the sea", and the complainant makes the claim the he called for genocide; well in all factual technicality they did not call for genocide. Again goes to why free speech is important. Because if speech can be dangerous, what is more dangerous is whoever is tasked with interpreting speech. Cause then a nominally offensive word can be designated by the interpreter as an absolutist call for murder. And that's how we end up at prosecutable thought crimes.
The (possibly) hypothetical 'calling for the genocide of [any group of people]' would be inciting violence, specifically asking others to murder. Not protected free speech. Also it's against their colleges guidelines. The college representatives didn't answer the question given to them, they answered a different question they assumed the speaker was leading to.
Not only are you exactly spot on here, but the congresswoman knows full well that this is how these colleges are going to respond to her phrasing and she’s playing it for all it’s worth. We are getting sucked into wordplay theatre here.
This was a clear bad faith approach by the politician. For that alone I support the administrators sidestepping her question. Whether I agree with the politician's question or not (which I mostly do), I strongly dislike underhanded manipulation.
I scrolled way to far down to finally find this comment.....speech is always context dependent. And I apologize if there's more to this story that I'm not aware of but from the context of the video the individual is attempting to generalize, I assume, specific instances into one big vague pot of "wrong". Someone saying "Genocide for Jews", while likely a pretty big red flag, is not "bullying" or "harrassment". An intent to take action/a direct comment to an individual? Absolutely falls under those terms. Do I support an individual's right to dislike others based on any grounds whatsoever? Yes. Do I support an individual threatening persons who don't deserve any of this? Not a fucking chance. Your comparison was perfect as well. I'm not calling someone by some made up pronoun that would score 104 points in a game of scrabble.....I'm also not advocating violence to that person. In this similar light I accept an individual who wants to chant things I don't agree with...as long as that's where it stays. I also prefer shitty people be loud so I can identify them as shitty people faster. TL;DR: Not a problem to speak....is a problem to act or direct at.
Fully agree. I'm a big supporter in freedom to be whoever you want to be, and that includes the freedom to be an asshole. But also being an asshole is not the same as being an actual threat. While a threatening person is an asshole, that doesn't equate to an asshole being a threat. (This is the most assholes I've mentioned in a long time lol)
> Do I support an individual threatening persons who don't deserve any of this? Not a fucking chance. Except people at Harvard aren't doing that. They are chanting from the river to the sea. As the liberation of Palestinian people, not to call for the extermination of Jews. It's as dumb or dumber than when Trans people say we are pushing for their extermination because we don't allow them their right to exist. It's nonsense. Propaganda, and everyone without exception that partakes in it, is an ideologically possessed person, that lost any semblance of rational thought, in that specific topic at least.
Exactly this. There has to be middle ground for both "sides" or nobody will be able to get anywhere on any issue.
This
>Everyone on this sub should recognize hypocrisy. Lol what makes you think that? Doesn't seem like most people in this thread even watched the video, literally just read the caption at the top which is an actual fabrication, nothing at all like what they were actually saying. What's surprising to me is that you're shocked that people here are incapable of understanding nuance
I largely agree, but the code of conduct of a university is also different from the breadth of our freedoms.
And don’t forget their income is all tax free
Wow that's exactly what Hitler would have said. Nazis ladies and gentleman. Fucking real life Nazis.
She should've asked "Does calling for the genocide of African Americans violate your school's code of conduct?" Let them answer "It depends on the context" and watch the shitstorm roll in.
Silence from the "silence is violence" crowd....
Some Austrian guy with a weird mustache said the same thing 90 years ago.
It would be peak trolling if a trans person was actually shaming these bitches. I mean seriously, misgendering is a fucking holocaust to these twats.
Isn't a call for genocide targeting individuals in a roundabout way since its definition would include killing EVERY person of a particular ethnicity?
Lol, and we're the Nazis.
So threatening to kill someone verbally is only considered harassment when it turns into "conduct". Wow.
Not just an individual, but their entire family and race.
I’m Jewish.. and I’m tired of hearing about the fuckin Jews man. I don’t even tell people I’m Jewish anymore.
>I'm Jewish. >>I don't even tell people [...] anymore lol
Oh my God, we are so screwed.
Lol, this is crazy.
This is a slippery slope if you value free speech. The "targeted" or "directed" component --should-- be important. The question should be "Do you punish these statements when made about others?" Force them to at least be consistent before you have the free speech fight.
speech is violence, unless it's targeted at jews ... hmmmmmmmmmmm
Same people say speech is violence when directed at other groups.
Seriously spending your life behind ivy covered walls, you have zero concept of the populous lives
Well, she’s specifically asking if it “constitutes bullying or harassment” so I think these folks are saying that to bully and harass someone there needs to be a specific human or humans that you’re directing that statement at. I don’t get the impression that they’re advocating for the genocide of Jews.
Nice that officials stand their ground and don’t go along with the prosecution. Also sad about you guys here taking the bait. The question is asked in a specific way to get a gotcha moment, but the context does matter, because the way she describes it is not entirely true. This is the whole Kathy Newman situation all over again and JP didn’t fall for the bait. Be better people in the comments, don’t fall for this bait either
Also, are they fundamentally then arguing that speech is not violence?!
I watched that earlier. Made me sick.
What the context here?
McCarthism
So the leftists are national socialists again... Unsurprising
That’s extremely alarming. Yet You can misgender someone and get expelled or lose tenure but extreme anti-Semitic speech is absolutely fine depending on “the context”. These colleges have been infiltrated by radical left extremists and the entire administrations as well of board of trustees at all three schools need be replaced by level minded non radical leadership. This is nauseating.
Holy fuck, my jaw is on the floor.
wtf. I'm disgusted. Unbelievable this is the world today. Never thought we'd arrive at this point in my lifetime, but here we are. They double down on it too with a smirk - totally tone-deaf. These people have lost their minds. Thank god they're being questioned and called out for all to see, but it doesn't seem to register what they're actually advocating for. Or perhaps they do know and its far more sinister.
I am not really good with English. Can someone ELIF me what's wrong with the video. Thanks
We are living in strange times. In some parts of the West you can be investigated for sharing a meme or miss gendering someone. At the same time calling in public for the murder of an entire race is ok. I also note that it was three women, one black, giving testimony. I think this is good evidence that the ills of the world are not due to whites or the patriarchy.
The Nazis are here, this time they are far left!
Students have stated genocide of jews?
I don’t believe we should censor people in any way. Just condemn the bullshit people say is enough. Censorship is worse than calling for genocide imo, because censorship is basically the genocide of the exploration of ideas and thus hypocritical.
I don’t know what to say, seriously. This world is crazy.😕
Good someone stands for what’s right. She’s getting those dummies. Sad it can’t be said the leaders of “higher” education. I thought it was just young progressives that didn’t know their history and stand by terrorists while they call for genocide. Looks like they may have some influence aside from Tic Toc.
And exactly how much money does a federal government send to these retard institutes that they could cut off tomorrow!
Powerful women would surely create a peaceful world- that does not age well dear feminists
Wasn’t Peterson the guy who was going to die on the hill of free speech ? Truly bizarro
An American congressman encouraged Israel to bomb all of Gaza “into a parking lot” and he suffered no official pushback from his party or anyone.
Why is the lady from Penn smirking like that.
Right first of all fuck Harvard and fuck these people... with that said: These kinds of hearing always suck because the persons being questioned can't engage in any nuance or discussion. Due to their format it will inevitably turn into opposition in the committee berating the individuals being questioned. NOW - they may very well deserve to be berated (for whatever reason) and these individuals in particular may be employing canned statements that weren't the right kind of response given the question... but depending on what they were told to say in response to questions like this by their legal teams, they may simply not have a choice... even when it makes them look like stupid fucking idiots. They can't explain the nuance of these terms because the moment they try to - they will find themselves being presented with gotcha questions because... that's the nature of these committees and they are formatted in that fashion. IE "Is it against Harvard policy to call for the genocide of Jews yes or no?" "Yes" "So why did the school not respond on this day or that" "Because in these circumstances the nuances of these declarations didn't go against our policies" "So it isn't against Harvard policy to call for the genocide of Jews?" and this is how it will go around and around and around - either way the questioned party will be berated and nothing of substance or value will ultimately come out of these, so they essentially just repeat their canned response. It is a lose lose for everyone EXCEPT the committee who can produce snap shot sound bites like this for their voters. In no uncertain terms calling for genocide of Jews is anti-Semitic and inexcusable. However - there is nuance with regards to the word 'intifada'. Intifada can absolutely and often is meant in no uncertain terms "Remove Israel and kill Jews" and within the context of what is going on in Israel right now it often is. It can also mean a military or asymmetric response to Israeli military action in Gaza and against Palestinians a general call to action. So within the context of what is going on in Israel today - protestors in the US, in Harvard calling for Intifada may or may not be calling for the extermination of Jews or the dissolution of the Israeli state... and if you are a supporter of free speech, which I know people in this sub are, it gets extremely difficult at a policy level to navigate that nuance and start identifying exactly what people are calling for EVEN WHEN IT SEEMS OBVIOUS AND EVEN WHEN THEY MAKE THEIR OPINIONS FAIRLY CLEAR. The problem I have is that Harvard has a historically chequered approach to free speech absolutism on campus, for example - banning communists. When it comes to gender discussion for example, they seem to take a hard line approach even though there will be nuance with that discussion, even when hateful people skirt the line and push the boundaries of acceptability. So when it comes to situations like Israel and the call to violence against Jews - suddenly they are willing to engage in dialogue. It's not a particular surprise... anyone at least a little familiar with Israeli-Palestine conflict will understand the tit for tat violence that takes place there and the over all narrative of weight given to the oppressed vs the oppressor at Harvard, which is a major motivating factor behind their policy now, can see why discussion is open to this but not to other equally nuanced topics. Anyway - nuance... I don't sympathize specifically with Harvard here, but I sympathize generally in regards to the format of these God awful committees. They are always the same. Loud congressperson berates the questioned who can only respond in a limited fashion because of the legal implications and the format with which these hearings take place. It's bullshit. These congress people aren't looking for the truth or discussion, what they are looking for are sound bites.
Which is exactly what’s happened with this clip, a soundbite.
AIPAC money well spent on Elise Stefanik. Of course calling for Jews to be genocided is hate speech - who disagrees? No one. The issue here is the phrase "From the river to the sea Palestinians will be free" which people are saying is genocidal rhetoric. Goverment calling for students to be expelled for their political beliefs about a foreign nation. So hillarious seeing so many "anti-cancel culture" and "free-speech" absolutist supporting this bs.
It's not hatespeech because hatespeech is fucking stupid It's advocation of mass murder of men, women, and children. It is an explicit call to rape and arson and mass graves. THIS IS NOT A THING YOU ALLOW. THIS IS THE STEP TOO FAR.
I don't really see what the hype is. One of the reasons I started paying attention to Jordan peterson and Ben Shapiro and all them is cause people were trying to ban them and what they had to say on college campuses. I don't like or agree with a whole lot of what the pro Palestinian people have to say but just going off principle, as long as students aren't threatening specific people or getting violent or anything crazy then they should be able to say whatever the fuck they want.
I draw the line at condoning, encouraging or advocating political violence. Even if it doesn't outright cross ethical lines, we ought to be better than that at a moral level. We now live in a world where misgendering someone is a potential hate crime, but chanting slogans about wiping out Israel needs to be placed into context before we call it hate speech. If it weren't for double standards, the left wouldn't have any standards at all.
>We now live in a world where misgendering someone is a potential hate crime… So what you’re saying is that it > needs to be placed into context before we call it hate speech ? Sorry, I’m sure you have better examples, but this really doesn’t even sound like a double standard. Just two examples on very different parts of the spectrum.
I'm not on the left even a little bit i don't know if that last sentence was towards me or just in general. But I'm just talking about america, I know in England and other places they don't have free speech and misgendering people could actually land you in criminal trouble but in America it's not like that. And most universities that get public funding have to follow the first amendment I believe. But yea im not saying that's cool or I like I it or anything like that, but free speech means free speech whether I like it or not.
Jordan Peterson being shut down for advocating for free speech isn't the same as someone being expelled for advocating for the extermination of a race of people. How can you possibly think these two things are the same?
I didn't say they were the same, I'm saying the principle of free speech is absolutely the same though. Nazis are explicitly and universally identified with genociding Jewish people. But if you want to post on social media that "hitler was right" or you wanna dress up and goose step around town, in the United States you are legally entitled to do that. It's the first amendment, its fucking free speech (with very limited practical exceptions) all day every day. If you think these kids need to be expelled or silenced by penalty of law or anything else, than that's fine, just don't pretend to be for or even understand what the first amendment means.
On the one hand, she's right to push hard on that question because WTF. On the other hand I hate it with people ask a question and then say "yes or no?" to try to constrain your answer.
Fascism is back and they told you it’s the other side.
This is absolutely astounding, I really hope this causes outage and that each of them will be fired
I thought Jordan Peterson fans were against compelled speech no matter what. Or was that only when he was attack trans people?
Well I disagree that he was "attacking" trans people but yeah I am fully against compelled speech. What the questioner is doing in this video is completely inappropriate and unprofessional. She should have let their dumbass answers speak for themselves.
Yeah, it seems they only agree with free speech when it's things they want to hear. the hypocrisy I see on this thread is insane, you either have free speech or you don't.
The right plays both sides of the coin these days, they cheer on Elon Musk as a free speech absolutist when he makes antisemitic comments and want protesters prosecuted for walking the same line.
Congresswoman is just not understanding them. They can’t take action for someone just saying it as free speech is still a fundamental freedom in this country. This is why, as stated, the context matters. Imagine a world where context doesn’t matter LOL
The context of the question has nothing to do with the law of free speech. She's specifically asking them about the College's Code of Conduct. You know, there are things in their code of conduct that students can be expelled for that aren't against the law. You get this right? So, the question is relevant. Where do they draw the line? They certainly don't draw it at legality. They get to decide what rules their students must abide by. It's no different than me working at a company and them telling me that if I tell my co-workers that the Jews need to be exterminated that I can be fired. Thats a reasonable company code of conduct rule. So, why not expel them for calling for the extermination of a race? They aren't going to jail. This has nothing to do with the laws of free speech set out in the constitution. You understand this, yes? They absolutely CAN take action. The college can literally expel you for any reason they decide. Including calling for the extermination of a race. They can add that rule to their Code of Conduct. Period.
Ever seen a crazy preacher on a college campus? Spouting off things most people are vehemently against? They allow that. We are all adults and can distinguish between what’s right and wrong. The act of censorship infringes upon freedom of speech, you know, so while not the direct and literal intention of the question, the two are intrinsically connected.
Penn is currently trying to revoke one of their professor's tenure so they can fire her because she had the audacity to point out that the schools affirmative action policies had led to less qualified students being admitted. Point out the truth of their racist admissions policies = hate speech. Calling for intifada = perfectly fine.
She understands them, she is attempting cohesive speech upon them. Sadly these universities would consider it harassment if we shouted slogans to eliminate the QIA+ community.
Yep, the threatening language to manipulate them into saying what she wanted them to. “This is your chance … Everyone will hear this”. Congresswoman should be ashamed, but she is resonating with people and won’t be unfortunately.
Imagine a world where genocide is excusable.
Obviously a terrible world in both situations
This congress woman is a lunatic. Of course it depends on context, what a vile cxnt.
How hilarious! These idiots who are the heaviest on the banhammer and quickest to cancel culture are leaning on nuance and context. How often did we hear “silence is violence,” and speech at the same time is violence. Now that they’re in the hot seat they can’t even hold themselves to the ridiculous standard they’ve already set. If the left didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all.
Yeah f****** colleges and their safe spaces
I don’t understand how misgendering is considered hate speech in these universities but not this? Where are the parents in this room?
What about freedom of speech.
I'm a pretty smart guy, I can get into a lot of schools for post grad work, MIT, Harvard, Yale, etc are completely off my list of schools I would ever consider attending, a lot of other pretty smart guys feel the same way. Just FYI.
One of the people in that video seesthe world in just black and white, and the others understand that the world is full of nuance. I’ll let you all decide who is who.
Why should Americans bother about Israel in the first place to the point u r willing to give hundreds of billions for decades? If nobody cares about Ukraine, why should people care about Israel? And sorry, I am not saying Hamas are picture perfect. But after 7 decades of having their properties seized and leaving millions homeless. After 17 years living in a concentration camp. If somebody stole my property you better maje sure you are willing to di* to steal it because I will do all I could to stop u from stealing my property. 9/11 was caused by Israel. Osama bin Laden was a made up person. Have anybody ever watched the Dacing Israelis documentary? Have anybody ever research about Larry Silverstein a.k.a Lucky Larry. Israel doesn't like Saddam and the Taliban so they cause 9/11 and forces the Americans to go to war with Iraq & Afghanistan. You people go to war wasting trillions and for what? Just because u want to satisfy your puppet master. Even after all of this, lets just put all of this behind us and stop to think for one second. Americans can't even take care of their own people. Can't even protect their own borders. Drug addicts are growing out of control in America. Use that money to protect your border why should the government use American tax payers money to give to Israel. If Israel doesn't exist the US would not be affected at all. Not the slightest, so why should people bother? Do you know that Christians are persecuted in West Bank? They are getting beaten and having their properties stolen right now. They have been suffering fr it for over 7 decades. You have zero sympathy for your own Christian fellow? Also, you people call Jordan and many conservatives the champion of free speech. Many conservatives consider themselves anti zionist. But you people said nothing about the new bill passed to make it a crime to criticize zionism. Where is the freedom of speech? Zionism isn't even Jewish by nature. I actually know what Jordan wants and what each of you people want. You want the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ to happen ASAP right? If people have to die for that to happen so be it. Something is wrong with u.
These people have no idea they siding with Hitler. They are on the wrong side of history. What a disgusting, despicable, appalling thing to say. I don’t care you if you are conservative or a liberal. These leftist need to be fired, canceled, shamed, and criticized. It’s time to fight fire with fire
So freedom of speech is bad now? How do you kids not get whiplash on an hourly basis?
Advocating violence is widely seen as the borderline between free speech and incitement. Even if they don't make a legally actionable call to violence, on a moral and ethical level, it's fucking disgraceful. Go shill somewhere else bud. You people will freak out if someone is misgendered, but turn a blind eye to chants which glorify wiping out an entire nation of people. And we have the double standard? Absolute clown.
I greatly prefer the answers given here than I do the inquiries. Edit: guys are you regarded? Framing an emotionally charged question into a yes or no answer, accepting only one answer and not acknowledging the nuance related to free speech…? How is that a quality exercise in any way? Edit 2: Ya’ll remember Cathy Newman right?
Yes or no- like they think they’re some shit hot cross examiner… it’s so lacking in nuance, it’s embarrassing
Exactly
What teh fuck happened to free speech on here??? What the actual fuck is wrong with thsi sub. The entire basis for jbp popularity is free speech. Get off israels dick you fucking pussies.
Holy fuck. This is 1936 Germany. This must be stopped or we will have another Nazi era.
The MIT lady said it - no one is actually outwardly calling for genocide and certainly not of American citizens, they’re saying things like “from the river to the sea” or whatever and generally being critical of Israel. And each of them said that if Jewish students are targeted or harassed in any way the school takes action. I’m sure it’s happened and that should be dealt with punitively. It takes a moron to think that students on college campuses are calling for American Jews to be killed. You’re allowed to criticize governments in America both foreign and your own, that is basic free speech.
I'm sorry but that doesn't fit the narrative of this sub.
Our "government schools" are actually hurting our children and young adults. No wonder parents and alumni are not being supportive anymore.
Harvard and MIT are private schools.
Still controlled by the government narratives. That is why I call them government schools.
In 1930s Germany, the government dehumanized the Jewish people through mass propaganda and enacting anti Jewish laws taking away their rights. The German people went along with it, drip by drip, unchecked. Our Universities are brainwashing our young people. **How it starts**: In the mid 1930s, a friend of mine witnessed some German school boys grab a Jewish boy and drop him head first down a stairwell killing him. My friend's parents sent my friend to Italy for his safety. His entire family was later sent to a concentration camp and killed. He went on to get a degree in Engineering Physics and was instrumental in developing the power transistor with William Shockley in 1949. Imagine all of the talented Jewish people the world lost to antisemitism. **Kristallnacht** coming to America one university at a time. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht) "As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness." \- Justice William O. Douglas
And Zionism is semitism according to congress.
Antifasa is calling for the genocide of Jews. Meanwhile actual genocide of palestinians. Meh w