Antisemitism

[Fenris]

Our most prestigious colleges led by unthinkably incompetent overseers allowing for the calls to Jewish  genocide on campuses in the name of free speech?

I don't think the university presidents are incompetent. The opposite, they know good and well what they're doing. (Former) UPenn President Magill was smirking the whole time during her questioning in front of Congress.

[Athanasius]

"We must allow free speech, even if it's despicable unless it becomes act". I could buy that if they actually universally meant it, but they don't, and when it comes to things like intifada, there is no speech/act distinction.

[Fenris]

"We must allow free speech, even if it's despicable unless it becomes act".

Thought experiment: Would these universities allow "free speech" if it called for the genocide of any other minority?

And it's not free speech if it's harassment, which is a crime.

[RabbiKnife]

Time for Purim, the original version.

[Sojourner]

"We must allow free speech, even if it's despicable unless it becomes act". I could buy that if they actually universally meant it, but they don't, and when it comes to things like intifada, there is no speech/act distinction.

I agree. Also a growing number of speakers shouted down by university students probably find free speech on campus to be selective.

[Athanasius]

"We must allow free speech, even if it's despicable unless it becomes act".

Thought experiment: Would these universities allow "free speech" if it called for the genocide of any other minority?

And it's not free speech if it's harassment, which is a crime.

Exactly

[DavidGYoung]

On the topic of whether a university would regard calling for the genocide of a minority as free speech, I wouldn't be surprised if the university had a selection box of definitions of genocide.

There is, for example, genocide in the sense of wiping out a whole group of people. There is also the act of saying something which members of a group don't like and, as a result, feel unhappy about. Feeling unhappy equals being in danger of mental-health-related ill health, which leads to suicidal thoughts, ergo someone is trying to kill this group, ergo it is genocide.

[RabbiKnife]

To many ergos for me

I believe the marketplace is sufficient to police speech

I do not believe that speech should be regulated in any way except by the speakers and the listeners

But then, if you bother me too much, you risk a bullet in the head, so there is that

As with any speech, the first key is “know your audience”

[Fenris]

There is, for example, genocide in the sense of wiping out a whole group of people.

Which what we're talking about here.

On the topic of whether a university would regard calling for the genocide of a minority as free speech

It seems just yesterday (actually it was prior to 10/7/2023) "misgendering" someone was considered "hate speech" and students who committed this terrible crime faced disciplinary measures. No universities were protecting this under the guise of "free speech". Yet today one can call for the violent elimination of a nation state and harass students who ascribe to a certain religious belief over it, and it's "well colleges need to be a bastion of free speech".

FYI multiple colleges are being sued under Title VI over this, including Harvard, Columbia, MIT, and UPenn.

[Fenris]

I believe the marketplace is sufficient to police speech

I do not believe that speech should be regulated in any way except by the speakers and the listeners

When the act occurs on a college campus that receives federal funds, Title VI says otherwise.

A Jewish student at Columbia complained to the administration that she felt unsafe as protesters were following her around on campus. (Under NYS Penal law, this is aggravated harassment, an "A misdemeanor".) The administration refused to do anything about it, telling her "You're the only person who feels unsafe".

Are we cool with this? Because I'm not.

[RabbiKnife]

As long as she can put a .45 in their face and make them uncomfortable, I’m good with it

😳

[Fenris]

As long as she can put a .45 in their face and make them uncomfortable, I’m good with it

She can't, and she shouldn't have to.

She can't, because that's called "menacing", which is also an "A misdemeanor". The answer to a crime is not another crime.

And she shouldn't have to, because why are universities and the City of New York allowing this behavior to go on?

[tango]

I believe the marketplace is sufficient to police speech

I do not believe that speech should be regulated in any way except by the speakers and the listeners

When the act occurs on a college campus that receives federal funds, Title VI says otherwise.

A Jewish student at Columbia complained to the administration that she felt unsafe as protesters were following her around on campus. (Under NYS Penal law, this is aggravated harassment, an "A misdemeanor".) The administration refused to do anything about it, telling her "You're the only person who feels unsafe".

Are we cool with this? Because I'm not.

I wonder if a transgender student would be told that they were the only one who felt unsafe if they were deliberately misgendered. It seems unlikely. Because, you know, being called a man when you identify as female has got to be far worse than being told that people like you need to be wiped off the face of the earth.

[Sojourner]

It seems just yesterday (actually it was prior to 10/7/2023) "misgendering" someone was considered "hate speech" and students who committed this terrible crime faced disciplinary measures. No universities were protecting this under the guise of "free speech". Yet today one can call for the violent elimination of a nation state and harass students who ascribe to a certain religious belief over it, and it's "well colleges need to be a bastion of free speech".

While calling for the violent destruction of a nation and its people is never a good thing, when you "misgender" a person, you're going too far. (At least that seems to be the perspective these days).

I get that people are upset over the plight of the Palestinian civilians caught in the middle--even though great effort is being taken by Israel to minimize collateral damage. But people fail to understand that extreme measures are necessary in order to obliterate Hamas and avoid a repeat of the 10/7 attack. Perhaps if anti-Israel people had murderous next-door neighbors who denied their right to exist, they would get a clearer picture of the situation. (Especially if they fired shots at you using their family members as shields). 

[Oscar_Kipling]

While calling for the violent destruction of a nation and its people is never a good thing, when you "misgender" a person, you're going too far. (At least that seems to be the perspective these days).

I get your criticism, I guess, I mean Fenris claimed that a Jewish student claimed to be followed around by protesters at Columbia, and hey if it happened like that then i'd say protesters shouldn't be singling out any random student based on some aspect of their identity and following them around...it's not just a terrifying thing to do to someone, it also seems an ineffective way to protest to me. I mean you seem to be dismissive of the idea that misgendering is a terrible thing to do to someone, but you love the Jewish people so you've got your priorities straight? Some folks think that things like misgendering is a matter of life and death, perhaps you don't, but you seem to want to make the comparison so as to insinuate that it is hypocritical to care about this superfluous issue but not care about the life and death threats to the Jewish people. I think its a false dichotomy you are drawing, in multiple ways in addition to insinuating that there is some general species of folks who hate or are at least apathetic to Jews because they are too wrapped up in the foolishness of caring about the wellbeing of trans people. Maybe I'm wrong and you're trying to express an "also" and not an "instead" but that's what it looks like you're saying to me.

I get that people are upset over the plight of the Palestinian civilians caught in the middle--even though great effort is being taken by Israel to minimize collateral damage. But people fail to understand that extreme measures are necessary in order to obliterate Hamas and avoid a repeat of the 10/7 attack. Perhaps if anti-Israel people had murderous next-door neighbors who denied their right to exist, they would get a clearer picture of the situation. (Especially if they fired shots at you using their family members as shields).

Is that what's happening, people are failing to understand? I could just as easily say that what folks don't understand is that attempting to obliterate Hamas through extreme measures that incur even this  "minimized" amount of collateral damage in the form of lives and livelihoods has...I suppose, some non-zero chance of obliterating Hamas in the sense of destroying its leadership, infrastructure, weapons, institutional knowledge and foot soldiers, in the area, but it is just as likely to generate the disfigured, disgruntled disenfranchised generation that will ultimately replace them. I could say that folks don't understand that this is most likely a punt, Hell it might pin them down at the 1 yard line , but with plenty of time left on the clock. I Could say folks don't understand that criticizing Israel about policies and views that contributed to the sentiments and conditions that created opportunity for a lunatic ideology like Hamas to gain power and support and further radicalize and spread is not always antisemitism, sometimes it is an assertion that if there is not fundamental change in attitude and policy , this is simply going to happen again because killing unhappy people doesn't simply leave all the happy contented folks behind to then go on a be happy, but people just don't understand that.