Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Yankguy1]

To endorse free speech is not to endorse the content of whatever free speech happens.  One is free to counter or repudiate that content with your own free speech.

That's probably fine on an intellectual level and from "a marketplace of ideas" approach.  And it's a sentiment I generally agree with.

But then why do these schools have rules against bullying and harassment in the first place?   

[LarryB!]

I am sure she is role model for other women.

She's probably a role model for some women.
Not all women these days are "refined ladies".

Those refined women are very angry about losing control over their own bodies and there a lot of unrefined women angry about the same the same thing.

[luee]

Yes or no, words matter. Genocidal hate speech is unacceptable. The concept itself is unacceptable under any context. College presidents must know better. Just wondering why the rules against bullying or harassment were not enforced. Biden brought in minority dummies? Yes the exact phrase genocide is OK was never used but implied.

[Yankguy1]

What does Biden have to do with it?

[Hairy Lime]

Show us the quote where any of the college presidents said "genocide is okay."

The question

The question to the Harvard President:

Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard rules of bullying and harassment?" Stefanik ?

The answer


It can be, depending on the context.

The Harvard leader equivocated on a yes no question.
That is deception
A lie.
[/1uoye]Well, no, it is neither. You equivocation to hide something, or avoid admitting something, not to explain your answer. Ideally, an equivocation includes a private.redefinition of some sort. "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" was an equivocation because it involved a private definition of one of the phrases. The word that describes what you mean is evasion.

Anyway, that unctuous hypocrite asked an open ended question, not a yes or no question. The phrasing required response and explanation,  not choosing one or the other. And even it it had, it would not be a yes or no question because it could not be honestly answered with a yes or no. Tell me RedDick,  is it a crime to kill someone or not? If you are answering honestly a yes or no answer is wrong. (That was rhetorical. Feel free to not answer).

Anyway, it would only be a lie if it were not an accurate description of the Harvard student conduct politices. But since it is it isn't.

[Espnthree]

noun
noun: equivocation; plural noun: equivocations
1. the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

[luee]

That is what the board concluded. Penn prez resigned and other two under pressure. Just cannot accept calls for genocide.

[Hairy Lime]

To endorse free speech is not to endorse the content of whatever free speech happens.  One is free to counter or repudiate that content with your own free speech.

That's probably fine on an intellectual level and from "a marketplace of ideas" approach.  And it's a sentiment I generally agree with.

But then why do these schools have rules against bullying and harassment in the first place?

Well, that was the point the School Presidents were making. It is often situational. There are things you can say in a political way, but it is different when, say, screamed in someone's face. It is the targeting that often makes the offense. Calling to renew the Holocaust probably is always a violation, but demand for Palestinian statehood, even statehood over the entirety of the area, is a political position not necessarily different in kind than insisting on Jewish control over the area. But if expressed in a hostile way towards.a.person, it becomes the violation. Take a look at something less controversial. Russia out of Ukraine! would be acceptable political speech, but shouting it in the face of a Russian student is not.

[Hairy Lime]

noun
noun: equivocation; plural noun: equivocations
1. the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

You can quote the definition. But you do not understand it.

[Oi!]

To endorse free speech is not to endorse the content of whatever free speech happens.  One is free to counter or repudiate that content with your own free speech.

That's probably fine on an intellectual level and from "a marketplace of ideas" approach.  And it's a sentiment I generally agree with.

But then why do these schools have rules against bullying and harassment in the first place?

My best guess is that there, as in government laws, a bright line is defined.  At that line, free speech rights are outweighed by people's rights to not be harmed by others.  Concepts like incitement, harassment and bullying map out some of that bright line. 

[Espnthree]

noun
noun: equivocation; plural noun: equivocations
1. the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

You can quote the definition. But you do not understand it.

I do not need your  interpretation of what we all learned in grade school.

[Oi!]

Yes or no, words matter. Genocidal hate speech is unacceptable. The concept itself is unacceptable under any context. College presidents must know better. Just wondering why the rules against bullying or harassment were not enforced. Biden brought in minority dummies? Yes the exact phrase genocide is OK was never used but implied.

OK, I'll agree with most of that.  Rules against hate speech should be enforced.  The part about Biden I don't understand given he's not tasked with running private colleges.  Finally, I disagree that tolerating genocidal speech (however wrong that may be) implies approval of such speech.  There are many angry overheated blasts of rhetoric from small minorities of Americans which are allowed on 1st Amendment principles but that allowance in no way implies agreement. 

[Espnthree]

So President Gay remains President.
But in explaining why the Harvard brain trust , in the same statement, pointed out Gay, in an unrelated matter, plagiarized some of her research work.
She is actively correcting those entries.

Probably not a good time to measure for new curtains in the Presidential residence.

[Oi!]

That has been my understanding.

Marchers yelling Jews will not replace us is protected free speech.  Following Mordechai around campus saying HE won't replace them is harassment.  But yeah some cases are more fuzzy gray area.

[Oi!]

Mordechai was a favorite literature professor in college - I would have been happy for him to replace some crackers.  I am directing this anti cracker sentiment of course only at an amorphous many.