They came for the Ivy League Presidents, and I laughed at the SNL skit about it...

[Fergasun]

I want to break this discussion away from the Israel-Hamas context.  Becauae the more I think about it, the more I am troubled.  The more I look back in the rear-view mirror, the more I wonder "what did I just watch?"  For years, people have talked about Trump and "fascism".   Facism as defined by my Google-wikipedia lookup: a

Quote

far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition... (and some more)

Prior to the Congressional hearings on antisemitism, everyone who thought "UPenn, Harvard and MIT need a new President, raise your hand."  Barely anyone. I guess the UPenn President was under fire for giving Palestinians a voice.  

 

I used to think "we'll know whar facism looks like when we see it."  Nope.  The move to use a Congressional hearing, amplify 30 seconds of 5 hours of it to gain consensus that "Ivy leagues schools have antisemitism running wild..." looks like an insane demonstration of facism to me. And media outlets have just covered it in their "hey, we can't take sides... we'll just remain neutral on this..." reporting.  In fact, they ignored the other 5 hours of the hearing and were more focussed on the anitmated exciting exchange from Stefanik. 

 

It's not about Trump.  It's about a whole movement of authoritarianism that used the power of Congress to bully Ivy League presidents.  And the great irony is that it's done under the guise of "combating antisemitism".

 

Maybe I'm the crazy one here... and I am glad to see that Dr. Gay will stay.  But, did we not just witness a blatent example of "facism in practice"?  

[TheGreatBuzz]

I'm probably in the minority here but I really didn't give a **** about the whole thing.  In my opinion, if you want to view the whole campus thing as part of the bigger picture, there are other parts of that picture I'm more concerned about.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Insular campus lefties, who align themselves with radical Islam because they appreciate its potential to disrupt/destroy the modern, diverse capitalist society they abhor, absolutely deserve to taste some of the “cancel culture” they dish out so frequently.

 

If that means loudmouth losers like Stefanik catch a rare W, so be it.

[PleaseBlitz]

18 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

I guess the UPenn President was under fire for giving Palestinians a voice.  

UPenn President is under fire because she was asked if advocating for genocide was acceptable on campus and she couldn’t think of a better answer than “yes.”  

[Cooked Crack]

15 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I'm probably in the minority here but I really didn't give a **** about the whole thing.  In my opinion, if you want to view the whole campus thing as part of the bigger picture, there are other parts of that picture I'm more concerned about.

Same. The media focuses too much on the happenings of students on college campuses especially in elite schools. Instant tune out for me.

 

These presidents got to lawyerly with their words. Maybe they had some grand point on speech but a dumb scandal all around.

[Fergasun]

@TheGreatBuzz

@TradeTheBeal!

@PleaseBlitz

@Cooked Crack

 

You are all prooving my point, even better than I could expect.  This doesn't feel like the typical political noise to me... but at the same time I'll just calm down and keep observing. 

[Spaceman Spiff]

Disappointed that there was no link to an SNL skit in here.

[tshile]

Asking university presidents what they’re doing about violence and threats on their campus is not facism. 
 

as others have pointed out - giving awful answers exacerbated it all. 

The president of UPenn resigned because she was going to loser her job after the board started looking into the matter.  Which has nothing to do with facism or political ideology. 
 

It seems you can’t appreciate what is going on with the issue, so you’ve made up this “facist takeover” narrative to support where you stand on it. 

 

Edited December 12, 2023 by tshile

[Dan T.]

Does calling for the dissolution of Israel as a nation constitute advocating for the genocide of Jews?

 

Does chanting “From the river to the sea” constitute advocating for the genocide of Jews?

 

I suspect those questions were in the minds of the university professors as they tried to formulate an answer to Elise Stefanik.  
 

Regardless, they bungled their response. 

[tshile]

22 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Does calling for the dissolution of Israel as a nation constitute advocating for the genocide of Jews?

I find this interesting because at its core is a question of whether any group (specifically Jews in this case) have a right to have their own country. 
 

I would say that’s not a right. I would also say you can advocate for the dissolution of a country w/o it meaning genocide (or generally meaning any violence towards whatever group runs the state.) obviously most countries are dissolved via violence - so I would say it’s incumbent upon you to stipulate the non-violence part if that’s what you mean. 

[Fergasun]

Look at how dangerous the UPenn demonstrations were:

 

Yes.  The video does mention antisemitic graffiti, but this group was not damaging anythong. 

 

More dangerous college students below!

 

Here's the SNL skit.  

 

[tshile]

27 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Does calling for the dissolution of Israel as a nation constitute advocating for the genocide of Jews?

Guess it depends on which interpretation you go with?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea

 

originally it meant to remove non-native Jews (native jews would be allowed to stay)

 

Hamas has a charter that said it mean the “… removal or extermination…” of Jews. So that would be genocide. 
 

given the later, my suggestion would be not to use it, as it’s very possible you’ll be accused of supporting genocide. Seems like a dumb mistake to make. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

1 hour ago, Fergasun said:

 

 

 

 

You are all prooving my point, even better than I could expect.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

 

So on-the-nose, that it almost hurts.

[PleaseBlitz]

52 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Does calling for the dissolution of Israel as a nation constitute advocating for the genocide of Jews?

 

Does chanting “From the river to the sea” constitute advocating for the genocide of Jews?

 

I suspect those questions were in the minds of the university professors as they tried to formulate an answer to Elise Stefanik.  
 

Regardless, they bungled their response. 

 

I watched the UPenn President's response.  She was trying to say that speech, even really awful hateful speech, is protected by the 1st Amendment (which it is).  But what she actually said was a total botch. 

[Hersh]

I have zero sympathy for the Penn president and her attempt to clarify only made it worse. This was the most softball of softball questions. Yes, calling for the genocide of Jews is harassment and bullying. The worst part is when she said that it wasn't until it became conduct. I mean, wtf. 

 

 

[Destino]

40 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

 

Yes.  The video does mention antisemitic graffiti, but this group was not damaging anythong. 

You can’t just waive your hands and dismiss something like this. Not after years of safe spaces, microaggressions, and mandatory anti-racism training. You can’t ignore what Jewish students are saying after being told, forever, that it’s not our place to tell someone else what is and isn’t offensive. Our place is to listen and change. We’ve spent years seeing racist graffiti make headlines. We’ve heard that words are violence, that silence too is violence. Watched campuses launch investigations to make sure students feel safe in response to graffiti. It became so predictable that white supremacists successfully trolled colleges with posters reading “it’s ok to be white”, to which they also responded with investigations and screams of outrage. 
 

Thats the context. Thats the backdrop college leaders created for this latest drama. Yet in this moment, we’re supposed to believe college presidents view liberal interpretations of free speech as the priority?
 

They can’t just set down their own playbook when it becomes inconvenient and expect everyone else to play along. Of course this is being mocked. The jokes practically write themselves. 

 

[tshile]

@Destino to add - it’s also the group that’s championed nonsense such as

 

it’s what the person listening hears that matters, not what the person speaking means

 

if even 1 person is offended 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

"Our mascot is porn."  

[Llevron]

3 hours ago, Fergasun said:

Maybe I'm the crazy one here... and I am glad to see that Dr. Gay will stay.  But, did we not just witness a blatent example of "facism in practice"?  

 

I don't understand how this is an example of fascism and not people facing consequences for really ****ing up a question that - while nuanced for political reasons, shouldn't be that hard to answer. Especially for people in their position. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

4 hours ago, Fergasun said:

4 hours ago, Fergasun said:

I want to break this discussion away from the Israel-Hamas context.  Becauae the more I think about it, the more I am troubled.  The more I look back in the rear-view mirror, the more I wonder "what did I just watch?"  For years, people have talked about Trump and "fascism".   Facism as defined by my Google-wikipedia lookup: a

Prior to the Congressional hearings on antisemitism, everyone who thought "UPenn, Harvard and MIT need a new President, raise your hand."  Barely anyone. I guess the UPenn President was under fire for giving Palestinians a voice.  

 

I used to think "we'll know whar facism looks like when we see it."  Nope.  The move to use a Congressional hearing, amplify 30 seconds of 5 hours of it to gain consensus that "Ivy leagues schools have antisemitism running wild..." looks like an insane demonstration of facism to me. And media outlets have just covered it in their "hey, we can't take sides... we'll just remain neutral on this..." reporting.  In fact, they ignored the other 5 hours of the hearing and were more focussed on the anitmated exciting exchange from Stefanik. 

 

It's not about Trump.  It's about a whole movement of authoritarianism that used the power of Congress to bully Ivy League presidents.  And the great irony is that it's done under the guise of "combating antisemitism".

 

Maybe I'm the crazy one here... and I am glad to see that Dr. Gay will stay.  But, did we not just witness a blatent example of "facism in practice"?  

You are really tripping balls over this. 

Edited December 12, 2023 by CousinsCowgirl84

[PleaseBlitz]

41 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I don't understand how this is an example of fascism and not people facing consequences for really ****ing up a question that - while nuanced for political reasons, shouldn't be that hard to answer. Especially for people in their position. 

 

I think the worldview and the vernacular of educators and politicians are extraordinarily different.  I think if you asked 90% of politicians to speak at a higher education conference, they would also say something that disqualifies them from their job.  This episode happened to be in the political arena, so the educators died. 

 

Edit:  This is referring to run of the mill politicians.  Obviously if Gaetz or MTG somehow found themselves at a higher education conference, they would end up in jail. 

Edited December 12, 2023 by PleaseBlitz

[Llevron]

9 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I think the worldview and the vernacular of educators and politicians are extraordinarily different.  I think if you asked 90% of politicians to speak at a higher education conference, they would also say something that disqualifies them from their job.  This episode happened to be in the political arena, so the educators died. 

 

I say this to you guys often but I never really considered that until you wrote it. And it really explains well my biggest question.... which was how did they not see this question coming and have something better prepared than that in response? But they did see it coming and really honestly thought that would be a good answer. Crazy. 

[Fergasun]

I had another 4 point opus written and ready to send defending these Ivy League presidents.  And then I watched the exchange again. And I had a dumb thought experiment.  

 

When is "Calling for the genocide of the Jewish people acceptable...."?   All I could come up with is "when portraying an antisemitic antagonist in some type of dramatic performance".  

 

I have no idea why I looked at this hill and thought it was worth dying on.  Yes, I can understand what the Presidents were trying to do... maybe they were trying to anticipate 2 moves ahead (and I think they were focussed on "from the river to the sea...". ). But while trying to look out for the danger 20 feet ahead, they rhetorically impaled themselves on the danger right in front of their faces. 

 

Calling for the genocide of anyone should result in adverse consequences where-ever you are.  And it is not "context dependent".  Yes, it is likely a violation of HR, school, and anywhere with standards policy.  

 

Maybe something like this - getting pulled into Congress and unjustly McCarthy'd (not Kevin.... the anti-communist one) - is what facism looks like.  But it's not striking out on this question, when even the questioner is like "Just so I know what I am hearing, I will repeat it and re-ask the question.  You can change your answer at any time."  

 

I am not sure what brain issue I am having...  you all are correct.

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, Hersh said:

I have zero sympathy for the Penn president and her attempt to clarify only made it worse. This was the most softball of softball questions. Yes, calling for the genocide of Jews is harassment and bullying. The worst part is when she said that it wasn't until it became conduct. I mean, wtf. 

 

I'm pretty sure the UPENN President was never directly asked if calling for genocide of the Jews was harassment or bullying.

 

Here is what I believe is a full and accurate transcript.  Genocide is used 5 times.  None in relation questions to the Penn President.  And never really directly asked to the Harvard President where she's allowed to fully answer the question.

 

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/university-presidents-testify-before-house-on-anti-semitism-and-violent-protests-transcript

 

Most of Stefnik's comments were based on jumping from infatada to that's a call for genocide (which isn't normally how it has historically defined).  Those comments are put to Gay, and then she generally cuts Gay off before she can answer the question.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

7 hours ago, Fergasun said:

Here's the SNL skit.  

 

Thank God. Only reason I clicked on this thread…