1 Like
I thought the na$i swastika rotated counter-clockwise?
I know right? You canât really count Spinoza, Freud, Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, let alone Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, etc., etc., right?
Pete
5 Likes
What speech codes? There are no speech codes at these Universities. There are Codes of Conduct. There might be speech codes at other places.
The full answer is given at minute 33 in this video:
âThose who want us to shut down language are in effect arguing for speech code, but in practice speech codes do not work. Problematic speech should be countered with other speech and with education. And we are doing that. However, the right to free speech does not extend to harassments, discrimination, or incitement to violence.â
2 Likes
True. I should have referred to code of conduct, as such codes might be applied to speeches or demonstrations.
2 Likes
Yes it did. I donât know if the discrepancy is the result of art students building the set, or a realization that some people considered the early 40s version âfilthâ.
The face on the set is the Mad Magazine guy, with the haircut and mustache.
Not too far off of the set in the movie, considering it was a high school production.
The Jews barely wrote anything down other than the Old and New Testament and the Quoran. If we had more of a history of the group we might dispute him.
I could name thousands of more significant people that were not Jews:
Here are just a few non-Jews: George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Isaac Newton, Nicolaus Copernicus, Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, John Locke, Johannes Kepler, Johann Gutenberg, Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, Alexander Graham Bell, Napoleon Bonaparte, John F. Kennedy, Charles Darwin, Charles De Gaulle, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, James Watson and Francis Crick, Martin Luther King, Michael Faraday, etc.
The Jews were blamed for the outcome of WWI, the defeat of Germany the disastrous inflation that followed.
The Jews were blamed for the Marxist overthrow of the Russian empire.
The Jews were blamed for the Spanish influenza
Jews were blamed for the Bolshevik Revolution.
Jews were blamed for collapse of Czarist Russia.
In the wake of World War I Jews were blamed for the War.
âJews had started the war to bring Europe financially and politically into ruin and make Europe susceptible to Jewish âcontrol.â was a common myth in Europe and even the United States.
Jews were often blamed for the stock market crash in the United Stats for this same myth.
Another common myth that was common in Europe, âJews exploited the misery of the war to enrich themselves and prolonged it to lead the Bolshevik Revolution in furthering the aim of world revolution.â
A large outbreak of typhus in Poland during and after WW I was blamed one the Jews. Jews were seen as a vector of lice and typhoid.
European Jews were decimated by Crusaders in the first three Crusades, their properties and belongings were taken during the 2nd Crusade to afford the moving armies. In 1147 Jewish communities in the Middle East were massacred by Crusaders. Philip I of France decimated Jews with extreme, exceptional cruelty during the 3rd Crusades.
Jews defended Haifa against the crusaders in 1099. When the siege ended Crusaders breached the city and killed every Jew in the fortress.
The Jews were blamed for the bubonic plague. Jews in Spain were massacred and removed. Jews in Spain were dispossessed of their lands as a process to stop the contagion of the bubonic plague.
Jews there viewed with suspicion for centuries as there were recurrent bubonic plague pandemics.
The destruction of the Roman Empire was caused by Jews? The Romans were incredibly cruel to the Jews, the list of barbarity of the Jews by the Romans is too long to list here. And yes, the Romas saw the Jews and their culture as a threat to the Empire.
Napoleon? Was a rare turn in History for Jewish communities in France and Portugal toward equality. Napoleon was enlightened, and not impressed with the power of the Church.
As far as blaming the Jews for Chernobyl etc⌠The Jews gave us quantum mechanics, fission, and the first chain reaction. The Jews invented the Atomic Bomb and the Nuclear Bomb and gave us the peaceful uses of nuclear power. So Iâll let you run with that, maybe you can create a screed that might blame the Jews for Nuclear Power disasters.
6 Likes
The Jews Ended WW II and the invasion of Japan mainland which would have resulted in half a million American KIA, probably my father included. And what did the Palestinians do? Oh⌠yeah, they joined up with the NAZIs to kill Jews and Allied Soldiers.
4 Likes
Which makes Christianity an even smaller minor player.
2 Likes
That viewpoint is about two thousand years out of date. Prior to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Jewish people did rely mostly on an oral tradition. But with the destruction of a common central place of Jewish knowledge, that changed, and we began to write everything down.
So no, itâs not just the bible. Heck, just the Talmud alone is something like 73 volumes, when written in English:
âŚto say nothing of the countless rabbinic works over the centuries:
But, I mean, itâs not like Jews themselves are the only source of information about the role of Jews in history. Even if we had never written a thing down, itâs not like Jews arenât amply documented in the histories of the nations weâve lived in.
4 Likes
In effect, your answer is the same as the former president of UPenn. She said ââIf it is directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment.ââ
If it is not these adjectives, if it is not serious, then the words are not a violation of conduct.
The offending phrase, âCalling for the genocide of Xâ is the same whether in satire or sincere, in public or in private. The only way for an outside authority (like a university committee) to evaluate the intent and seriousness of the offending words is by looking at the context. Thatâs effectively what the presidents said.
You too albaby, would have been forced to resign from UPenn presidency.
1 Like
Thatâs not true. Directed, severe, and pervasive arenât the same as serious. If I were to hang a poster in my college dorm window saying âJewish Genocide Now!â if would be none of those adjectivesâŚbut if that sentiment was genuinely offered, rather than satiric, then it would (or should) violate their code of conduct.
The President was articulating the standard for public bodies to draw the line between expressing an idea about something and a pattern of conduct - speech as an action, not an expression. Thatâs not the same thing.
1 Like
Jews may have stopped WW III.
My neighbor Ed Hall was in charge of installing the French Diamant Rockets which stymied Russian aggression in Europe.
Jews may have stopped for now fascism in America. My neighborâs brother Theodor Hall gave the Russians the secrets of the Fat Boy Plutonium bomb to balance superpowers and keep Americans seeking a democratic republic fearing as a singular power the US would plunge into fascism. We are seeing that now.
And how would an outside authority determine whether it was satiric or seriously intended other than looking at context?
If the question is whether that speech violated the schoolâs code of conduct, then it would seem to be the appropriate standard to use.
But letâs be clear AFAIK, there is no evidence that anyone was advocating genocide. There is only an indication that Stefanik interprets intifada as a call for genocide. Stefanik then asks broadly whether a call for genocide violates the schoolâs code of conduct.
I think the answer that it depends on context is correct. It depends on whether the average person would interpret the words stated as a call for genocide (which is in doubt with respect to chants of intifada). It depends on whether such a call is serious or satirical or an artistic attempt to shock (like Serranoâs Christ on the Cross in a jar of urine). It depends on whether such a call is a private conversation or a public statement.
It depends on context. I am glad the Harvard and MIT boards and faculty understand this and have given strong support to their respective presidents.
I know *orn when I see it. That does not mean I am in the bedroom.
@albaby1 you are writing feverishly. This better not be the three-part in harmony unabridged answer.
But the context in question was never about parody or satire.
Besides this is not over for the two other presidents.
They wouldnât. They would look at context to see if this was actually a call to genocide, or a statement against genocide. But all calls to genocide would be a violation of the code of conduct.
Why would it be âan average personâ? Thatâs not the only standard. In many other contexts involving marginalized communities, organizations may focus on whether the marginalized community feels harmed or threatened by the language. Hence the vocabulary of micro-aggressions. What might appear perfectly innocent to the average (and probably uninformed) person (âBoy, your English is really good!â) might land very differently for the average person in the marginalized group.
In other words - if the object of the code of conduct is to make sure that marginalized or vulnerable groups are safe from feeling threatened or harassed, is the question how the average person would regard calls to intifada and liberating Palestine from the river to the sea, or how the average Jew might regard those calls?
Thatâs genuinely a question, BTW - a difficult one, and one I donât have an answer for. But I think the criticism by conservatives is that universities have a very different answer when the speech in question is one that the majority of their faculty and students agree with than disagree with.
2 Likes
Any data saying a majority of students agree with the Palestinians? I doubt it.
Scenario 1: A couple having sex in the privacy of their bedroom.
Scenario 2: Same couple, same activity, same bedroom, but this time broadcasted live for money.
Even with pornography, context matters.
2 Likes