Strange, by my count it's two down: Santos and McCarthy. Just Stefanik is left to go.
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
91 points (90.3% liked)
politics
19235 readers
3150 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Notice that this stupid fucking cunt has zero issues supporting Donald Trump's absolute and unequivocal right to free speech regardless how violent or psychopathic his rhetoric may be. This has nothing to do with employing moral consistency in dealing with complex free speech issues because these people have no fucking morals to begin with. All they understand is remaining in power, and saber rattling in order to rile up their base of knuckle-dragging constituents.
The good ol' "Grill someone until they slip up and say something that can be used as a soundbite."
Ahh Antisemitism flavored Mccarthyism, on the rocks please!
"In a contention exchange at the House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing on antisemitism on college campuses, Stefanik asked Magill, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of MIT whether "calling for the genocide of Jews" would violate the codes of conduct at their schools. "
Easy answer: Yes, just as calling for any genocide such as genocide of the Palestinian people. Yes, that would violate the codes of conduct at our school.
It was an incredibly stupid showing, but to speak to their perspective, the question they thought they were answering was "Does a call to genocide violate First Amendment protections of free speech, to which universities are somewhat bound in order to receive federal funding?", and the answer to that question, strictly legally, is indeed no. The government cannot punish someone for calls to genocide. The threshold for criminalizing speech is incredibly high, and anything short of "Go kill these specific Jews!" is generally going to be protected speech. In the context of trying to minimize any possible legal exposure, this was essentially the correct answer.
That said, it's unconscionably stupid that the presidents did not realize that they were in a Congressional hearing, not a courtroom, and that in that context, they were not speaking to a judge but rather to a glorified hostile PR agent. It would not have been hard to give an unambiguous "yes" response, and then only if pressed wade into some of the nuance of what necessarily counts as a call to genocide, since that it legitimately a complex question.
Exactly.
"I, and the university abhor hate speech and antisemitism. Such things are unwelcome on campus.
That said, I would have to confer with the university legal council, and law enforcement to understand events in a case by case basis to ensure we do what we must to keep students and faculty safe. As president it is my job to understand the concerns of my staff and students, and to follow the guidance of experts in their respective fields. With those elements in hand I provide leadership in challenging times. It would be imprudent for me to take action unilaterally without my team."
"why can't you just say yes or no?" will be the whine. It'll be followed up with the "why do you love genocide?"
"adult questions often require more than a yes or no, even if prompted as such. Genocide is abhorrent and hate is not welcome on campus. I have no further reply than that"
Well, then she needs to call Ronnie on the carpet, too:
Anyone have a link to what was actually said? I see lots of articles talking about it, but I'd like a transcript.
She probably failed to fellate Israel, as is expected from everyone in a vulnerable position such as "having a job".
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“These universities can anticipate a robust and comprehensive Congressional investigation of all facets of their institutions negligent perpetration of antisemitism including administrative, faculty, funding, and overall leadership and governance.”
In a contention exchange at the House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing on antisemitism on college campuses, Stefanik asked Magill, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of MIT whether "calling for the genocide of Jews" would violate the codes of conduct at their schools.
After the hearing, the GOP-led committee launched an investigation into universities’ efforts to combat growing violence and threats against Jews on college campuses.
President Magill had three chances to set the record straight when asked if calling for the genocide of Jews violated UPenn’s code of conduct during our hearing on antisemitism,” she said.
“What’s more shocking is that it took her more than 24 hours to clarify her comments, and even that clarification failed to include an apology to the Jewish students who do not feel safe on campus.
“She has done excellent work in leading our community, including in addressing antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate, all of which we reject utterly at MIT.
The original article contains 614 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 69%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
More than two if your looking to get rid of people in leadership positions who give antisemites a pass. Maybe she should get her hypocritical ass on those who support Nick Fuentes.