Page 103 of 129 FirstFirst ... 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 ... LastLast
Results 2,551 to 2,575 of 3209
  1. #2551
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,897
    Re Dresden Defenses used by Nazis at Nuremburg, was rejected
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  2. #2552
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In your Dreams
    Posts
    1,993
    I read that an American General watching the Nuremberg proceedings mused that "If they had won, I would be being tried for a lot of those crimes. IMHO, when we stop questioning just how barbaric we can be and still be civilized we have a problem.
    Seeker of Truth. Dispenser of Wisdom. Protector of the Weak. Avenger of Evil.

  3. #2553
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Cisco Kid View Post
    I read that an American General watching the Nuremberg proceedings mused that "If they had won, I would be being tried
    Wait, so the Nazis would have put people they like up for show trials? Really? This is shocking? And we should consider that a deep moral point?

    Come on.

    The Nuremburg trials were the exact opposite of a Nazi show trial.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  4. #2554
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Squaw valley
    Posts
    4,611
    Quote Originally Posted by summit View Post
    Wait, so the Nazis would have put people they like up for show trials? Really? This is shocking? And we should consider that a deep moral point?

    Come on.

    The Nuremburg trials were the exact opposite of a Nazi show trial.
    He's right though. The victor sets the rules.

    What he meant is that if the Germans won, us generals would be found to be war criminals

    Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

  5. #2555
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In your Dreams
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by summit View Post
    Wait, so the Nazis would have put people they like up for show trials? Really? This is shocking? And we should consider that a deep moral point?

    Come on.

    The Nuremburg trials were the exact opposite of a Nazi show trial.
    Had they won, the Nazis would have tried Eisenhower. Sorry I don't have a link. That was his opinion.
    Seeker of Truth. Dispenser of Wisdom. Protector of the Weak. Avenger of Evil.

  6. #2556
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Ųtzi View Post
    I have a feeling that we'll discover that some proportion of the short sellers were Israelis. If that turns out to be the case it will be very interesting and lead to a lot of questions.
    It's also possible the paper contains errors. We've seen so many academic mediocrities come out the woodwork since October 7th that it shouldn't come as a surprise if this ends up being another example.

  7. #2557
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    907
    Posts
    15,570
    Quote Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post
    He's right though. The victor sets the rules.

    What he meant is that if the Germans won, us generals would be found to be war criminals

    Sent from my moto g 5G using Tapatalk

    Had the Germans won, your GodEmperor Putin would have been an informer in a labor camp before he died at the age of 15 from typhus and a prolapsed rectum, and you'd still be working for one Ceaușescu or another, just like now.

  8. #2558
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    Quote Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post
    I didn't say that Israel oppressed all Muslims, but arabs that live in Israel are oppressed and have much fewer than Jewish Israelis. So this does look like apartheid.
    Israeli-Arabs can vote, have access to education, access to healthcare, have representation in the Knesset and on the Israeli supreme court. Israeli-Arabs make up around 30% of the doctors, nursers, and pharmacists in Israel. As a minority in Israel, a person can argue Israeli-Arabs deserve better treatment but that's not apartheid.

    I thought I was going to experience apartheid, but I saw people from different backgrounds co-existing in peace together:

    https://twitter.com/JustLuai/status/1732352462160277851

  9. #2559
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    SF & the Ho
    Posts
    9,197
    West Bank is a better analogy

  10. #2560
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Cisco Kid View Post
    Had they won, the Nazis would have tried Eisenhower. Sorry I don't have a link. That was his opinion.
    You miss my point, and have used a popular statement that is admittedly almost always misinterpreted when presented. The irony of the original statement is lost without consideration.

    The Allies tried the Nazis with remarkably fair trials based on fair interpretations of international laws and concepts like command responsibility and competent legal representation. We wanted to set the standard with the bar set high.

    Nuremburg was different than Nazi show trials for the revenge against and humiliation of a vanquished foe, something which the Allies actively avoided.

    Yes, had the Nazis won, they would have tried the Allies and convicted them, because the Nazis need propaganda wins and used show trials to delegitimize and get revenge against their foes for the crime of opposing Nazism.

    That Nazis would do Nazi fascist shit using a noimnal technique, war trials, that has skin deep resemblance to what the Allies did, does not make the Nazis and the Allies morally equivalent. Similarly, strategic bombing was not equivalent to Einzsatzgruppen and concentration death camps.

    The Nazis and Allies weren't equivalent.

    Strategic bombing wasn't equivalent to Treblinka.

    And just to be clear:

    Israel is not morally equivalent to Hamas.

    Striking Gaza isn't morally equivalent to Oct 7.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  11. #2561
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,847
    Quote Originally Posted by Ųtzi View Post
    Or worse.

    I believe there are people in Israel who welcomed this war. Did any of those people know about the impending attacks and choose not to do anything but make some money is the question.

    Hamas definitely had intel on Israeli defenses, facilities etc. that couldn't have been gleaned by some guy picking olives. Where did they get that info?
    Odds are very high that many people (including Israel's military intelligence) knew that Hamas was gearing up for a big attack. The problem, is that its unlikely any of them knew exactly when, and without knowing exactly when the intelligence is pretty unactionable. The intelligence for a big attack could have come in back in July...and then after a few months of being on high alert, you naturally drop guard and relax a little. the IDF couldnt have done a preemptive strike because it would have turned the world against them, and as we can see now its incredibly difficult to actually get to hamas behind civilians.

    Think how easy it would be to have a private in the IDF actually be a hamas spy. there is no security clearance needed or much of a background check. And the intelligence needed to attack the IDF installations was basic boots on the ground private-level intelligence... they werent stealing tech or classified plans... just "where are the gaurd towers, where are the doors, about how many people are staffed at what time".


    All that to say, shorting based on a future hamas attack likely isnt as conspiratorial as folks might want to believe.

  12. #2562
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,897
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    I thought I was going to experience apartheid, but I saw people from different backgrounds co-existing in peace together:

    https://twitter.com/JustLuai/status/1732352462160277851
    Your link is very much worth the short watch or read!
    https://twitter.com/JustLuai/status/1732352462160277851
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  13. #2563
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In your Dreams
    Posts
    1,993
    Summit, I told you what was opined by a person who was there and knew the score. And you have your opinions too. Cool.
    Seeker of Truth. Dispenser of Wisdom. Protector of the Weak. Avenger of Evil.

  14. #2564
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Watch here starting at 1:30:25 to see the start of Stefanik’s questioning of the university president’s that was cut from the widely circulated video:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?532147...emitism-part-1

    The question was specifically about whether chants of ‘globalize the intifada’ and ‘there is only one solution: intifada revolution’ violated the school’s policies. It’s Stefanik who says those chants are not only a call for violence in Israel but must imply a call for the genocide of Jews on campus.

    I’m pretty sure that if you polled students who were chanting that, many would not actually support the genocide of Jews in Israel or around the world.

    Another article, by Jon Chait, arguing that the presidents were correct:

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023...-stefanik.html

    “Many Jews quite rationally find the phrase to be a form of incitement against them. And given that pro-Palestinian activism sometimes extends to actions like vandalizing synagogues and Jewish businesses or confronting Jewish students, it seems clear that at least some activists understand the slogan the same way.

    Stefanik was defining it even more aggressively, though, by using the shorthand “calling for the genocide of Jews.” As threatening as it may be, globalizing the intifada does not mean genocide.


    Even worse, Stefanik was trying to collapse the distinction between speech and conduct when she said, incredulously, “Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide.” No, conduct does not have to mean committing genocide. It can mean vandalism, shoving, invading people’s personal space, or violating content-neutral rules regulating time, place, and manner of demonstrations.


    What Stefanik was demanding was the wholesale ban on rhetoric and ideas that Jews find threatening, regardless of context.”

  15. #2565
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In your Dreams
    Posts
    1,993
    They are very easy to be insulted and defensive as a tribe about tribal matters IME. With reason to be. I knew a black activist who was the daughter of a black activist lady who was so defensive she said if I told her I liked her hairstyle it would be racist. Human nature I guess.
    Seeker of Truth. Dispenser of Wisdom. Protector of the Weak. Avenger of Evil.

  16. #2566
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    Another article, by Jon Chait, arguing that the presidents were correct:
    Elite higher ed has lost the script. He's arguing the presidents were correct not to conflate speech with action. Per the prior discussion in this thread however he argues the presidents are selectively applying their own rules:

    "A better criticism would be that colleges are failing to protect Jewish students by refusing to enforce rules of conduct. But that is different from, and in some ways the opposite of, the point Stefanik chose to stand on.

    A huge proportion of the discourse around Palestinian activism and the campus has consisted of pro- and anti-Israel activists accusing each other of hypocrisy. The anti-Israel activists complain that their critics stop caring about free speech when the speech is pro-Palestinian, while the pro-Israel activists accuse the pro-Palestinian left of abandoning its commitment to safety and tolerance when the victims are Jewish."

    He's saying both sides are engaging in hypocrisy. While that's certainly true, it's also true that universities wouldn't allow campus rallies calling for the expulsion of Muslims from "the river to the sea," so the larger issue is not hypocrisy but their incoherent free speech policy. They should enforce institutional neutrality, instead. Which means fewer restrictions on speech and so called "safe spaces," and more emphasis on universally enforcing their own rules on harassment, demonstrations, etc.

  17. #2567
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Elite higher ed has lost the script. He's arguing the presidents were correct not to conflate speech with action. Per the prior discussion in this thread however he argues the presidents are selectively applying their own rules:
    "A better criticism would be that colleges are failing to protect Jewish students by refusing to enforce rules of conduct. But that is different from, and in some ways the opposite of, the point Stefanik chose to stand on.

    A huge proportion of the discourse around Palestinian activism and the campus has consisted of pro- and anti-Israel activists accusing each other of hypocrisy. The anti-Israel activists complain that their critics stop caring about free speech when the speech is pro-Palestinian, while the pro-Israel activists accuse the pro-Palestinian left of abandoning its commitment to safety and tolerance when the victims are Jewish."

    He's saying both sides are engaging in hypocrisy. While that's certainly true, it's also true that universities wouldn't allow campus rallies calling for the expulsion of Muslims from "the river to the sea," so the larger issue is not hypocrisy but their incoherent free speech policy. They should enforce institutional neutrality, instead. Which means fewer restrictions on speech and so called "safe spaces," and more emphasis on universally enforcing their own rules on harassment, demonstrations, etc.
    Iíve said I agreed that the schools havenít been applying their rules consistently previously.

    Are you sure the schools wouldnít allow for calling for the expulsion of Muslimís from the West Bank and Gaza though? I think it would likely be accepted.

    But Stefanik specifically asked what the schools policies say, and, as written, they say that chanting Ďglobalize the intifadaí is not a violation. And I donít believe it should be a violation, even if I have no personal desire to go around shouting it.

  18. #2568
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    Yes, I'm sure university administrators are not acting as neutral observers on speech or for that matter many other issues. Most are career bureaucrats, not leading academics in their own right. They are behaving as ideological protagonists prioritizing identity over reality and accomplishment.

  19. #2569
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Yes, I'm sure university administrators are not acting as neutral observers on speech or for that matter many other issues. They are behaving as ideological protagonists.
    Pro-Palestinian groups have been banned on campuses (Columbia, for example) for violating schools codes of conduct. They havenít been given free passes everywhere, and itís not clear to me that Harvard, Penn, or MIT would give them a free pass either.

  20. #2570
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,897
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    it’s not clear to me that Harvard, Penn, or MIT would give them a free pass either.
    You are awfully generous in your assumptions toward institutions with well demonstrated biases to the opposite of your assumptions. It is a habit of yours.

    Lowe and behold, your assumptions are wrong.

    For example, Harvard is allowing unrecognized pro-Palestinian groups to organize protests and disruptions, which isn't allowed, and doing over the objections of recognized groups. These are now the primary organizers!
    https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2...roup-protests/
    https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2...more-backlash/
    I have 3 Harvard alumns in my family.

    MIT is refusing to enforce their codes of conduct on foreign students if it would result in a suspension, allowing clear and flagrant violation actions without consequence.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  21. #2571
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    The larger issue is rule by HR Department. Everyone knows there are lots of things you can't say in a workplace environment. College administrators are doing the same by compelling students to walk around on eggshells when it comes to "favored groups" but requiring context for other groups. Whether a person thinks they should or not is beside the point. The fact is university policies are not enforcing "free speech."

  22. #2572
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by summit View Post
    You are awfully generous in your assumptions toward institutions with well demonstrated biases to the opposite of your assumptions. It is a habit of yours.

    Lowe and behold, your assumptions are wrong.

    For example, Harvard is allowing unrecognized pro-Palestinian groups to organize protests and disruptions, which isn't allowed, and doing over the objections of recognized groups. These are now the primary organizers!
    https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2...roup-protests/
    https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2...more-backlash/
    I have 3 Harvard alumns in my family.

    MIT is refusing to enforce their codes of conduct on foreign students if it would result in a suspension, allowing clear and flagrant violation actions without consequence.
    The first link says that certain students engaging in pro-Palestinian rallies have faced disciplinary action. It does also say that unrecognized student groups canít get permits for protests (though it also says no new student groups can currently get recognized), but whether the rules are being applied unevenly would require knowing if all other unauthorized student protests have resulted in disciplinary action.

    Not sure what Iím supposed to take away from the second link.

    At MIT, there have been consequences for the students, maybe just not as harsh as you believe they should have been:

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/mit-pa...an-die-in/amp/

    I also have Harvard grads in my family, and Iím not even American. Not sure what that is supposed to prove though.

  23. #2573
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    21,897
    ^You are one tedious dude, you know that? You love to split hairs and make distinctions without difference, which I generously assume comes from a misplaced sense of fairness, but it is why I had you on ignore for a while: You are too often draining to interact with... plus the dark text, jong.

    Harvard isn't enforcing against the non-recognized groups. That lets the recognized groups avoid sanctions because they just shifted the duties over to the non-recognized groups who can't be sanctioned but are still being allowed to organize out-of-line protests.

    MIT has policies. They are enforcing them unevenly. People are doing things that would get them suspended. MIT threatened to suspend. Then MIT didn't do because the the pro-Palestinian violators were foreign students, and suspending them might affect their visas, cosequences. MIT said as much, then the foreign students mocked MIT admins at their protests.

    That is an unequal application, yet again, which always seems to work out for the anti-Semites and not the Jews. Which was more of my point. That is a discriminatory bias.

    Re alumns, I mention as one of the two still alive (my brother) is the one calling my attention to Harvard things and pointing me to info, that's all. You mentioned you aren't American, out of curiosity, what nationality are you?
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  24. #2574
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    9,956
    Quote Originally Posted by summit View Post
    ^You are one tedious dude, you know that? You love to split hairs and make distinctions without difference, which I generously assume comes from a misplaced sense of fairness, but it is why I had you on ignore for a while: You are too often draining to interact with... plus the dark text, jong.

    Harvard isn't enforcing against the non-recognized groups. That lets the recognized groups avoid sanctions because they just shifted the duties over to the non-recognized groups who can't be sanctioned but are still being allowed to organize out-of-line protests.

    MIT has policies. They are enforcing them unevenly. People are doing things that would get them suspended. MIT threatened to suspend. Then MIT didn't do because the the pro-Palestinian violators were foreign students, and suspending them might affect their visas, cosequences. MIT said as much, then the foreign students mocked MIT admins at their protests.

    That is an unequal application, yet again, which always seems to work out for the anti-Semites and not the Jews. Which was more of my point. That is a discriminatory bias.

    Re alumns, I mention as one of the two still alive is the one calling my attention to Harvard things and pointing me to info, that's all. You mentioned you aren't American, out of curiosity, what nationality are you?
    Lol at you calling someone else tedious before posting another unnuanced wall of text

  25. #2575
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by summit View Post
    ^You are one tedious dude, you know that? You love to split hairs and make distinctions without difference, which I generously assume comes from a misplaced sense of fairness, but it is why I had you on ignore for a while: You are too often draining to interact with... plus the dark text, jong.

    Harvard isn't enforcing against the non-recognized groups. That lets the recognized groups avoid sanctions because they just shifted the duties over to the non-recognized groups who can't be sanctioned but are still being allowed to organize out-of-line protests.

    MIT has policies. They are enforcing them unevenly. People are doing things that would get them suspended. MIT threatened to suspend. Then MIT didn't do because the the pro-Palestinian violators were foreign students, and suspending them might affect their visas, cosequences. MIT said as much, then the foreign students mocked MIT admins at their protests.

    That is an unequal application, yet again, which always seems to work out for the anti-Semites and not the Jews. Which was more of my point. That is a discriminatory bias.

    Re alumns, I mention as one of the two still alive is the one calling my attention to Harvard things and pointing me to info, that's all. You mentioned you aren't American, out of curiosity, what nationality are you?
    Canadian.

    Yes, Harvard isn’t enforcing against non-recognized groups. Have they always in the past, or has there been leeway in making that determination?

    At MIT, there have been consequences for the foreign students, but they stopped short of punishing them in a way that would force them to lose their visas. Is this the first time that’s happened? Do you know the full background on how that decision was made?

    My wife has had to take the lead on university investigations to determine whether students should be expelled. It’s not always cut and dry.

    And just like when laws are broken, there’s often a lot of discretion about whether to pursue disciplinary action, and the level of punishment that goes along with it.

    My point isn’t that the pro-Palestinian protesters can’t be getting favorable treatment, just that without knowledge of how similar issues have been handled in the past it’s not possible to make that judgement.

    It may seem like I’m splitting hairs, but I often just don’t see things as clearly black and white. The Stefanik video, for example, initially makes it seem like the presidents weren’t willing to discipline students who called for the genocide of other students, but in actuality what they were responding to wasn’t about a proposed scenario that was nearly that clear cut.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •