Page 104 of 129 FirstFirst ... 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 ... LastLast
Results 2,576 to 2,600 of 3209
  1. #2576
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    The fact that their testimony requires careful parsing is a problem in its own right because:
    1. Their testimony was coached by lawyers to follow a consultant’s script
    2. They disgraced their institutions
    3. Students need to be as free to express themselves as possible
    4. Disputed moral distinctions shouldn't be the purview of college administrators

  2. #2577
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    The fact that their testimony requires careful parsing is a problem in its own right, because:
    1 - Their testimony was coached by lawyers to follow a consultant’s script
    2 - They disgraced their institutions
    3 - Students need to be as free to express themselves as possible
    4 - Disputed moral distinctions shouldn't be the purview of college administrators
    Sorry, but I’m just not going to get worked up about them getting caught in a planned ‘gotcha’ that was edited to make it appear worse than it was. And they came down on the side of free speech and not making moral judgments. In fact they said the speech was repugnant but allowed.

  3. #2578
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    These people were representing the pinnacle of American forthrightness & excellence whose purpose is to educate future leaders. They came across as politically autistic as Elon Musk answering questions about advertisers. It's a bad look for their institutions especially in front of a mass audience. If they can't make their case for their policies to a wider less insular audience then their policies will be litigated politically.

  4. #2579
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    These people were representing the pinnacle of American forthrightness & excellence whose purpose is to educate future leaders. They came across as politically autistic as Elon Musk answering questions about advertisers. It's a bad look for their institutions especially in front of a mass audience.
    Because it appeared that they wouldn’t discipline a student if they called for the genocide of other students. Which was not actually the question, and Stefanik would only push for a yes/no on genocide which wasn’t the question, and wouldn’t allow them to actually answer the question that was asked.

    So sure, good job Stefanik on orchestrating the outcome she wanted, but I’m not convinced some other trio would have comported themselves significantly better under that specific exchange.

  5. #2580
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    It's a dark day for American higher ed when a hack like Stefanik so easily outmaneuvered the three of them. The fact that the administrators felt compelled to release hostage videos underscores the point:

    https://twitter.com/Penn/status/1732549608230862999n

  6. #2581
    Rasputin's Avatar
    Rasputin is online now Полые тростник на ветру
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Missoula
    Posts
    4,458
    “He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." ― Albert Einstein
    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. -אלוהים אדירים

  7. #2582
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    It's a dark day for American higher ed when a hack like Stefanik so easily outmaneuvered the three of them. The fact that the administrators felt compelled to release hostage videos underscores the point:

    https://twitter.com/Penn/status/1732549608230862999n
    Three hours of questioning and only one segment got all the coverage. And only because it appeared they were taking a position they weren’t due to editing and Stefanik trying to force them them to accept the jump from saying ‘intifada’ to ‘calling for genocide of all Jews everywhere’ without allowing them to clarify any of their thoughts.

    Did you watch any more of the hearing? They came across as pretty competent people to me from the other parts of the hearing I jumped through.

  8. #2583
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    FWIW, Albert Einstein made the above pacifist argument in 1929. In 1933 after Hitler came to power he said, “I am a pacifist in principle, but I am not an absolute pacifist” arguing Germany should be occupied militarily by the Allies — in 1933! — to stop Hitler and the Nazis. Goebbels actually said, “But because they didn’t we were able to prepare for war.”


    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    Three hours of questioning and only one segment got all the coverage. And only because it appeared they were taking a position they weren’t due to editing and Stefanik trying to force them them to accept the jump from saying ‘intifada’ to ‘calling for genocide of all Jews everywhere’ without allowing them to clarify any of their thoughts.

    Did you watch any more of the hearing? They came across as pretty competent people to me from the other parts of the hearing I jumped through.
    I watched other segments as well, none were impressive. Did you watch the subsequent response video? It doesn't bode well for the core mission of free inquiry, which they failed to defend adeptly. I fear they will take away the wrong lesson from their hypocrisy by adopting even more restrictive speech policies in the future.

    https://twitter.com/Penn/status/1732549608230862999
    Last edited by MultiVerse; 12-07-2023 at 04:35 PM.

  9. #2584
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    I watched other segments as well, none were impressive. Did you watch the subsequent response video? It doesn't bode well for the core mission of free inquiry, which they failed to defend adeptly. I fear they will take away the wrong lesson from their hypocrisy by adopting even more restrictive speech policies in the future.

    https://twitter.com/Penn/status/1732549608230862999
    I’m having a hard time following your specific complaint here.

    The issue is that they came down in favor of free speech over applying their own morals, by not accepting that intifada=genocide, and in doing so people used the video that edited out the intifada part to attack them (including people who normally argue that campuses aren’t allowing freedom of expression), so now they’re being forced to do damage control saying that yes in fact if a student calls for genocide of other students that’s punishable?

    Seems to me the people to be mad at if you’re worried about a backlash against free speech here are the people who got BIG MAD when they thought the presidents were answering a different question than they were because they didn’t bother to watch the whole exchange.

  10. #2585
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    The issue is simple: an incoherent free speech policy. They should enforce institutional neutrality, not arguing in favor of free speech for in-groups while ignoring free speech for out-groups. The Penn president says we "must initiate a serious and careful look at our policies, a process to start immediately." Doesn't the fact that they are willing to abandon a commitment to free speech in the name of damage control prove my point?

  11. #2586
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    The issue is simple: an incoherent free speech policy. They should enforce institutional neutrality, not arguing in favor of free speech for in-groups while ignoring free speech for out-groups .
    I mostly agree with you here, as I’ve said before. Not sure the free speech policy is ‘incoherent’ per se, but I agree campus policy should be applied neutrally, and that it should err towards free speech.

    But the people complaining about their congressional hearing questioning are complaining that they didn’t state clearly that they would flat out restrict certain speech.

    And the reason they wouldn’t make that statement is because they weren’t willing to accept the idea that saying intifatda MUST be synonymous with the genocide of Jews.

    They erred in favor of not limiting speech when the meaning is open to interpretation, which seems to be what you favor.

  12. #2587
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In your Dreams
    Posts
    1,992
    Ask the student body if they would rather go to a political rally or a kegger, 99% would prefer to get drunk.
    Seeker of Truth. Dispenser of Wisdom. Protector of the Weak. Avenger of Evil.

  13. #2588
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    Quote Originally Posted by Cisco Kid View Post
    Ask the student body if they would rather go to a political rally or a kegger, 99% would prefer to get drunk.
    Agreed, when in doubt or when uninformed apathy is the answer. College students can protest all they want about anything they want but not if means harassing or disrupting other students.


    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    They erred in favor of not limiting speech when the meaning is open to interpretation, which seems to be what you favor.
    Right, and the next day they abandoned the principle. I'm arguing it was so easily abandoned because free speech is in fact limited by identity, which is why their response was so incoherent & milquetoast.

  14. #2589
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Right, and the next day they abandoned the principle. I'm arguing it was so easily abandoned because free speech is in fact limited by identity, which is why their response was so incoherent & milquetoast.
    But that Penn president’s response wasn’t even saying they’d behave any differently than they said they would under questioning.

    It was actually answering how they would handle the scenario critics had assumed they were responding to the day before: would a student calling for the genocide of other students be punishable? And they’re saying yes. And I agree with that.

    What I didn’t hear in that response was the word ‘intifada’, which was the premise of the questioning in the first place.

    So I’d say that response sucked. She should have said “go watch the whole tape, dumbfucks, and tell me if you think the phrase ‘globalize the intifada’ should be banned on campus”.

    But I don’t have an issue with their initial testimony under the circumstances.

  15. #2590
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In your Dreams
    Posts
    1,992
    As my Irish Catholic mother would cry when frustrated, "Jesus, Mary and Joseph!!" So much dis/mis information on this. So following the lead of Mike Johnson, I opened my New International Version version of the Bible to seek guidance and saw this. Genesis 11:1-9 Tower of Babel story. No one knew WTF anyone else was saying.
    Seeker of Truth. Dispenser of Wisdom. Protector of the Weak. Avenger of Evil.

  16. #2591
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    1,208

  17. #2592
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    Three hours of questioning and only one segment got all the coverage. And only because it appeared they were taking a position they weren’t due to editing and Stefanik trying to force them them to accept the jump from saying ‘intifada’ to ‘calling for genocide of all Jews everywhere’ without allowing them to clarify any of their thoughts.

    Did you watch any more of the hearing? They came across as pretty competent people to me from the other parts of the hearing I jumped through.
    Worth a read...

    Opinion | At a Hearing on Israel, University Presidents Walked Into a Trap

    Try toggling Browser Reader view ASAP when page is loading if you get paywalled
    The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

  18. #2593
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In your Dreams
    Posts
    1,992
    Didn't need to read it. It said the Uni people testified that there is fine and undefined line between free speech and hate speech. The aholes asking the questions could only hear a word salad because they have worms in their brains. Jeez, I heard Al Franken speak on it
    and he opined that "What I heard people say what they said was horrible."
    Seeker of Truth. Dispenser of Wisdom. Protector of the Weak. Avenger of Evil.

  19. #2594
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by fomofo View Post
    Worth a read...

    Opinion | At a Hearing on Israel, University Presidents Walked Into a Trap

    Try toggling Browser Reader view ASAP when page is loading if you get paywalled
    Tried clicking that headline earlier this morning hoping I had a free article left. No gift link by any chance?

    Edit: Was able to get a link to it.

    Pretty much agree with all of it. And if those presidents get forced out of because of this, that’s going to be a blow to free speech on campuses (at least private school campuses) going forward.

    Not sure if linking to a link will work for everyone, but this is the link I used:
    https://x.com/orinkerr/status/173290...sR_NcRK2VkCfkg

  20. #2595
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    13,443
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    Tried clicking that headline earlier this morning hoping I had a free article left. No gift link by any chance?

    Edit: Was able to get a link to it.

    Pretty much agree with all of it. And if those presidents get forced out of because of this, that’s going to be a blow to free speech on campuses (at least private school campuses) going forward.

    Not sure if linking to a link will work for everyone, but this is the link I used:
    https://x.com/orinkerr/status/173290...sR_NcRK2VkCfkg
    Just stick the URL into https://archive.ph

    Works every time...

  21. #2596
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    5,295
    Quote Originally Posted by skaredshtles View Post
    Just stick the URL into https://archive.ph

    Works every time...
    Lean something new every day…

    Well, not every day, but I’m getting older so learning something new once a month or so will suffice.

    *learn

    (next thing to learn: spelling)
    Last edited by J. Barron DeJong; 12-08-2023 at 03:12 PM.

  22. #2597
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    The key takeaway from the article and the first comment from DeJong's twitter link provide a good summary:

    "In today’s world, where we are seeing signs of hate proliferating across our campus and our world in a way not seen in years, these policies need to be clarified and evaluated,” she said. Expect more safety and less freedom."

    "Agree, nice article. A congressional struggle session, with tendentious grandstanding on Stefanik’s part. Yet it is hard to have sympathy with the presidents, since the trap they fell into was one they had set for themselves."

  23. #2598
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,277
    And who set the trap for all the people who believed the worst of the editing and reporting? Stefanik? The editors who helped her script it? That's fucking embarrassing. Worse even than taking Fox's version of Jim Jordan at face value during the first impeachment. Because it's been how long ago this strategy was established? Shake yourself.

  24. #2599
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    5,425
    I can't speak for anyone who took Fox's version. I can speak for my opinion which is calling for a more tolerant and welcoming campus, same as the article: "But it seems to me that it is precisely when people are legitimately scared and outraged that we’re most vulnerable to a repressive response leading to harmful unintended consequences. That’s a lesson of Sept. 11, but also of much of the last decade, when the policing of speech in academia escalated in ways that are now coming back to bite the left."

  25. #2600
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,124
    Quote Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong View Post
    Learn same thing new every day…
    FIFY

    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    I can't speak for anyone who took Fox's version. I can speak for my opinion which is calling for a more tolerant and welcoming campus, same as the article: "But it seems to me that it is precisely when people are legitimately scared and outraged that we’re most vulnerable to a repressive response leading to harmful unintended consequences. That’s a lesson of Sept. 11, but also of much of the last decade, when the policing of speech in academia escalated in ways that are now coming back to bite the left."
    I always think, what would Nat do?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Speaking Freely.jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	123.5 KB 
ID:	478725

    https://www.amazon.com/Speaking-Free.../dp/0679436472
    The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

Posting Permissions

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