[QatzelOk]

Sounds like a lot of projection here...

That post was more an example of "mirroring."

That 19-year-old undergrad doesn't even exist. But you do (sort of).

[wat0n]

That post was more an example of "mirroring."

That 19-year-old undergrad doesn't even exist. But you do (sort of).

Yet it is true there's plenty of 19-year old undergrads who are actually like that, and feel entitled to police campus speech. And their antics have long been tolerated by campus administrators.

Just like older leftists also feel entitled to police speech and whine when the rest of society doesn't listen to them.

[Pants-of-dog]

This thrrad is not about Ms. Gay.

It is about donor influence in campus. Blavatnik does not need to specify Ms, Gay in order for the argument to stand.

Since this criticism is irrelevant, the point is still not refuted: Blavatnik, through financial leverage, has the ability to influence campus debate and has done so in favour of censorship of critics of Israel.

Now, why is this ethical?

Why does Blavatnik have the right to threaten others to police campus speech?

[QatzelOk]

This thrrad is not about Ms. Gay.

It is about donor influence in campus...

And when the donors start prohibiting protests against genocide... you have to question what causes they support in the other areas of their lives.

Do the donors support slavery? Torture? Racism?

Do we want these people purging morality and free thought from our universities? Is the West ready to sacrifice its academic traditions to steal more land and kill more innocent people?

[wat0n]

This thrrad is not about Ms. Gay.

It is about donor influence in campus. Blavatnik does not need to specify Ms, Gay in order for the argument to stand.

Since this criticism is irrelevant, the point is still not refuted: Blavatnik, through financial leverage, has the ability to influence campus debate and has done so in favour of censorship of critics of Israel.

Now, why is this ethical?

Why does Blavatnik have the right to threaten others to police campus speech?

Weird, you brought her here and just like the last time your nonsense was shown to be incorrect.

Blavatnik didn't even make any specific demands regarding her, and also has not cut ties to Harvard.

Why would Harvard be entitled to get his money? Why would Harvard be entitled to break civil rights laws?

@QatzelOk:

Why is Harvard's campus left entitled to police campus speech and actually get lecturers and other staff to force them to resign for their own speech? Those purges you're so concerned about have already happened: A senior lecturer, Carole Hooven, was harassed and eventually resigned from her Harvard position as a result of such harassment because she went to Fox News and gave an interview saying biological sex is binary.

[Pants-of-dog]

So instead of refuting the argument, the argument that has been refuted is whether or not Blavatnik has cut all ties to Harvard or specifically mentioned Ms. Gay.

He has not cut all ties nor specifically mentioned her.

That does not address the argument that he is censoring campus debate by withholding funding.

From this we can conclude that Zionists think Blavatnik should have the right to threaten others to police campus speech while no one else should, and this is because he is rich and a Zionist.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog you can't claim Claudine Gay was fired because of Blavatnik if he did not made any demands AND other donors who made explicit demands to get rid of her were ignored.

Also, you did not address the more obvious question as to why would Harvard be entitled to donations from Blavatnik (or anyone else for that matter).

[Pants-of-dog]

And once again, the argument about Blavatnik influencing campus debate is ignored.

[wat0n]

It's not being ignored, and it's a conspiracy theory and not an argument. It's up to you to provide proof.

[Pants-of-dog]

The argument has been ignored once again.

Also, a conspiracy theory involves secrecy. The donors are doing it openly.

[wat0n]

It is a conspiracy theory to claim their pressure compelled Harvard to change course when its Board openly supported Claudine Gay despite Ackman's open campaign against her. Also, Blavatnik did not openly demand Gay's firing.

[Pants-of-dog]

Ackman’s entire campaign can be ignored since he himself defended plagiarism and used his wealth to initiate an investigation into the journalists who released the story about his wife’s plagiarism.

Not only are his accusations hypocritical, but he is also a clear example of how people with wealth try to use that power to shut down public debate.

[wat0n]

Well, it's like we can ignore your bullshit about being concerned about "genocide" when you justify and seek impunity for Hamas' genocidal October 7 massacre in Israel, @Pants-of-dog.

Although I will note Ackman went after Gay because of her Congressional testimony as well, and was explicitly snubbed by Harvard's Board.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no evidence of Harvard acknowledging Ackman in any way.

Note that Ackman also accused Ms. Gay of antisemitism. And wrote a huge letter to Harvard complaining about DEI. And is openly talking about using financial leverage to shut down debate.

[wat0n]

And note Ackman was ignored, snubbed so hard by Harvard's Board they didn't even bother calling him out by name.

Are you done with this conspiracy theory?

[Pants-of-dog]

So, the argument has gone from explicit rebuttal to implicit rebuttal.

We are left to assume that Harvard secretly did not care about Ackman’s funding threats, and if we assume this, then tis proves the argument that Harvard did not care about Ackman’s funding threats. Yes, if you make your conclusion one of your assumptions, your arguments will always come to the conclusion you desire.

And there seems to he some confusion about what a conspiracy theory is.

[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog you're not making sense anymore, it's quite simple actually, Harvard's Board explicitly and publicly decided to stand by Gay on antisemitism and she was only fired once even CNN brought plagiarism experts confirming the plagiarism allegations. This is true regardless of whether Ackman was mentioned or not, that's pretty much irrelevant.

It's also not a conspiracy theory since they issued a statement.

So are you done with your conspiracy theories here or not?

[Pants-of-dog]

Harvard made no claims about Ms. Gay in regards to antisemitism.

They (and/or Ms. Gay) did make it against Harvard policy to say “from the river to the sea”. This does not seem like turning a blind eye to antisemitism.

And she was only forced to resign after Blavatnik and others withheld funding. This is true no matter what unfounded plagiarism accusations were made.

And there still seems to be confusion about what a conspiracy theory is.

[wat0n]

Harvard's Board stood by her despite her Congressional testimony on what Harvard's policy is on chanting for committing genocide against the Jewish people. This is a fact not under discussion @Pants-of-dog

https://www.harvard.edu/2023/12/12/stat ... president/

[Pants-of-dog]

The cited text does not mention genocide against the Jewish people at all.

It does mention that she had to apologize for what she said before Congress, directly contradicting the claim that she was supported for what she said during that spectacle.