[wat0n]

@Pants-of-dog can't provide a concrete example of someone at Harvard being punished by the school for chanting "from the river to the sea".

[Unthinking Majority]

Sure.

What about the antisemitism laws passed by the US federal government?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con ... n%20campus.

I don't agree with this bill. I also don't agree with UK police arresting people for offensive or even racist tweets. People should have a legal right to be offensive as long as they aren't threatening an individual or group with violence.

[QatzelOk]

...conspiracy theory?

Okay. So we spent a hundred pages on "anti-semitism," and now it's time to switch to "conspiracy theory?"

Why don't you just sanction this thread, wat0n, and wait for all the other particpants to die of malnutrition or exposure?

Wouldn't this be worth itTM?

[wat0n]

Okay. So we spent a hundred pages on "anti-semitism," and now it's time to switch to "conspiracy theory?"

Why don't you just sanction this thread, wat0n, and wait for all the other particpants to die of malnutrition or exposure?

Wouldn't this be worth itTM?

Does calling conspiracy theories out trigger you, Qatz? Because you seem very upset over what is a rather descriptive comment

[QatzelOk]

Does calling conspiracy theories out trigger you, Qatz? Because you seem very upset over what is a rather descriptive comment

Yes, your total reliance on marketing catch phrases *triggers* my instinctive lack of trust in trolls who regurgitate other (rich) people's arguments. And they often do this for monetary gain.

People with a mind are often "triggered" by poor argumentation. This is the result of synapses which occur in the minds of people who are often called "smart."

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't agree with this bill. I also don't agree with UK police arresting people for offensive or even racist tweets. People should have a legal right to be offensive as long as they aren't threatening an individual or group with violence.

It does not matter what our opinions are of this bill.

It seems like the federal government of the USA is also susceptible to donations and will censor people at the behest of donors.

Why should rich people get to force students on campus to censor their speech?

[Unthinking Majority]

It does not matter what our opinions are of this bill.

It seems like the federal government of the USA is also susceptible to donations and will censor people at the behest of donors.

Why should rich people get to force students on campus to censor their speech?

US politics are corrupted with money.

[Pants-of-dog]

US politics are corrupted with money.

The same thing happened in Canada, as we already discussed.

And it is not corruption, technically.

Wealthy people are allowed to donate large sums of money to politicians. Politicians can legally accept the money. Donors can legally ask for things. Politicians can legally and openly pass the laws that rich people want.

It is not corruption. It is how the system is supposed to work.

Now we have seen that the system allows and supports this kind of influence.

[wat0n]

Yes, your total reliance on marketing catch phrases *triggers* my instinctive lack of trust in trolls who regurgitate other (rich) people's arguments. And they often do this for monetary gain.

People with a mind are often "triggered" by poor argumentation. This is the result of synapses which occur in the minds of people who are often called "smart."

It seems you're crying way too loudly here

It does not matter what our opinions are of this bill.

It seems like the federal government of the USA is also susceptible to donations and will censor people at the behest of donors.

Why should rich people get to force students on campus to censor their speech?

Please name a single Harvard student who has been punished for antisemitic speech.

[Unthinking Majority]

The same thing happened in Canada, as we already discussed.

And it is not corruption, technically.

Wealthy people are allowed to donate large sums of money to politicians. Politicians can legally accept the money. Donors can legally ask for things. Politicians can legally and openly pass the laws that rich people want.

It is not corruption. It is how the system is supposed to work.

Now we have seen that the system allows and supports this kind of influence.

Well legal bribes are still bribes. I call it corruption. Yes this happens with a great many things. Is the bill a result of corruption? We're not sure, but it might be. It doesn't matter, the bill is dumb either way.

[wat0n]

Who cares? That bill hasn't been signed into law anyway.

Although it's interesting, because @Pants-of-dog has no problem with the harassment of lecturers who claim biological sex is binary until they quit their job. Since that's what his commitment to freedom of expression actually is, one can only conclude that he supports antisemitism on campus.

[Pants-of-dog]

Well legal bribes are still bribes. I call it corruption. Yes this happens with a great many things. Is the bill a result of corruption? We're not sure, but it might be. It doesn't matter, the bill is dumb either way.

You should tell its defenders that.

Is it also corruption when it occurs at the university level?

Donors have also openly used their wealth to pressure universities to restrict criticism of Israel.

[wat0n]

And yet as we saw such pressure has been largely ineffective. Catching plagiarist Presidents on the other hand...

Also, I will note donor pressure goes both ways and those same universities are reliant on donations from governments like that of Qatar, which also seem to be larger than those they get from American billionaires.

[Pants-of-dog]

If by ineffective, it is meant 5hat it forced the resignation of many people, helped lead to the arrests of thousands, targeted peaceful protests, allowed doxxers to work unimpeded, and was able to significantly reduce criticism of Israel in academia, then yes, it was “ineffective”.

[wat0n]

Racist harassment of students is not "peaceful protest".

You have yet to show an example of someone at Harvard being punished for criticizing Israel.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please show the percentage of protests against Israeli violence that included racist harassment of students.

Some sort of link and a quote will be necessary.

There seems to be no argument that donor influence helped with that whole list, including targeting peaceful protests.

[wat0n]

It is also not "peaceful protest" to disrupt university operations and taking over university property.

It is good you're finally admitting racist harassment of Jewish students did happen in these protests, by the way.

[Pants-of-dog]

I note that the argument and request for information has been completely ignored.

Note that donors, through economic leverage, disrupted university operations and forced the universities to use university property the way the donors wished. According to the arguments presented by the defenders of the donors, this is not peaceful.

By their own arguments, the donor defenders have defined donor actions as not peaceful.

[wat0n]

Donors did not disrupt university operations at all.

Schools are free to reject donations and return the money, that is certainly their choice.

I will note @Pants-of-dog insists in this antisemitic conspiracy theory (all the donors he's mentioned are Jewish) without evidence.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no evidence that all the donors are Jewish. They are Zionist, yes, but that does not equate to Jewish. It seems like a stereotype to assume that someone is Jewish just because they are rich and using their money for nefarious means, so it would be wrong for defenders of Israel to make that assumption.

And the donors have disrupted university operations by doing things like influencing hiring choices, restricting campus speech, and influencing the government to enforce censorship.