Columbia University is colluding with the far-right in its attack on students

[Derec]

=

What should Columbia do about people saying these things on the public sidewalk?

Note the yellow signs. They are used by various NYC political groups.

And you don't think any of them are Columbia students? Because they are using yellow signs?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

=

What should Columbia do about people saying these things on the public sidewalk?

Note the yellow signs. They are used by various NYC political groups.

And you don't think any of them are Columbia students? Because they are using yellow signs?

I didn't realize the only property of a sign was its color. Thank you for enlightening me.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Remember back just a few years when conservatives were talking about how there is no free speech on college campuses? Back in 2019, Gov Abbot from Texas signed a bill to guarantee free speech on college campuses:

There is a difference between free speech and occupying/camping out and refusing to leave.

BUT when you thought that the people outside Columbia on a public sidewalk were Columbia students, you were all for the university doing EVEN MORE (where the baseline and context to that EVEN MORE included suspensions, evictions, and arrests).

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Princeton

‘Gaza Solidarity Encampment’ launches at Princeton, students arrested

Princeton students erected a tent encampment in McCosh Courtyard early Thursday morning, joining a wave of pro-Palestinian sit-ins across the country. Princeton Public Safety has issued it’s first warning to protesters, and at least two student arrest has been made.

www.dailyprincetonian.com

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Emerson (Boston)

108 arrested, 4 officers hurt as protest encampment cleared at Emerson

One student who was at the demonstration and left the area said he watched the incident unfold from his dorm window and said he saw officers dragging away some people who resisted arrest.

www.wcvb.com

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

They were encamped on a lawn.

I can't imagine my school would have allowed people to be camping out on the Quad indefinitely either.

I think that mine would. People had a history at my school of doing all sorts of things on the lawn as well as at the adjacent student center and on the stairs. I mean, people even slept out there occasionally, like it wouldn't be a rare event to see 1 person laying out on the lawn on a blanket or 1 person sleeping on the steps of the student center next to a large lawn like that. Other activities could be there as well such as people LARPing with foam swords or playing frisbee or whatever. Sometimes, quite a lot of people might be out there laying down or sitting and eating lunch in the grass.

That said, I see some differences between my school and what happened at Columbia as well as structural differences in/around the lawn and activities:

• the lawn I am discussing at my school is a bit out of the way from regular classrooms while Columbia's seems to have a number of buildings around that could be impacted more by noise. I could be wrong about the nature of their buildings, not sure;
• Columbia is in NYC with a huge population, including radical groups, that wanted to interact with the encampment or at least support them after they were arrested from outside the gates;
• My school was a technical school. I don't know if this makes it different, but I can just imagine student protestors saying, "see look? here's the math" as opposed to chanting Free Palestine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would consider "We are Hamas" to be a threat.

You consider a person holding a rock near an officer a threat. <- not an exaggeration

Hamas brutally attacks innocents. Saying "We are Hamas" is saying that they will brutally attack innocents. A clear threat.

That is outside of the campus. I think it'd be abhorrent for anyone to say any such things. I find it hard to believe someone would say "go back to Europe" unless that is a better veiled slur than "go back to Poland".

Be a great time for the school to hold a Forum to manage the alleged bigotry. This is where a college is supposed to make its students put up or shut up.

No forum is going to resolve this because it's a matter of hate, not reason.

This is a school. A school should be a place for proving cases, not merely interjecting them. If their positions are so bankrupt, this will help demonstrate it. Not every damn thing that isn't Pro-Netanyahu is anti-Israeli.

Which doesn't address my point at all. Forums do not resolve emotional differences.

Just look over in the Hamas thread--everyone is ignoring things where I show Pallywood fakery. You (collective) want to believe the Jews are at fault so you ignore obvious problems with the evidence being presented of their supposed misdeeds.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because anti-Israel is not the same as anti- Jewish.

When you hold Israel to standards dissimilar to any other country in the world, you might be an anti-semite.
When you think Israel should just roll over and not defend itself from attacks by Hamas and other Tehran vassals, you might be an anti-semite.
When you think Israel should be destroyed, you damn sure are an anti-semite.

In the world without nuanced thinking, I’d agree. But I live in the real world where I can understand that the call for destruction of a country may he a call for the destruction of it government but not its people.

But you continue to ignore the fact that in this case they are one in the same--destruction of the government means destruction of the people.

You sit there and say that Israel shouldn't harm a single non-combatant in defending themselves and pretend everything is ok if they'll just look hard enough.

Let's say Israel was actually bound to the rules you ask for. What do they do when a whole bunch of Hamas strap on suicide vests and babies and come storming into Israel, one hand holding down the detonator, the other a gun. What is the proper Israeli response in your book?

Kill the fucking bad guys. Is this that hard to understand? Months long siege on general public -> bad, killing bad guys -> good.

You kill the bad guys, they let go of the detonator, the baby gets blown up.

I was talking about real life. Fuck your ridiculous hypotheticals. Hypotheticals didn't slaughter a lot of Israelis on October 7th. Hypotheticals didn't bomb out countless homes and buildings in Gaza. Hypotheticals aren't funding the terrorists in Gaza. Netanyahu didn't hypothetically put forth alleged protections that you supported that didn't work in the long run.

Under your rules of engagement that would very much be real life. Hamas doesn't do things like that because they know Israel isn't going to restrict itself to fantasyland ROEs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would consider "We are Hamas" to be a threat.

You consider a person holding a rock near an officer a threat. <- not an exaggeration

Hamas brutally attacks innocents. Saying "We are Hamas" is saying that they will brutally attack innocents. A clear threat.

Can you get you head out of Semantic's ass for just a few posts?

That is outside of the campus. I think it'd be abhorrent for anyone to say any such things. I find it hard to believe someone would say "go back to Europe" unless that is a better veiled slur than "go back to Poland".

Be a great time for the school to hold a Forum to manage the alleged bigotry. This is where a college is supposed to make its students put up or shut up.

No forum is going to resolve this because it's a matter of hate, not reason.

This is a school. A school should be a place for proving cases, not merely interjecting them. If their positions are so bankrupt, this will help demonstrate it. Not every damn thing that isn't Pro-Netanyahu is anti-Israeli.

Which doesn't address my point at all.

Your point was no one will listen. That isn't much of a point. It sounds more like an excuse to do nothing intellectual and just wave around your hammer of judgement.

Forums do not resolve emotional differences.

Your problem is that you don't believe in the humanity of the Palestinians. You want to deprive them of their right to exist because you think you have a valid excuse. People get emotional when they are told they don't have any rights. This is not a black and white case. Palestinians have valid complaints.

Just look over in the Hamas thread--everyone is ignoring things where I show Pallywood fakery.

Lying in war? Say it isn't so... like the decapitated babies, that were never decapitated? The truth is always the first casualty of war. Pointing out some lies doesn't unbury 10,000+ dead civilians nor does it rebuild their bombed out homes.

You (collective) want to believe the Jews are at fault so you ignore obvious problems with the evidence being presented of their supposed misdeeds.

That is false. It is nothing but your typical anti-Semitism baiting crap. Saying it isn't black and white doesn't mean one side is all wrong. It is literally the fucking opposite.

 

[laughing dog]

I would consider "We are Hamas" to be a threat.

You consider a person holding a rock near an officer a threat. <- not an exaggeration

Hamas brutally attacks innocents. Saying "We are Hamas" is saying that they will brutally attack innocents. A clear threat.

It may mean that. But in world with nuanced thinking, it may be an example of excessive rhetoric attempting to show solidarity with Gaza or Hamas. It is only a clear threat to those who wish to see statements attacking their beliefs or views as clear threat.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would consider "We are Hamas" to be a threat.

You consider a person holding a rock near an officer a threat. <- not an exaggeration

Hamas brutally attacks innocents. Saying "We are Hamas" is saying that they will brutally attack innocents. A clear threat.

It may mean that. But in world with nuanced thinking, it may be an example of excessive rhetoric attempting to show solidarity with Gaza or Hamas. It is only a clear threat to those who wish to see statements attacking their beliefs or views as clear threat.

I disagree that Gaza and Hamas are synonyms. Saying one is with Hamas is very ugly. It means they support violence against Israel. It can mean nothing else in the context of someone in America saying it. Much like defending someone who says they are with Mussolini potentially meaning they like the train schedule working out.

I don't think it is a threat, but it can easily cross the line into the territory of anti-Israel / anti-Semitic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because anti-Israel is not the same as anti- Jewish.

When you hold Israel to standards dissimilar to any other country in the world, you might be an anti-semite.
When you think Israel should just roll over and not defend itself from attacks by Hamas and other Tehran vassals, you might be an anti-semite.
When you think Israel should be destroyed, you damn sure are an anti-semite.

In the world without nuanced thinking, I’d agree. But I live in the real world where I can understand that the call for destruction of a country may he a call for the destruction of it government but not its people.

Yes, but there certainly are plenty of people who call for both the destruction of Israel and the destruction of all Jews, not merely the toppling of Bibi.

Simple test--if you replace "Israel" with "Jews" does it still make just as much sense? If so then it's probably disguised antisemitism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The are racist religious bigots who want Jews to die, and it appears the crackdown on the peaceful student protests at Columbia has attracted some of them to the campus gates.

The Hamas supporters are sticking their heads in the sand about Jews dying.

Jews for Peace are not anti-Semitic, and people calling for a ceasefire in Gaza followed by a genuine, equitable, enforceable peace treaty between the Israelis and the Palestinians aren't saying Israel should surrender.

The problem is that they see Israel as the barrier to such an agreement and thus the "solution" is always Israeli concessions. Never mind that the driving force is the existence of Israel. It's the fallacy of thinking there must be a good answer.

Conflating everyone who has ever criticized a policy Netanyahu or his political mentors have supported with Nazis is absurd, but some folks appear to genuinely think there are only two options: pro-Zionist or anti-Semitic.

They aren't knowingly agreeing with the Nazis, but they are in effect saying don't take any action against the Nazis other than in immediate self defense. That's de facto support of the Nazis even though that is not their intention.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Emerson (Boston)

108 arrested, 4 officers hurt as protest encampment cleared at Emerson

One student who was at the demonstration and left the area said he watched the incident unfold from his dorm window and said he saw officers dragging away some people who resisted arrest.

www.wcvb.com

"Peaceful" and "one serious injury" to a police officer do not make sense together. Somebody fought.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would consider "We are Hamas" to be a threat.

You consider a person holding a rock near an officer a threat. <- not an exaggeration

Hamas brutally attacks innocents. Saying "We are Hamas" is saying that they will brutally attack innocents. A clear threat.

It may mean that. But in world with nuanced thinking, it may be an example of excessive rhetoric attempting to show solidarity with Gaza or Hamas. It is only a clear threat to those who wish to see statements attacking their beliefs or views as clear threat.

I disagree that Gaza and Hamas are synonyms. Saying one is with Hamas is very ugly. It means they support violence against Israel. It can mean nothing else in the context of someone in America saying it. Much like defending someone who says they are with Mussolini potentially meaning they like the train schedule working out.

I don't think it is a threat, but it can easily cross the line into the territory of anti-Israel / anti-Semitic.

As you say, they are not synonyms even though from a political standpoint they are effectively interchangeable. "We are Gaza" is not a threat, it's simply a statement of standing with Gaza. "We are Hamas" is saying you support the 10/7 atrocities. Think of it more as "Kill the Jews". I think it has already crossed the line.

 

[Toni]

Emerson (Boston)

108 arrested, 4 officers hurt as protest encampment cleared at Emerson

One student who was at the demonstration and left the area said he watched the incident unfold from his dorm window and said he saw officers dragging away some people who resisted arrest.

www.wcvb.com

"Peaceful" and "one serious injury" to a police officer do not make sense together. Somebody fought.

Not necessarily. It is not implausible that officers get injured while pushing protesters to the ground. Perhaps seriously. It is not hard to imagine an officer being ‘seriously’ injured in this way—throwing out a back, or injuring a knee or shoulder or even breaking an ankle in a misstep are all easily imaginable, painful and potentially serious injuries that do not imply ‘fighting’ or anyone doing anything wrong.

I’ve watched too many youth soccer games not to know that sometimes, people hurt themselves all by themselves. Of course parents are certain their little darlings could not possibly have fallen down and gotten hurt all by themselves without a shove or other foul but of course that happens all the time,

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It may mean that. But in world with nuanced thinking, it may be an example of excessive rhetoric attempting to show solidarity with Gaza or Hamas. It is only a clear threat to those who wish to see statements attacking their beliefs or views as clear threat.

I disagree that Gaza and Hamas are synonyms. Saying one is with Hamas is very ugly. It means they support violence against Israel. It can mean nothing else in the context of someone in America saying it. Much like defending someone who says they are with Mussolini potentially meaning they like the train schedule working out.

I don't think it is a threat, but it can easily cross the line into the territory of anti-Israel / anti-Semitic.

As you say, they are not synonyms even though from a political standpoint they are effectively interchangeable.

*spit take*

 

[laughing dog]

I would consider "We are Hamas" to be a threat.

You consider a person holding a rock near an officer a threat. <- not an exaggeration

Hamas brutally attacks innocents. Saying "We are Hamas" is saying that they will brutally attack innocents. A clear threat.

It may mean that. But in world with nuanced thinking, it may be an example of excessive rhetoric attempting to show solidarity with Gaza or Hamas. It is only a clear threat to those who wish to see statements attacking their beliefs or views as clear threat.

I disagree that Gaza and Hamas are synonyms. Saying one is with Hamas is very ugly. It means they support violence against Israel. It can mean nothing else in the context of someone in America saying it. Much like defending someone who says they are with Mussolini potentially meaning they like the train schedule working out.

Do you get to wear robes as Pope of what people mean in America?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because anti-Israel is not the same as anti- Jewish.

When you hold Israel to standards dissimilar to any other country in the world, you might be an anti-semite.
When you think Israel should just roll over and not defend itself from attacks by Hamas and other Tehran vassals, you might be an anti-semite.
When you think Israel should be destroyed, you damn sure are an anti-semite.

In the world without nuanced thinking, I’d agree. But I live in the real world where I can understand that the call for destruction of a country may he a call for the destruction of it government but not its people.

Yes, but there certainly are plenty of people who call for both the destruction of Israel and the destruction of all Jews, not merely the toppling of Bibi.

Simple test--if you replace "Israel" with "Jews" does it still make just as much sense? If so then it's probably disguised antisemitism.

To be fair, you are guilty of interchanging those terms unfairly. Should we start calling you a Nazi?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would consider "We are Hamas" to be a threat.

You consider a person holding a rock near an officer a threat. <- not an exaggeration

Hamas brutally attacks innocents. Saying "We are Hamas" is saying that they will brutally attack innocents. A clear threat.

It may mean that. But in world with nuanced thinking, it may be an example of excessive rhetoric attempting to show solidarity with Gaza or Hamas. It is only a clear threat to those who wish to see statements attacking their beliefs or views as clear threat.

I disagree that Gaza and Hamas are synonyms. Saying one is with Hamas is very ugly. It means they support violence against Israel. It can mean nothing else in the context of someone in America saying it. Much like defending someone who says they are with Mussolini potentially meaning they like the train schedule working out.

Do you get to wear robes as Pope of what people mean in America?

No, that'd be ghastly!