Orlando Buffalo Posted July 3 Posted July 3 On 6/12/2025 at 6:26 PM, The Frankish Reich said: Yes, and of course the logic (a fascinating course; maybe Harvard Extension offers it online?) goes like this: - Harvard's code of conduct bans harassment and bullying - Calling for the elimination or forced movement of a people isn't necessarily harassment or bullying unless it is directed to a specific person - Hence, calling for genocide doesn't necessarily violate the code. Wow. That was fun. Shall we do it again? I missed the first time around, so I am asking your opinion, not the reasoning used, is calling for the genocide of a people harassment of people in that group?
ScotSHO Posted July 3 Posted July 3 This argument is silly Franklin - insert black people instead of jewish and wowsers the analysis would be different. Remember way back to last week when you were offended by the super racist joke of having someone dance-off their judicial dissent? 1
The Frankish Reich Posted July 3 Author Posted July 3 (edited) 2 hours ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I missed the first time around, so I am asking your opinion, not the reasoning used, is calling for the genocide of a people harassment of people in that group? 2 hours ago, ScotSHO said: This argument is silly Franklin - insert black people instead of jewish and wowsers the analysis would be different. Remember way back to last week when you were offended by the super racist joke of having someone dance-off their judicial dissent? Sorry, the question as posed initially asked for a, well, lawyerly response. Does calling for genocide (maybe not "genocide" but forced displacement of a people from their recognized land - think "from the river to the sea") violate college codes of conduct? So you got an answer from me that's not that different than the answer the Ivy League presidents gave: no, because unless it is aimed a particular people on campus, it doesn't fit the definition of threatened violence against those people, so 1st Amendment considerations mean we accept it as free speech. There's another question: is it offensive? That one is easier. Yes. It is offensive to call for the elimination of a people from the face of the earth. Always and everywhere. And a subquestion: is it offensive to say "from the river to the sea?" Is it offensive to say "Israel shall control Gaza and the West Bank and the Palestinian residents just have to move somewhere else?" I'm not so sure this one is categorical. It's a political question. UN declarations have always honored the principle of self-determination, but then the question is always "who is the self that gets to determine?" Displaced Palestinians and their offspring aren't voting in Israeli elections for obvious reasons. Russia, after forcibly killing or removing ethnic Ukrainians from much of eastern Ukraine, probably says "let's have a vote amongst the remaining (mostly pro-Russia) people about which country they wish to belong to." So this is more complicated. But since people seem confused by my take, I'll repeat it: calling for the elimination of a people is always offensive and wrong. Depending on the context, it may be a violation of a college's rules, but that requires an examination of the rule and the conduct that allegedly violated the rule. Edited July 3 by The Frankish Reich 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 3 Posted July 3 24 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Sorry, the question as posed initially asked for a, well, lawyerly response. Does calling for genocide (maybe not "genocide" but forced displacement of a people from their recognized land - think "from the river to the sea") violate college codes of conduct? So you got an answer from me that's not that different than the answer the Ivy League presidents gave: no, because unless it is aimed a particular people on campus, it doesn't fit the definition of threatened violence against those people, so 1st Amendment considerations mean we accept it as free speech. There's another question: is it offensive? That one is easier. Yes. It is offensive to call for the elimination of a people from the face of the earth. Always and everywhere. And a subquestion: is it offensive to say "from the river to the sea?" Is it offensive to say "Israel shall control Gaza and the West Bank and the Palestinian residents just have to move somewhere else?" I'm not so sure this one is categorical. It's a political question. UN declarations have always honored the principle of self-determination, but then the question is always "who is the self that gets to determine?" Displaced Palestinians and their offspring aren't voting in Israeli elections for obvious reasons. Russia, after forcibly killing or removing ethnic Ukrainians from much of eastern Ukraine, probably says "let's have a vote amongst the remaining (mostly pro-Russia) people about which country they wish to belong to." So this is more complicated. But since people seem confused by my take, I'll repeat it: calling for the elimination of a people is always offensive and wrong. Depending on the context, it may be a violation of a college's rules, but that requires an examination of the rule and the conduct that allegedly violated the rule. I figured you were doing a "lawyer" thing, it sounds good on paper but is not reasonable 1 2
The Frankish Reich Posted July 3 Author Posted July 3 20 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said: I figured you were doing a "lawyer" thing, it sounds good on paper but is not reasonable Sorry, I can't help it! But seriously: some of these things are legal issues. We don't like someone's message. Should we censor it? Punish it? Or should we just live with it, criticize it, but accept it based on higher free speech values.
JDHillFan Posted July 3 Posted July 3 7 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Sorry, I can't help it! But seriously: some of these things are legal issues. We don't like someone's message. Should we censor it? Punish it? Or should we just live with it, criticize it, but accept it based on higher free speech values. The question posed to the university presidents was “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules on bullying and harassment?” I suspect the president’s would have answered in the affirmative for many other favored groups mentioned rather than Jews. Hard to believe they lost their jobs, isn’t it? 1
Big Blitz Posted August 11 Posted August 11 Stage 3: Woke right talking points bleed over to the public sphere by having candidates openly espouse woke right ideologies as campaign platforms. Stage 4: The MSM and the left as a whole frame the entire conservative movement as woke right and they use the very words, posts, and videos of woke right personalities as proof. Stage 5: The independents abandon the right. Voter turnout fractures amongst Republicans. The left sweeps multiple local, state, and federal elections taking back power over the government at large. Stage 6: They become even more tyrannical than before in order to ensure that the right never has a chance at victory ever again. The woke right is a strategic psyop to destroy the conservative coalition that Trump built.
Recommended Posts