Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Well you know those troublesome Jews....
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Banning of Pro-Israel Speakers at UC Berkeley Student Groups
- Thread starter Left Coast
- Start date
That seems to be the case. Berkeley's law school dean explains it that way.
Is it your assertion that advocating violence is characteristic of all zionism and all zionists?
You are equating the [broad] category 'zionism' with ISIS?
Berkeley does allow all of those sorts of groups.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
I am for freedom of speech. But these are student groups voting for their own laws, correct? In this case, I think understanding the group and their purpose is important.
If the university clamped down on its student clubs and said "you MUST allow Zionist guest speakers," that would be only permitting one side of the argument.
The groups in question are listed in the article (though the article doesn't say that the list is complete):
I see it more broadly....not just about nationalism,
Jews, blacks, whites, male, female, etc, etc.
People who form groups around some shared
beliefs or agendas shouldn't be required to
host speakers at odds with them.
IMO.
We should note that RF doesn't host all views,
especially in DIRs. Are all OK with that?
I'm not going to define zionism.
That would lead to derailment.
What do you think is illegal about the clubs' bylaws?
The idea that supporting an apartheid state is an integral part of being Jewish strikes me as pretty anti-semitic itself.
They aren't "equated". But they have a similarity in this
context, ie, both have fervent foes and supporters.
The False Equivalency fallacy is so very mis-used by
so many. We can consider 2 different things which
have some feature in common. Example...
Dems & Pubs...both parties have used rhetoric that
foments hostility & violence. To say this doesn't mean
they are the same in all ways, or even that they have the
same degree of similarity. But it's useful to criticize both
for contributing to our increasing problem in that area.
Both must own up to their sins.
This is not making anything equivalent. But it seems they
want to erect that straw man....as if to say "We're so much
better than they are, that you can't even compare us!"
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Some people cannot tolerate freedom of speech, since their own views might be challenged by certain people. This could impact their authority and their recruitment efforts. These same University groups also censor Conservative speakers who challenge their orthodoxy. Free speech is not in their favor, since their ideas are weak will not hold up in an open discussion.
For example, how are open borders in the USA, which allows illegal immigrants to flood border towns and over extend their town resources, any different from the Jews immigrating to Israel, expanding into Palestinian territory, for similar reasons; better life?
The University Fascists want a sovereign state for Palestine, but not one for the USA? Hypocrisy is a tool of Fascism and this can be pointed out. Maybe we need to ship illegals immigrants to UC Berkeley for their resettlement. They will spend more on lawyers than on food like in Martha's Vineyard.
Universities, during teaching exercises, will often use hypothetical examples, to help students learn pure and applied concepts. A business student may be required to set up a hypothetical business, subject to hypothetical market pressures, to test the robustness of their business model.
What appears to be happening is these new hypothetical university experiments are being seen as applicable to the real world, but are falling flat due to confronting hard reality instead of university idealism. Now we have over compensation and censorship, since it is easy to see the real world problems these models have created, that may not have been expected in University environment experiments.
For example, the crime statistics said that certain races weighed heavier in the FBI crime data. For example black on black male murder rates are very high. The hypothetical model said they this data was racist and was really due to the police targeting certain races.
A few West Coast experiments were run, in Democrats controlled cities, during the 2020 summer of riots. The model was expanded into defund the police and finally a revolving door justice system. That will fix the racist based crime problem, right? The new data says crime is now even worse which is the opposite to how it played out in the imaginary world of hypothetical University models.
If they had an open mind, they would learn from their mistakes and then go back to the drawing board, and try a better path. But instead they would prefer bury their heads in the sand and censor ideas that are more connected to the reality of the situation.
Conservative is about sticking with long term test proven models that have worked. To move forward you often need to go back to a restore point, where all was better, and draw a line to the present and future. This is why Conservative go back to the Constitution and original intent, then move forward. Sending abortion to the states allows for 50 experiments to see what is best for the most people. If were have only one huge experiment and it fails we are all screwed. Pilot testing is a better way to start again.
Liberals are more open minded to change and to new ideas. However, not all new idea will meet the needs of the present and/or stand the test of time. When they do, Conservative will embrace them. Liberals often want change, just for the sake of change, but not all ideas will make things better; defund the police. But like a person with a dream, some people will keep investing into a sinking ship, and will block out anyone who tries to help them cut their losses.
If religion is seen as imaginary, then belief systems that lead to the opposite of what was expected in reality, are a form of religion. They are driven by an imaginary affect; internal faith. Separation of Church and State was added to the Constitution, with the State not allowed to establish such religions. The Censorship and Orthodoxy approach is usually a tell for hypothetical reality religions. Free speech is a good litmus test for the ability to pivot and learn which means one is better in touch with reality; calm reason instead of hysterical with emotions.
For example, how are open borders in the USA, which allows illegal immigrants to flood border towns and over extend their town resources, any different from the Jews immigrating to Israel, expanding into Palestinian territory, for similar reasons; better life?
The University Fascists want a sovereign state for Palestine, but not one for the USA? Hypocrisy is a tool of Fascism and this can be pointed out. Maybe we need to ship illegals immigrants to UC Berkeley for their resettlement. They will spend more on lawyers than on food like in Martha's Vineyard.
Universities, during teaching exercises, will often use hypothetical examples, to help students learn pure and applied concepts. A business student may be required to set up a hypothetical business, subject to hypothetical market pressures, to test the robustness of their business model.
What appears to be happening is these new hypothetical university experiments are being seen as applicable to the real world, but are falling flat due to confronting hard reality instead of university idealism. Now we have over compensation and censorship, since it is easy to see the real world problems these models have created, that may not have been expected in University environment experiments.
For example, the crime statistics said that certain races weighed heavier in the FBI crime data. For example black on black male murder rates are very high. The hypothetical model said they this data was racist and was really due to the police targeting certain races.
A few West Coast experiments were run, in Democrats controlled cities, during the 2020 summer of riots. The model was expanded into defund the police and finally a revolving door justice system. That will fix the racist based crime problem, right? The new data says crime is now even worse which is the opposite to how it played out in the imaginary world of hypothetical University models.
If they had an open mind, they would learn from their mistakes and then go back to the drawing board, and try a better path. But instead they would prefer bury their heads in the sand and censor ideas that are more connected to the reality of the situation.
Conservative is about sticking with long term test proven models that have worked. To move forward you often need to go back to a restore point, where all was better, and draw a line to the present and future. This is why Conservative go back to the Constitution and original intent, then move forward. Sending abortion to the states allows for 50 experiments to see what is best for the most people. If were have only one huge experiment and it fails we are all screwed. Pilot testing is a better way to start again.
Liberals are more open minded to change and to new ideas. However, not all new idea will meet the needs of the present and/or stand the test of time. When they do, Conservative will embrace them. Liberals often want change, just for the sake of change, but not all ideas will make things better; defund the police. But like a person with a dream, some people will keep investing into a sinking ship, and will block out anyone who tries to help them cut their losses.
If religion is seen as imaginary, then belief systems that lead to the opposite of what was expected in reality, are a form of religion. They are driven by an imaginary affect; internal faith. Separation of Church and State was added to the Constitution, with the State not allowed to establish such religions. The Censorship and Orthodoxy approach is usually a tell for hypothetical reality religions. Free speech is a good litmus test for the ability to pivot and learn which means one is better in touch with reality; calm reason instead of hysterical with emotions.
And yet:
- It does host discussions such as this, and
- RF is not a public university.
So do the ZCubs.
It appears that you're making this about the university
banning some speakers. I read it as being allowing
student groups to do so. Is this wrong?
It does not host all discussions.
I recall one subject I broached, but was told it violated the rules.
And of course, in the DIRs, I've received many demerits.
Why should student groups have less ability to restrict
speech than those who run RF & the DIRs?