Jewish Student's character questioned based on her faith

[Gromnir]

it's University students... and frankly, sometimes we need those largely ignorant idealists to challenge conventional notions.  just because a kid is dumb doesn't mean he is wrong.  hey, perhaps in the 21st century we need a more euro-centric notion o' freedom o' speech where articles, speeches and symbolic speech that offends a recognized cultural group should be censored and the speaker should be criminalized.  we hope that ain't the case and we completely disagree that offensive speech should be illegal (the only speech that needs protection is speech that offends) but we do think it is good that the next generation is challenging our beliefs at a time in their life when they can do so without any lasting harm to their reputation being done. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps back in the early 90s at least, UC santa cruz had an incredibly beautiful campus, and the way they organized their dorms and on-campus housing were kinda unique for a west coast school.  pepperdine might have had a marginally more attractive campus than uc santa cruz... maybe. if we had a kid studying astronomy/physics or international finance or a host o' other subjects for which UC santa criuz had national recognition, we would not have hesitated allowing 'em to be a banana slug.  undergrad as an aardvark, on the other hand, would have required some convincing.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Gromnir

[Cantousent]

I've *been* to that library and quite enjoyed it, MrISO.  I have a close younger friend who attends Bezerkly and apparently it's not nearly as left leaning as we folks in flyover country think.

[Cantousent]

Sorry, Grom, from Hurlie's article:

 

"After citing freedom of speech as a 'valued right that ASUCI supports,' the resolution states that 'freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech.'"

[Gromnir]

Sorry, Grom, from Hurlie's article:

 

"After citing freedom of speech as a 'valued right that ASUCI supports,' the resolution states that 'freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible can be interpreted as hate speech.'"

yeah, we get that they is bugnuts, but you see that this is a student-directed resolution on a college campus.  so... so what?  let them fight it out, and if they somehow win, they can then see how the Court smashes their resolution.  is a good learning experience.

 

honestly, we is talking about freaking flags. so the worst-case scenario is the butt-weasel with his peculiar notions o' free speech wins... and ten seconds later somebody such as Gromnir shows up with an injunction that prevents any actual change to the flag policy.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 8, 2015 by Gromnir

[ManifestedISO]

I've *been* to that library and quite enjoyed it

 

The art installations there and at MCA La Jolla are a bigger draw for me. I'm not a card-carrying member of the museum anymore, but that's because I need beer money nowadays. 

[Gromnir]

 

I've *been* to that library and quite enjoyed it

 

The art installations there and at MCA La Jolla are a bigger draw for me. I'm not a card-carrying member of the museum anymore, but that's because I need beer money nowadays. 

 

decades ago we gave a speech down at point loma nazarene college.  little flea speck o' a place, but talk about a pretty location.  sadly, most o' the buildings were needing renovation/modernization. still, we woulda' loved to have stayed another couple days.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

Oh, I don't mind the flag thing.  I mostly think that it's weird that they passed the resolution.  For someone like me, the notion that free speech in and of itself could be considered hate speech is far worse.  Hell, I don't even think the student board at UCLA should be prevented from asking a lot of politically pointed questions of the Jewish student, Ms. Beyda.  I think they look dumb for doing it and I'm exercising my free speech by making fun of it, but I think they're entirely in their rights to do it.

[Gromnir]

Oh, I don't mind the flag thing.  I mostly think that it's weird that they passed the resolution.  For someone like me, the notion that free speech in and of itself could be considered hate speech is far worse.  

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7675

 

the Court is not appreciative o' such nonsense.  the flag scenario is a bit different, but note we gots a 9-0 hate speech ordinance decision involving freaking cross burning for chrissakes.  a university counts as a State actor, so...

 

is a good learning experience.  makes'em look silly and stoopid, but they is University students, so they is almost by definition, silly and stupid.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps we don't wanna diminish what we see as a terribly dangerous notion o' free speech.  however, we is talking about flags on a university campus.  we would prefer that these kinda battles would be fought over such minutiae with students doing the front-line fighting. 

 

edit: our linky vanished

Edited March 8, 2015 by Gromnir

[Marcvs Caesar]

I never fully understood "antisemitism", from my perspective Judaism is the least worst of the Abrahamic religions. Is it a product of christian mythology?

Edited March 8, 2015 by Marcvs Caesar

[Valsuelm]

I never fully understood "antisemitism", from my perspective Judaism is the least worst of the Abrahamic religions. Is it a product of christian mythology?

 

Like some other words that are used to label people as 'haters' such as 'homophobe'. it's a misused word. The vast majority of the people who use such words to label others however don't think that deep, even though we're talking about a level just below the superficial. It's not a product of christian mythology, it's a product of 'cultural Marxist' or 'progressive' mythology. Propaganda. They're marginalization tools, and work well for those with short attention spans.

[213374U]

 

I never fully understood "antisemitism", from my perspective Judaism is the least worst of the Abrahamic religions. Is it a product of christian mythology?

 

Like some other words that are used to label people as 'haters' such as 'homophobe'. it's a misused word. The vast majority of the people who use such words to label others however don't think that deep, even though we're talking about a level just below the superficial. It's not a product of christian mythology, it's a product of 'cultural Marxist' or 'progressive' mythology. Propaganda. They're marginalization tools, and work well for those with short attention spans.

 

I agree with regards to labels in an abstract sense, but I'm not sure what you're getting at with this reply. Antisemitism (the attitude) predates the word by several centuries at least. Are you suggesting that prejudices in general do not in fact exist and are a fabrication of progressive ideologues?

[Valsuelm]

 

 

I never fully understood "antisemitism", from my perspective Judaism is the least worst of the Abrahamic religions. Is it a product of christian mythology?

 

Like some other words that are used to label people as 'haters' such as 'homophobe'. it's a misused word. The vast majority of the people who use such words to label others however don't think that deep, even though we're talking about a level just below the superficial. It's not a product of christian mythology, it's a product of 'cultural Marxist' or 'progressive' mythology. Propaganda. They're marginalization tools, and work well for those with short attention spans.

 

I agree with regards to labels in an abstract sense, but I'm not sure what you're getting at with this reply. Antisemitism (the attitude) predates the word by several centuries at least. Are you suggesting that prejudices in general do not in fact exist and are a fabrication of progressive ideologues?

 

 

No, I'm not suggesting that. Prejudices of course exist.

 

The word 'Antisemitism' as it is commonly used these days, is misused. Look up what a Semite is, and you'll see why.

 

As a related aside. I cannot recommend enough for everyone reading this to find and watch the documentary 'Defamation' if one has not already seen it.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Valsuelm

[213374U]

Ah, I see. So it's the etymological aspect that bothers you. I guess I can understand that. Yeah, I remember getting into an arguement with some South American army buddies of mine because I suggested that, despite what they were used to hearing, they weren't really "latins" at all, and for that matter, neither was I. It went nowhere fast. Yep, I like my discussions tactless and pointless. Bonus points if I get my ass kicked.

Edited March 8, 2015 by 213374U

[Cantousent]

On one hand, words have meaning from use, so anti-Semite has pretty much come to mean anti-Jewish, but every now and then you see the word used in the broader sense.  Same with Latino.  Hell, people use Romance almost exclusively to describe either relationships or stories about relationships.  So, I don't mind words morphing into different meanings.  However, I completely agree with you guys about the overuse of some terms to label people.

 

I guess I was guilty of that also, because I don't think there's enough evidence to say that the people in question were 'anti-Semitic,' and if I couldn't point to a specific example, I shouldn't have used the word.  I do tend to be extremely frustrated when words become so generalized that become virtually meaningless.  If someone thinks women drivers aren't as good as men, he's a misogynist.  If someone thinks that Africans are smarter than Asians, he's a racist.  If someone questions the ability of a Jewish student, he's an anti-Semite.  That's just not fair.  I don't actually know whether the board members are anti-Semitic or not.  I should, in that case, assume they are not until they show they are.  However, I still think the line of questioning was politically motivated, which is altogether different.

[Amentep]

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7675

Great Quote: 'Government has no authority "to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules."'

[Gromnir]

 

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7675

Great Quote: 'Government has no authority "to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules."'

 

while some folks dislike his legal philosophy, scalia has been dogged consistent, with one notable exception.  we honest cannot square oregon v. smith with scalia's other decisions.  oregon v. smith were arguably correct, but scalia appeared to have a rehnquist moment-- he made the law fit his needs rather than letting the law settle the question.

 

however, regardless o' personal opinions on scalia, he has had the best lines o' any Justice since holmes and/or frankfurter.

 

"As to the Court's invocation of the Lemon test: Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District. Its most recent burial, only last Term, was, to be sure, not fully six feet under: Our decision in Lee v. Weisman conspicuously avoided using the supposed test but also declined the invitation to repudiate it. Over the years, however, no fewer than five of the currently sitting Justices have, in their own opinions, personally driven pencils through the creature's heart (the author of today's opinion repeatedly), and a sixth has joined an opinion doing so. The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will. Such a docile and useful monster is worth keeping around, at least in a somnolent state; one never knows when one might need him."

 

"'The operation was a success, but the patient died.' What such a procedure is to medicine, the Court's opinion in this case is to law."

 

"Legislative flexibility on the part of Congress will be the touchstone of federalism when the capacity to support combustion becomes the acid test of a fire extinguisher. Congressional flexibility is desirable, of course - but only within the bounds of federal power established by the Constitution. Beyond those bounds (the theory of our Constitution goes), it is a menace."

 

"The Court's statement that it is 'tempting' to acknowledge the authoritativeness of tradition in order to 'curb the discretion of federal judges' is, of course, rhetoric rather than reality; no government official is 'tempted' to place restraints upon his own freedom of action, which is why Lord Acton did not say 'Power tends to purify.' The Court's temptation is in the quite opposite and more natural direction -- towards systematically eliminating checks upon its own power; and it succumbs."

 

"The purpose of Indiana's nudity law would be violated, I think, if 60,000 fully consenting adults crowded into the Hoosierdome to display their genitals to one another, even if there were not an offended innocent in the crowd."

 

"'for want of a nail, a kingdom was lost' is a commentary on fate, not the statement of a major cause of action against a blacksmith."

 

we don't always agree with scalia, but he has integrity and of all current and recent Justices, his decisions is the most fun to read... while we recognize that there is probably something wrong with a person who could define such reading as "fun."

 

HA! Good Fun!