Sinister objectives which motorbiking has happily gone along with, and assumed they were all genuine.
This looks set to escalate.
- Thread starter motorbiking
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
She has reverted to her teaching work at the same uni.
She only resigned from her role as president.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,418
- Reaction score
- 2,644
- Country
I suggest you watch the video and ask yourself if her answers are acceptable. Then I suggest you ask yourself, if someone marched to campaign to have African Americans pushed out of America, you'd be happy call it free speech, so long as their speech didn't cross in to conduct.Sinister objectives which motorbiking has happily gone along with, and assumed they were all genuine.
Are you also happy with racism being called free speech as long as its only against jews?
But it does depend on the Uni's code of conduct which takes context into account.For instance, I'm sure you would argue that showing a picture of Mohammad to a class of kids is not islamophobic because of the context.
Context, context matters.
If i'm discussing racism in a UNI class, and I use words which were in regular use, but are now considered offensive, and I used the words to invite comments from the class, they would not be considered racist in that context.
You can't assume everything considered racist in normal speech is racist when it's used in a different context.
So of course context matters.
Otherwise we couldn't discuss issues like racism, antisemitism in academic scenarios.
Of course there will be idiots who will exploit the opportunity to use offensive words, and claim they were discussing them in an academic context. But those idiots are easily spotted.
Sponsored Links
If you're promoting racism, hatred, even violence, it should not be allowed as free speech.
It might be in USA, but UK standards are not their standards.
She dose not!
She agrees that she has heard those words, and she describes them as horrific.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,418
- Reaction score
- 2,644
- Country
Except you need to listen carefully that while she describes them as abhorrent, she considered them to be free speech. Repeatedly saying "when speech crosses in to conduct". Hate speeches are allowed - against jews at least..
That's the way it is in good ole USA.
And the Uni code of coduct will follow the law.
Which bit of your quote are her words. You've carefully crafted her words into your opinion of what she actually said.
When you can post exactly her words, and not what you think she said, you might command a bit more respect.
And can you post the time of her words that you quote from the video?
For me, I had difficulty hearing her words over the persistent voice of the questioner: "yes or no", "yes or no", "yes or no", "yes or no",
A bit like Mottie repeatedly asking the same question over and over and over again, until he gets the answer he wants.
Then when the answer is not what he wants to hear, he makes his assumption of the asnwer.
When someone asks such closed questions, there may not be the only closed answers that thye've thought of.
For example, suppose you ask me if I took a shower yesterday, yes or no?
I'd have to answer, it depends on what you call a shower.
You: yes, or no?
Me: I can't answer that question with a simple yes or no.
You; yes or no.
Me: look it's not my fault if you only considered the answer could be yes or no. There's other equally valid answers.
You: yes or no?
Me: it's the question that's at fault, not my answer.
No, it not the question that’s at fault, it’s you. You'd just say "ask others if they've had a shower before you ask me and then I’d answer". Thus avoiding the question, just like you did with my question. On here, we call it swerving.A bit like Mottie repeatedly asking the same question over and over and over again, until he gets the answer he wants.
Then when the answer is not what he wants to hear, he makes his assumption of the asnwer.
When someone asks such closed questions, there may not be the only closed answers that thye've thought of.
For example, suppose you ask me if I took a shower yesterday, yes or no?
I'd have to answer, it depends on what you call a shower.
You: yes, or no?
Me: I can't answer that question with a simple yes or no.
You; yes or no.
Me: look it's not my fault if you only considered the answer could be yes or no. There's other equally valid answers.
You: yes or no?
Me: it's the question that's at fault, not my answer.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 17,418
- Reaction score
- 2,644
- Country
The great thing about Youtube is you can click the subtitles and read them. You can also read the code of conduct. There is nothing in the code that protects black people from "free speech" but not Jews. Yet under her watch she took no action to offer the kind of protection from harassment and bullying, that black people had previously been given. When held to account - her testimony was woefully poor and as a result she has gone.
Try it, to prove yourself right or wrong.
Ask that question. Try it, then you can call it what you want, and you will.
I won’t put you back on ignore if that’s what you’re trying for but I will ignore your questions when you start getting silly about it.
I didn't ask you for your opinion on what you claim she said. I asked you for your verbatim report on what she actually said.
I couldn't hear her over all the interruptive: Yes or no, Yes or no, Yes or no, Yes or no, noise.
Of course your opinoion will be a negative because she's an intelligent black woman.
You've already made your opinion of intelligent women crystal clear.
You want to deny womem control over their own bodies, claiming it's killing unborn babies, but you'll happily support the killing of Palestinian five day old babies.
Last edited:
Now you know how I feel.
One could easily show how USA is the head of the Israeli snake.
Their support is vastly more genorous, and claimed to be more justified.
Last edited:
- Status
Sponsored Links
