Summarizing a report from The Intercept :
One of the most dangerous threats to campus free speech has been emerging at the highest levels of the University of California system, the sprawling collection of 10 campuses that includes UCLA and UC Berkeley. The university's governing Board of Regents, with the support of University President and former Director of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, has been attempting to adopt new speech codes that -- in the name of combating "anti-Semitism" -- would formally ban various forms of Israel criticism and anti-Israel activism.
[...]
One of the Regents most vocally advocating for the most stringent version of the speech code is Richard Blum, the multi-millionaire defense contractor who is married to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. Blum's verbatim comments include:" She [Feinstein] wants to stay out of the conversation publicly but if we do not do the right thing she will engage publicly and is prepared to be critical of this university if we don't have the kind of not only statement but penalties for those who commit what you can call them crimes, call them whatever you want."
In short, Feinstein and her husband flatly threatened the university with political consequences if students or faculty found to be in violation of their policy aren't disciplined or expelled for exercising protected free speech.
What is wanted by Feinstein and supporters is for the University to adopt the State Department's controversial 2010 definition which equates criticism of Israel to Anti-Semitism. Perhaps the most ironic bullet-point in the definition warns against advocating a "double standard for Israel" at exactly the same time that it promulgates a standard that applies only to Israel!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 08 2015, @05:22PM
That crazy bitch is worse than Hillary. I swear - she suffered a stroke, and the doctors saved the clot instead of the woman. That is one brain dead lump of flesh. I'm sure that SOMEONE is going to stand up to defend her - before you do, you should probably read TFS and TFA again. She wants to pass laws, detailing what you are permitted to say. Is there any more heinous form of censorship? She's willing to put you or me into prison, for saying something that she doesn't like.
That's as Un-American as you can get.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:03PM
The only thing worse than that is that this living dumpster fire also somehow has her fucking tendrils in basically everything bad out there that there is. She's like the model republican, except she also hates the couple things that republicans get right.
Shady Defense Contracts
PATRIOT Act
FISA
Assault Weapons Ban
NSA Surveillance
Anti-drug legalization
Now we can add censorship to casual fascism.
She also resembles a ghoul from a D&D Monster Manual. One of the old ones from the 80's.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:08PM
I can only come up with this: she strongly opposed torture. The sad thing is that that is somehow notable in congress.
(Score: 4, Funny) by tibman on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:25PM
You could be right, found this: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-L6yQbhSmo8g/UPjeE_AFCsI/AAAAAAAAD68/IXCzNOmhmI4/s1600/Feinstein+Monster.jpg [blogspot.com]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 4, Funny) by dyingtolive on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:53PM
The Feinstein golem draws near. Roll initiative!
..that was probably anti-Semitic.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2, Funny) by snufu on Friday October 09 2015, @04:45AM
Don't forget to roll referendum and recall too.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:27PM
She's willing to put you or me into prison, for saying something that she doesn't like. That's as Un-American as you can get.
I read TFA and there's nothing about prison at all. From TFA:
Where exactly is this threatening prison for anyone? Where exactly does this apply to non-UC students?
I'm no fan of censorship and believe, as Justice Brandeis pointed out:
That said, AFAICT, TFA reads like a hit piece on Napolitano, Blum, and by association Feinstein, rather than a news article. I'd also point out that the language [state.gov] requested by Blum and Napolitano has not been included [dailycal.org] in the document.
Once again, I agree that speech should not be abridged or censored, and certainly not punished. I will point out that this whole brouhaha was set off by some pretty despicable behavior [dailynews.com] (not speech) aimed at Jews. While I don't think that speech should be censored, given the activities perpetrated by some on UC campuses, I'd be pretty scared to be a Jew there, and that's just as objectionable to me.
I'm not defending the senior senator from California, but she didn't say anything about this. From TFA:
Feinstein's husband (Dick Blum), on the other hand, is a different story (also from TFA):
This jerk-off (Blum) threatened to sic his wife on folks if they didn't do what he wanted. Well, he hasn't gotten his way. And a good thing too. And I haven't heard about Senator Feinstein following through on her husband's threats either. Which doesn't surprise me, as it would be political suicide for her to promote censorship. I suspect that Blum hoped that the threat would be enough. Now he knows better.
As an aside, perhaps we could try to tone down the hyperbole a little -- or at least get our facts straight. Just sayin'.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hyperturtle on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:43PM
I have to think it is hyperbole, but I do agree with the basis of the sentiment -- she's not good news, not as a democrat, not as a republican.
It's OK to spy on everyone until someone spyed on her. Drones were OK until one was hovering out her window (or something like that).
She has frequently expressed less than satisfactory concern for her fellow Americans than I would want a elected member of the government to express, act upon, and make good on.
I don't live there so I can't vote, but Cthulu, or Voldemort -- or the pair with Voldemort as a running mate (being the lesser evil) are pale compared to her, because they honest and earnest about their goals and desires. I do not believe the same of her, not unless she is baring her teeth while hissing.
This activity of hers is a good example of that.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday October 08 2015, @10:10PM
I have to think it is hyperbole, but I do agree with the basis of the sentiment -- she's not good news, not as a democrat, not as a republican.
It's OK to spy on everyone until someone spyed on her. Drones were OK until one was hovering out her window (or something like that).
She has frequently expressed less than satisfactory concern for her fellow Americans than I would want a elected member of the government to express, act upon, and make good on.
I don't live there so I can't vote, but Cthulu, or Voldemort -- or the pair with Voldemort as a running mate (being the lesser evil) are pale compared to her, because they honest and earnest about their goals and desires. I do not believe the same of her, not unless she is baring her teeth while hissing.
I don't live in California either. I also have no love for Feinstein. She's a shrill partisan and a tool for those who would take our privacy and liberty.
This activity of hers is a good example of that.
To which activity are you referring? Feinstein's husband claimed that she agreed with him, but she herself has made no statements about this. The only thing I'm aware of is a quote from the Senator's press secretary which reads:
Feinstein may very well agree with her husband, it's certainly not a stretch to think that may be true. As we can all agree, and for good reason, she's not very well thought of by those who love freedom. However, AFAIK she herself has not said or done anything WRT this issue.
As such, I won't tar Feinstein with that particular brush until there is some actual, as you put it, "activity" on her part related to restricting speech at UC.
Perhaps we could assume that she and her husband are the same person but, absent proof that's so, let's beat up on Dick Blum and Janet Napolitano for this. We have plenty of other stuff to beat up on Diane Feinstein for, without ascribing things we can't confirm.
Or, facts notwithstanding, is it just too much fun to dump on her instead?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Friday October 09 2015, @03:50AM
Amen.
Another brick in the wall, eh?
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday October 08 2015, @09:30PM
LOL
The lady is the leader of the NSA oversight committee during the Snowden years. Is that not enough for "political suicide"?
How low does she need to go, does she need to say something bad about Avigdor Lieberman or Yisrael Beiteinu?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:21PM
So what we have here is a Jewish conspiracy to prevent us discussing ... Jewish conspiracies?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 09 2015, @02:42PM
Sad thing is, I don't think "Jew" when I hear her, or hear about her. I'm sure that the Jews of the world would love to disown her. When she starts talking, all I hear is "Stupid". I'm sure that someone can make all her stupidity fit into Judaism, if they try hard enough. Even if they did, it wouldn't matter that she's Jewish. Stupid is as stupid does - and she does one hell of a lot of stupid.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Thursday October 08 2015, @05:23PM
When you do not like what you hear, then you start shouting (louder). When that does not help, you start banning. When that does not help, you start litigating (pounding the table).
The right to free speech and expression is uncomfortable. Guess what, it is supposed to be uncomfortable. What you do not want to hear is exactly what you need to hear; or stick some fingers in your ear and walk away.
The generation that benefit the most from the freedoms provided are those who try to prevent to grant the same courtesy to the next generation. That is irony on a national scale. Shameful, but highly ironic.
(Score: 3, Touché) by frojack on Thursday October 08 2015, @05:58PM
Come on now, haven't you been listening?
She's a Democrat, from a Democrat run state! This stuff does not come from Democrats. You need only listen to the conservative bashers here on SN to have that lesson drummed into you. You can't run around with off-talking-point messages that suggest the left would ever do such a thing.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:49PM
She's a Democrat, from a Democrat run state! This stuff does not come from Democrats.
You are absolutely right, this DID NOT come from the Democrats. From the Article: “This is a matter before the University of California and Senator Feinstein has no comment at this time,” [Feinstein's] Press Secretary said.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday October 08 2015, @09:25PM
So her husband is not a democrat and they do not have the same political leanings?
And he did specifically invoke her name as a threat to the university.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 08 2015, @09:27PM
Another missed opportunity to find common ground. Alas. Reading the comments on TFA, it sounds like everybody from all ends of the political spectrum objects to Feinstein and the words of her husband, as well as the stated positions of the UC Regents who want to silence criticism in California schools. Reading Right and Left political blogs as I do, I'd say that consensus obtains pretty widely outside SN as well: She's a national embarassment.
As for "conservative bashers here on SN," it's important not to conflate muscular challenges to your verities with silencing your speech. They're not the same thing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Friday October 09 2015, @04:04AM
Sorry - I've run out of mod points.
Very good! +1!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
We're all running around, poking sticks at rattlesnakes and/or copperheads, and missing the facts - we are debating whether X is better / less harmful / more correct than Y, when both X and Y are screwing us with impunity (and will bite us, no matter what).
Time to cut off the heads of all of them.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 1) by boxfetish on Friday October 09 2015, @04:27AM
As if Feinstein is in any way, shape, or form "The Left".
(Score: 3, Informative) by FrogBlast on Thursday October 08 2015, @05:45PM
The address in the link to the "2010 definition" is super-broken:
https://soylentnews.org/Theironiesofthisdefinitionareoverwhelming.First,itwarnsagainstadvocatinga%E2%80%9CdoublestandardforIsrael%E2%80%9D%E2%80%94atexactlythesametimethatitpromulgatesastandardthatappliesonlytoIsrael. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by n1 on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:09PM
Sorry about that. It should be fixed now in the summary: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/fs/2010/122352.htm [state.gov]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Zz9zZ on Thursday October 08 2015, @05:45PM
The past decade has shown our *cough* illustrious senator is one of the worst authoritarians. Her attitude is one of royalty, do as I say or off with your head! Making these statements under the guise of tolerance is insanity, and as the article mentions there are already laws on the books to handle the actual crimes being committed. Violations of the constitution through policy should perhaps be prosecuted as treason (perhaps because it is an extreme measure).
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @05:50PM
Or is this the usual hyperventilated crap that gets puffed up WAY out of proportion by the right wing media crowd? It certainly has many of the usual checkmarks against it ("Those Democrats . . .", "Those academic Liberals . . .", "They want to silence you . . ."). Let's just throw in a death panel reference and suggest that they will kick in your doors to take your guns away and call it a day.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:05PM
...and see if you can work in a Benghazi as well.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:32PM
If you actually read The Intercept, you'd know that it is a Left-leaning news site with emphasis on liberty and human rights.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:49PM
you say that like its a bad thing.
Far left, Far Right, it doesn't matter. All voices need to be heard.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Funny) by Zz9zZ on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:06PM
What comment did you read?? "Left-leaning" is the closest phrase I could imagine to being negative. Maybe it was meant as a negative, but from the text it is all just descriptive.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:33PM
You read the bad link, I liked the one buried in the summary: https://www.thefire.org/students-and-regents-demand-university-of-california-adopt-unconstitutional-policy/ [thefire.org]
Decent journalism there, nothing caught my eye as flamebait. Skimmed the report link at the top, the sheer number of "quoted phrases" made me stop, along with your commentary giving me an idea of what I would find.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Thursday October 08 2015, @05:52PM
So this one is insane. So? The University of California has so many other speech codes that it is hard to see why I'm supposed to be upset about this one. Oh, the Progs don't like this one! Ah! Screw you. You could have stood for the general principle of open debate and free speech on the campus and had me stand with you but you guys are perfectly fine when it is the 'right' people being silenced. Now it you ox being gored and I'm just going to say "Told you so." Yes, eventually the speech police come for you too.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:13PM
Not everything makes it to eyeballs, care to include some links to similar actions?
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:15PM
No. Because you are either arguing in bad faith or an idiot and either way I do not intend to pretend otherwise and elevate your trolling to an appearance of legitimacy it does not deserve by engaging with you.
If you have managed to sleep through the last decade or so of news reports of the growing problem of speech policing on the campus, University of CA in particular, you are an ignorant twit who has no business in this discussion. Besides, there is a thing called Google.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:34PM
Not everyone lives in California or have a Californian alma mater. If it wasn't on Slashdot, Soylent, or Ars, most of us never heard of it. So please, cool your anger and cite what they did. You brought it up so the burden is on you to present your facts in the best light possible to the discussion. Choosing to not google whatever is you are trying to say is not laziness, but giving you an opportunity to respond and present your case in a way you deem best.
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:02PM
I wasn't arguing in the slightest... I was curious. I have seen a general trend of the UCs becoming more controlling and corrupt but was curious if you had specific examples in mind. Apparently you have me pegged in your mind, or you're just looking for a fight where there is none.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:18PM
Your facts, you present them. I will not make your argument for you, and I am not up to date on the local news in Cali.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @03:58AM
Somebody asks you to back up your claims and suddenly they're "arguing in bad faith or an idiot"? Refusing to back up your claims is the same as admitting that you can't.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Thursday October 08 2015, @05:55PM
Screw the government of Israel. Quit sending them my money. You Paid Israel to Kill This Child [libertystickers.com].
There - is that anti-semitic?
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Thursday October 08 2015, @05:58PM
support the arabs. wipe out israel. afterall, why have ANY kind of democracy or western ideals in that area. might as well just use the Final Solutions? right? amirite??
sigh.
the jew hatred is rich again, in amercia and the west. anything that can be twisted to say 'see? its the jews' fault!' will be twisted. what was old is new again, I guess.
should we filter public speech? of course not. but do I really enjoy reading EF's jew-hatred filled posts? not really. if he really hates to the level his posts indicate, he's a sorry little child, indeed. but he (and his kind) should not be filtered. its better we see their kind so that we can learn from it and chose not to be like him.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rondon on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:06PM
I didn't click the link, (I don't click links on comments on the internet as a general rule), but was anything he said anti-semitic? Because I think some people say that it is, and I don't understand why? Is it wrong to despise a country (really their government, but people use the terms interchangeably) that obliterates the human rights of many, many people?
These are real questions. I would like to know.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:37PM
Criticism of Israel is viewed as anti-semetism the likes of which only a nazi could love by many. I am not certain why they think that and always assume that they are Jewish, self identify with the state of Israel as synonymous with themselves, and are personally offended. It is the only way I can cope with the extreme, emotional reactions of some people when others say something as simple as "I don't like Israel's foreign policy."
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday October 08 2015, @11:06PM
Same logic that anyone who might question a feminist initiative or position will find themselves labeled “pro-rape.” It makes no sense whatsoever.
I think there's something additional going on with the whole anti-Semitism thing. I've observed that, for whatever reason, many protestants and fundamentalists (jdavidb obviously not being one of them) somehow view it as a matter of faith to lend blind political support to Israel. One example that comes to mind is that most believe that Israel's swift victory in the Six-Day War [wikipedia.org] is proof that their god is on Israel's side. Therefore, for the USA to retain the favor of their god, the USA must support Israel.
Pile on a heaping helping of Islamophobia, and there you go. Naturally, this nuanced construction of the position that questioning Israel's politics or military constitutes blasphemy is gift-wrapped in horror at the acts of the Nazis against the Jews (but not disabled people, homosexuals, and other impurities in the Aryan race—they probably deserved it in this mindset).
There are always exceptions. See Southern Christian Identity [splcenter.org]. In that case, Caucasians are lost 13th tribe of Israel, and the political body we know otherwise as Israel is a fake.
(Score: 2) by http on Friday October 09 2015, @06:45AM
In regards to
...don't tell them about that five week conflict with Lebanon. Their poor brains might melt.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:58PM
Is it wrong to despise a country (really their government, but people use the terms interchangeably)
Thanks for pointing that out! As you notice, I specifically mentioned the government of Israel (although I could have been clearer in my title).
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tfried on Friday October 09 2015, @11:47AM
was anything he said anti-semitic?
It is in the nature of -isms that is this is generally hard to tell in any isolated instance. If you honestly want to see an -ism, you have to look at the larger picture.
A single landlord turning down a hispanic applicant for their appartment? There could be dozens of totally sound reasons for that. Hispanics in general having more trouble finding an appartment to rent? Starts looking like a sentiment. Essentially the same story for African Americans getting rough-handled by the police, or people getting all enraged about - truly objectionable - Isrealian policy. The obvious cases of racists actually priding themselves in their racism are hard to come by, these days. That does not mean the problem does not exist.
For the matter of anti-semitism, I suggest this rule of thumb: So somebody is ranting and raving at Isreal, and they seem to have good reason for that. Are they getting similarly enraged about comparable problems in countries that are similarly in good standing with "the West"? Start by mentioning China, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia as a few examples large enough that they should have an idea on at least some problematic aspects. If this does not provoke any strong reaction in the person in question, while mentioning Isreal does, then it's quite likely to be ani-semitism, indeed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @07:23PM
Complete and utter bollox. By that logic the Simon Wiesenthal Centre is anti-Arab, because they only investigate and pursue cases of people persecuting Jews they do nothing for Palestinians suffering persecution from Israel. Similarly anyone who supports sanctions against Iran is ant-Persian unless they also support sanctions against Israel for its nuclear weapons program. See how it works? Anti-semitism is prejudice against people BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWISH, pure and simple. We dont need any McCarthy-eseque witch-hunt looking for crypto-anti-semites. And anyone, such as yourself, who advocates such crap is either:
(i) A moron
(ii) A Zionist who adopts the offensive (and ironically anti-Semitic) strategy of conflating Judaism and Zionism in an attempt to censor criticism of Zionism
So, you have two choices:
(i) Admit you made a foolish statement and you now know better, morons dont have to remain morons; they can be educated
(ii) Provide a logical counter-argument to the points I have made
(Score: 1) by tfried on Friday October 09 2015, @07:54PM
0. Calm down, and get civil, will ya?
1. Read again my first two paragraphs. See why telling whether or not any particular statement is anti-semitic is not "pure and simple" in practice?
2. Understand that my rule of thumb is not so much centered about taking a particular side in the conflict, or even about being strongly biased, but about showing _much_ more interest in the Isreal/Palestine conflict than in any other conflict revolving around similar topics, and carried out using similar means. (Yes that means it would also be suitable as an "Anti-Palestine"-ism rule of thumb, but in fact, that is a rather rare -ism around here, indeed. The more common Anti-Arab-ism has more conflicts / geographic locations to feed on, and so it does).
3. Understand that I am explicitly providing a "rule of thumb", which is generally understood to refer to a heuristic which may not be accurate in all cases, and may be wildly off in some, but is still useful in many. To spell out the obvious exception for you: If you live in the area, have friends or relatives who do or have any other very plausible reason to show the particular interest as spelled out in 2), my rule of thumb is not applicable.
(Score: 1) by tfried on Friday October 09 2015, @08:03PM
Oh, as an addendum: Among the many differences between Iran and Israel, is that Iran is still in the process of developing nuclear weapons, while Israel has them. Sanctions make much more sense in the former situation. A second difference - of course - is that Israel is in good standing with "the West", while Iran is not (I did include that bit in my rule of thumb, for a reason). If you are looking for a suitable analogy, WRT nuclear weapons, take a look at India, Pakistan, or (historically) South Africa.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdavidb on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:36PM
why have ANY kind of democracy or western ideals in that area
Well, I don't believe in democracy. :) But those who do should pay for it at their expense, not the expense of everybody else. I don't care what happens in that region, but if people are suffering I would be more than glad to receive them here.
support the arabs. wipe out israel
This is a real false dichotomy. I don't support either gang: not the Israeli government nor the Arab governments.
Note that I distinguish between people and governments. I'd love to see the Israel government, the Arab governments, and the U.S. governments all eliminated. The U.S. government has perpetrated more crime and terror than any other source. Does wanting the U.S. government gone mean I want all the people in the region killed or hate them?
but do I really enjoy reading EF's jew-hatred filled posts?
I have no idea who EF is.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:47PM
This is a classic example of a tactic that AIPAC and similar groups have been using for a long time: That any criticism of Israeli policy, or criticism of the US policy of completely unconditional support for anything Israel cares to do, is anti-Semitism. The problem is that the argument is a complete fallacy, as even a quick examination of it makes very very clear:
1. A majority of Jews do not live in Israel, and there's no particular reason to think that their fate is determined by the fate of Israel as a nation. In particular, Jews have been welcome in the United States since 1654, which is why there have been more American Jews than Israeli Jews for most of the last century. Any condemnation of Israeli policy that is not also accompanied with an argument that Jews should be kicked out of the US or Europe or another country with religious freedom, therefore, does not imply opposition to Judaism as a religion or Jewish people.
2. Because non-Israeli Jews don't vote in Israeli elections, there is no particular reason to believe that the majority of Jews in the world support the actions of the Israeli government. There is also significant opposition to the current Israeli policies among Israeli Jews. The kinds of statements that generate cries of "anti-Semitism!" in the US are published in Ha'aretz and said on the floor of the Knesset on a regular basis. The only counter to that available is that those Jews are "self-hating" and somehow not "real Jews", but that is simply an example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
3. Even the term "anti-Semitism" is not really correct, because Jews are far from the only group of people that could be described as "Semitic". Among the groups of people that could also be described as "Semitic" are the Palestinians. Since condemnation of Israeli policies is often in support of the Palestinians, "pro-Semitism" would be exactly as accurate as "anti-Semitism" for those positions.
Where I think most people in the world are on the Israel-Palestine conflict, morally speaking: Stealing land at gunpoint is wrong. Terrorism is wrong. Murdering people is wrong. Bombing civilian targets is wrong. Depriving civilians of needed food and supplies is wrong.
And that kind of morality leads to a series of conclusions: Nobody involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict can reasonably claim the moral high ground, because all of them have done at least one of those wrong things in last decade. Israel needs to understand that their situation in 2015 is absolutely nothing like their situation in 1967 or 1937, and trying to pretend otherwise isn't going to work. Hamas needs to understand that their rocket campaigns aren't helping either their group or their people. And Fatah needs to understand that enriching their own leadership by selling out their people isn't helping (although to be fair they've been the least violent side for a while now). Hezbollah needs to understand that they can't even control Lebanon, much less attack Israel with any kind of hope of success. And both Hamas and the Likud Party are going to have accept the fact that wiping the other group off the map is never going to happen and adjust their manifestos and behavior accordingly.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @11:24PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @07:39PM
1. Please stop trying to conflate the Zionism and Judaism, it is grossly offensive and, incredibly ironically, anti-semitic.
2. Israel is not a democracy. At the time of its foundation (a few short decades ago) the vast majority of the local population were not Jewish. A small group of mainly foreign Jewish terrorists created the state of Israel by violent means and then set up an oppressive régime in which the majority of the native population were and have been ever since treated as second class citizens. This was followed up with a racist immigration policy in a desperate effort to manufacture a Jewish majority so that they could claim to be a 'democracy'. In summary, ethnically cleansing a land of the majority of people who you know wont vote for you, bussing in a load of your friends and then calling an election is NOT democracy, it is a grotesque parody of democracy.
Other fun facts about the 'liberal', 'democratic' state of Israel:
1. A wife is legally her husband's property
2. You have freedom of speech but not to advocate refusing military service (ie the same freedom of speech they have in North Korea; you are free to say anything as long as it doesn't offend the incumbent régime)
3. Notable people banned from entering Israel because they express views counter to the incumbent régime include prominent academics like Noam Chomesky and even holocaust survivors.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:02PM
Well the U.S. used to fund terrorism in Ireland and the UK too. It's all fun and games until someone knocks over your towers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:36PM
The money you're sending them amounts to 1% of GDP and has been shrinking over the years, you're not actually sending them anything. Now if you stopped using any technology developed there things could perhaps look different, but then you get to kiss most of your high tech goodbye :)
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:50PM
The money you're sending them amounts to 1% of GDP and has been shrinking over the years, you're not actually sending them anything
That sounds like a great reason to send your own money, but not justification for taking anyone else's.
Now if you stopped using any technology developed there things could perhaps look different, but then you get to kiss most of your high tech goodbye :)
Can't understand why I should stop using things I own and paid for. Wasn't aware it came from the middle east, either. I'm typing this on an HP elitebook 6930p - does HP have a factory there?
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:01PM
Tired of receiving letters asking them to divest from Israel companies.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:15PM
Funny how both of e-fueld's submissions today are about 'freedom' to criticize jews. Looks like we found his hot-button issue.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:34PM
Freedom to criticize anybody, and nobody should get a free pass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:52PM
> Freedom to criticize anybody, and nobody should get a free pass.
Yeah, that's you, standing up for freedom to hate everybody equally. Just a total coincidence you want to start with jews.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:57PM
I endorse this statement. Nobody should get a free pass.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @11:28PM
Its kinda sad you can't recognize e-fueld's dissembling. There is a reason he's hot on defending anti-semitism and it isn't out of a noble spirit that everybody should be treated equally. He's like the crazy islamafoe burning the koran and saying he's doing it to defend freedom of expression. There is an enormous difference between supporting freedom of expression and using freedom of expression to be a dickhole.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday October 09 2015, @12:20AM
Vandalizing a synagogue with swaztikas is probably an example of anti-Semitism.
Criticism of Israeli foreign policy and pointing out that Jewish people are over-represented in some fields is not. Would you consider somebody racist or anti-African-American for pointing out that Black people are overrepresented in the field of gangsta rap?
Why should it be considered anti-Semitic to point out that Jewish people are overrepresented in certain fields but not anti-African-American to point out that Black people are overrepresented in certain fields?
It's not about bigotry, it's about fairness.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:16PM
She is guilty of violating her oath of office.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
she has and is proposing, advocating, and voting for, measures/laws that undermine the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights.
If I get a chance to vote for her I will vote for whoever has the best chance of getting her out of office. Even if that person is Chu'thulu itself, or, Goddess help me, a Republican.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Informative) by Adamsjas on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:49PM
Treason is not one of those things one can be charged with for violating an oath of office.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:58PM
It's more like she and her ilk (most politicians of both parties) are trying to overthrow our constitutional form of government. They're definitely traitors.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Friday October 09 2015, @04:02AM
the specific law covering violations of one's oath of office is Title 18 U.S. Code § 1918. [cornell.edu]
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday October 09 2015, @08:40AM
Thank you for the clarification.
Given that your legal knowledge is superior to mine perhaps you would tell us what she could be charged with for violating her oath of office so that next time I'll get it right.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @02:13PM
Boy, you "oath of office" people are the new Bible thumpers. Anything that cankles your knickers and it's "VIOLATION OF THEIR OATH OF OFFICE!" Double park outside a store? "VIOLATION OF OATH OF OFFICE!" It's the go-all catch-all slur against people in government these days. Not that it matters to you, but there are different "oaths of office". Do we account for those subtle differences, or is that getting too nuanced?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @06:36PM
"Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist"
Would this mean that any discussions of potential solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict would be off limits or groups such as Combatants for Peace not allowed to visit?
The other point that seems over-the-top is:
"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations"
Does being born in the US mean that you bleed Red, White and Blue or make it impossible to hold another country in higher regard?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatants_for_Peace [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:39PM
If you have a higher regard for any nation different from the one you are a citizen of, you are already a traitor in spirit waiting for an opportunity to be a traitor in deed. It really doesn't matter what nations are involved.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by What planet is this on Thursday October 08 2015, @07:25PM
EVERY group has its bad apples. The media, which I personally think is the instigator of most of the copycat mass shootings, race based trouble, nonsensical political babble, so called islamophobia, etc..., likes to play up anything they think will get their outlet attention and plays to certain groups it favors (SJW's) while throwing everyone else under the bus. Do you hear them addressing the epidemic of black on black crime, mental health programs being gutted, simple fixes for social security, the real issues everyone wants politicians to talk about in their campaigns, the real importance of what Snowden did, corporate shennanigans, etc....
The media, now being owned by the corporations they used to target, is transforming itself into something to fear for those that have a different viewpoint than theirs. People like Fienstein know this and try to use it to their own advantage by trying to promote a "they don't like me because of who I am not because of what I'm doing" environment.
Ok, enough of my ranting. My point is the media in a free society that depends so much on freedom of speech should be calling out this obvious BS. It isn't anti-anything to disagree with someones actions or viewpoint regardless of what "group" they associate themselves with.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @10:04PM
the media
Haha, oh you. Just say it. Come on, it's not a "slur" to point out facts. Why fail to mention that the US media is and has been largely owned by Jews? [imgur.com] Would it be "anti-semetic" to mention that?
Oh! Anything but that! Destroy my nation with communist subversion [youtube.com], just don't call me racist! [youtube.com]
Let's just ignore how many of the Communist Goals have been completed since 1963 [uhuh.com] due in no small part to "the media." Might there be a connection between communists and "the media"? [ihr.org]
Why isn't there as many tear jerking movies about the 12 to 20 million Christians killed during and after the Bolshevik (communist) Revolution? [wikipedia.org] That's two times "The Holocaust", even if you believe the unlikely "6 million" death toll figure. Why is there no Zyklon B in the walls at the Auschwitz "death camp" gas chamber, like there is in the delousing gas chamber where clothes and bedding were treated with the same chemical to prevent the spread of typhus at that same facility? Why did the 3rd Reich build that swimming pool and playground at Auschwitz for the prisoners (isn't the story that the kids were killed on arrival)? Or, what about the Armenian Holocaust -- oops, sorry, that term must now only refer to the Jews killed by Hitler, or it's anti-semitic because it dilutes their brand -- the Armenian Genocide? (deemphasized re-branding applied) [wikipedia.org] Note: "Holocaust" was originally a older Jewish term for a sacrifice consumed completely by fire. Strange how it now must only mean one event, innit?
Manufacturing consent via guilt trips and shaming language is kindergarten-tier manipulation, so why fall for this shit from "the media"?
You'll go to jail in certain parts of Europe for investigating and discussing this sort of thing. This comment contains things that the common person is shamed for even attempting to discuss. It's the sort of thing that will be labeled "hate speech", yet I have no hatred for Jews. I simply dislike manipulative liars in general, regardless of race, creed, or nationality. [youtube.com]
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
- Some Bigoted Racist
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 08 2015, @08:51PM
I object to the proposal before the UC regents to adopt the State Department's definition of anti-Semitism. I object to State's definition, which is another example of Jews wanting to have it both ways; that is, they don't want all Jews to be lumped in with the State of Israel when that is convenient to their thesis of the moment, but they also want any criticism of the State of Israel to count as anti-Semitic speech against all Jews. That way, when the State of Israel does something especially heinous like bombing a school full of Palestinian children and it shows up in the international news then Jews not in Israel can say, "Hey, don't blame us! Israel did that, not all Jews. Are you suggesting ALL Jews are responsible for the crime that Israel has committed, you anti-Semite?! Huh? Huh?" Alternatively when it's annual handout to Israel time in the American Congress, AIPAC likes to step up and say that unless Congressmen and Senators approve the handout for Israel they are anti-Semites.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 08 2015, @09:01PM
Have a look at her facial expressions when she's talking about the murders of Harvey Milk and George Moscone. I can't help but wonder if she was complicit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4051pdMlnQ [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 09 2015, @12:03AM
I'm Jewish and I think she's an idiot. I also hate the neo-anti semitic Berkely crowd; but they
should be allowed to say whatever they want. If we try to shut them
down like that, it just makes them look like free speech heroes or something which is exactly what they want.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday October 09 2015, @04:09AM
So much for the separation of church and state. Israel is a theocracy in a very poor sheepskin democracy disguise.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 2) by albert on Friday October 09 2015, @06:06AM
This is targeting the sort of people who would literally kill you if you drew a cartoon of Mohamed. It's denying free speech to those who most strongly desire to deny free speech to everybody else in the entire world. Seems kind of fair, no?