4 ms·

It seems like Trump is reforming everything that needs reforming, but he's doing it by going an equal amount of crazy in the opposite direction. Universities a

by roshin 2y ago

It seems like Trump is reforming everything that needs reforming, but he's doing it by going an equal amount of crazy in the opposite direction. Universities are in dire need of reforms. Be it their costs, student encampments that disturb students of a certain religion, or university presidents who don't hold a stand on calling for the genocide for the entire Jewish people. That gives Trump the legitimacy to intervene. But he's not restrained enough to do the minimum intervention needed. Rather, once he starts intervening, he doesn't want to stop until the institute looks like he created it.

selimthegrim 2y ago
The problem is the First Amendment doesn’t have an anti-genocide exception.
- roshin 2y ago
  And now to reply exactly what the left said 4-0 and 16-8 years ago ... The first amendment protects against attacks from the government, not choosing not to fund something
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    Revoking a green card?
wqaatwt 2y ago
Like trying to “reduce the deficit” by firing 20% of all people employed by the IRS (which is already underfunded)? That alone will probably offset any benefits of their other cuts.
- roshin 2y ago
  Exactly. people don't like the confusing tax rules and hellish IRS audits. There are good reforms that could be done to prevent hellish audits. But trump is going so far in the other direction by basically defunding their ability to audit at all.
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
Here's what the ADL's take on how those presidents should have answered: > The line of questioning was hard and designed to box Claudine Gay and the others in, but what Gay didn’t say and could have said was that political chants are one thing and calls for ‘intifada’ may arguably also be protected as free speech, [but] they come awfully close to incitement to violence,” Steinberg said. So "may arguably be protected" but "come awfully close" to not being protected. And here's two presidents answer: > Magill answered: “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.” > Gay said that such speech would violate Harvard’s policies if it was “targeted at an individual.” She added that “antisemitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation — that is actionable conduct. We do take action.” So, basically the same stance as the ADL, might be protected but might not. But since you get your news from propagandists, you think giving an answer in a hostile cross examination on a complex topic which is broadly in line with what the ADL says in a later written interview on the topic is a signal to destroy American universities and illegally imprison their students because they are run by out of control anti-semites? We're well into "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" territory now.

by roshin 2y ago

selimthegrim 2y ago

The problem is the First Amendment doesn’t have an anti-genocide exception.

roshin 2y ago
And now to reply exactly what the left said 4-0 and 16-8 years ago ... The first amendment protects against attacks from the government, not choosing not to fund something
- selimthegrim 2y ago
  Revoking a green card?

wqaatwt 2y ago

Like trying to “reduce the deficit” by firing 20% of all people employed by the IRS (which is already underfunded)? That alone will probably offset any benefits of their other cuts.

roshin 2y ago
Exactly. people don't like the confusing tax rules and hellish IRS audits. There are good reforms that could be done to prevent hellish audits. But trump is going so far in the other direction by basically defunding their ability to audit at all.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

Here's what the ADL's take on how those presidents should have answered: > The line of questioning was hard and designed to box Claudine Gay and the others in, but what Gay didn’t say and could have said was that political chants are one thing and calls for ‘intifada’ may arguably also be protected as free speech, [but] they come awfully close to incitement to violence,” Steinberg said. So "may arguably be protected" but "come awfully close" to not being protected. And here's two presidents answer: > Magill answered: “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.” > Gay said that such speech would violate Harvard’s policies if it was “targeted at an individual.” She added that “antisemitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation — that is actionable conduct. We do take action.” So, basically the same stance as the ADL, might be protected but might not. But since you get your news from propagandists, you think giving an answer in a hostile cross examination on a complex topic which is broadly in line with what the ADL says in a later written interview on the topic is a signal to destroy American universities and illegally imprison their students because they are run by out of control anti-semites? We're well into "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" territory now.