US Politics: The Bully Culprit

[horangi]

1 hour ago, Dawn Vibration said:

The Democrats pushing this through with a christian nationalist party that is laced with neo nazis in it is just proof of how far to the right the Democratic party is moving and how out of touch they are, and how authoritarianism is being enabled and pushed by them as well.

This is ridiculous.
Great idea Dems, succumbing to this stupidity and fascist creep on free speech. Brain rot.
https://x.com/jacobkornbluh/status/1785775817353507053

Dawn, did you even read the actual act? Its only a page long. It is literally just a sense of congress reiterating the already existing legal position that the civil rights act applies to anti-semitism.   Which ends in:

"SEC. 6. Other rules of construction.

(a) General rule of construction.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed—

(1) to expand the authority of the Secretary of Education;

(2) to alter the standards pursuant to which the Department of Education makes a determination that harassing conduct amounts to actionable discrimination; or

(3) to diminish or infringe upon the rights protected under any other provision of law that is in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) Constitutional protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

In other words, it doesn't do anything at all new other than make a statement that congress is worried that anti-semitism is on the rise, which... it is.  

[Dawn Vibration]

https://x.com/bl_balthaser/status/1785799513883423101?s=46&t=vs0NVT2kLVsJAr1LOX25kw

So the government doesn't like that there are Jews against Israel and does not want Universities to recognize them.

No doubt every person that voted for this is given donations by AIPAC.

[Dawn Vibration]

10 minutes ago, horangi said:

Dawn, did you even read the actual act? Its only a page long. It is literally just a sense of congress reiterating the already existing legal position that the civil rights act applies to anti-semitism.   Which ends in:

"SEC. 6. Other rules of construction.

(a) General rule of construction.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed—

(1) to expand the authority of the Secretary of Education;

(2) to alter the standards pursuant to which the Department of Education makes a determination that harassing conduct amounts to actionable discrimination; or

(3) to diminish or infringe upon the rights protected under any other provision of law that is in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) Constitutional protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

In other words, it doesn't do anything at all new other than make a statement that congress is worried that anti-semitism is on the rise, which... it is.  

Maybe you should read the act yourself.


"It requires the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism when enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws. The working definition says antisemitism is in-part "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews." The definition includes denying Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the State of Israel is a racist state and drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." (From Lauren Peller's ABC news article).

The bill would threaten any school that recognizes Jewish V For peace or SJP, or assigns anti-zionists texts, with losing federal funding. Sorry, this is a terrible bill pushed and  drafted by far right wingers and supported by very stupid Democrats that are bought at paid for by a Pro Israel lobbyist group. This is a bill that is worried about criticism of Israel and conflates that with anti-semitism, intentionally. Anti semitism is on the rise thanks to the GOP who drafted this bill. This does nothing to combat anti semitism, this just attacks legitmate criticism of a racist state we fund with our tax dollars, and arm, and turn a blind eye to as they oppress the shit out of arabs in Gaza and the West Bank.

Edited May 2 by Dawn Vibration

[horangi]

2 minutes ago, Dawn Vibration said:

Maybe you should read the act yourself.


"It requires the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism when enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws. The working definition says antisemitism is in-part "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews." The definition includes denying Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the State of Israel is a racist state and drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." (From Lauren Peller's ABC news article).

The bill would threaten any school that recognizes Jewish V For peace or SJP, or assigns anti-zionists texts, with losing federal funding. Sorry, this is a terrible bill pushed drafted by far right wingers and supported by very stupid Democrats that are bought at paid for by a Pro Israel lobbyist group.

Show the whole section:

"For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism”—

(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and

(2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition"

Which is stated on the State Department website:

https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/

I see absolutely nothing wrong with anything written there.

 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, horangi said:

Show the whole section:

"For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism”—

(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and

(2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition"

Which is stated on the State Department website:

https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/

I see absolutely nothing wrong with anything written there.

 

I think this is a good place to start as to what people see as problematic:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/apr/24/un-ihra-antisemitism-definition-israel-criticism

Quote

 

The letter said the first example can be used to suppress claims that Israel is breaching international laws against apartheid and is violating conventions to end racial discrimination. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have both been accused of antisemitism under the IHRA definition over detailed reports saying that Israel practises a form of apartheid, an accusation also levelled by Israeli human rights groups.

“The example on ‘applying double standards’ opens the door to labeling as antisemitic anyone who focuses on Israeli abuses as long as worse abuses are deemed to be occurring elsewhere,” the letter said.

“By that logic, a person dedicated to defending the rights of Tibetans could be accused of anti-Chinese racism, or a group dedicated to promoting democracy and minority rights in Saudi Arabia could be accused of Islamophobia.”

 

 

[horangi]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think this is a good place to start as to what people see as problematic:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/apr/24/un-ihra-antisemitism-definition-israel-criticism

 

I think that's addressed in the preamble before the examples:

"Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

So, for example, protesting the Israeli occupation, or even making claims of genocide are clearly excluded since other countries can and have committed comparable actions.  However claiming Jews were involved in an illegal occupation or genocide would be. It appears State was keen to make it clear that the 'double standard' can't be applied that way. 

Edited May 2 by horangi
Counter example.

[Dawn Vibration]

20 minutes ago, horangi said:

Show the whole section:

"For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism”—

(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and

(2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition"

Which is stated on the State Department website:

https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/

I see absolutely nothing wrong with anything written there.

 

The issue is thinking that being critical of Israel and Zionism is anti semitism and how that will be used to silence criticism of both, especially when talking about Israel committing human rights violations, war crimes, and having an apartheid state where they Palestinians as second class citizens.

[horangi]

2 minutes ago, Dawn Vibration said:

The issue is thinking that being critical of Israel and Zionism is anti semitism and how that will be used to silence criticism of both, especially when talking about Israel committing human rights violations, war crimes, and having an apartheid state where they Palestinians as second class citizens.

See above: 'human rights violations, war crimes, and having an apartheid state' are all accusations you can make against other states and thus excluded from the definition.  The only area you can really get into hot water re: Israel is denying they have a right to self-determination, which no reasonable person is suggesting. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, horangi said:

See above: 'human rights violations, war crimes, and having an apartheid state' are all accusations you can make against other states and thus excluded from the definition.

Arguably apartheid is not since it's against other DEMOCRATIC states. And there exist no democratic states in existence right now that have anything like that.

Mostly, however, I think it's real clear that this will be abused anyway, because the definition of antisemitism before this was being abused and this expands that. 

 

[kissdbyfire]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Arguably apartheid is not since it's against other DEMOCRATIC states. And there exist no democratic states in existence right now that have anything like that.

Mostly, however, I think it's real clear that this will be abused anyway, because the definition of antisemitism before this was being abused and this expands that. 

 

And with the recently vastly expanded Section 702 of FISA, that creates “new ways for the government to spy on Americans without a warrant”. 

And don’t you know, there’s lots of un-American antisemitic behaviour in all these liberal universities, and won’t that expanded section 702 come in handy right about now.

[horangi]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Arguably apartheid is not since it's against other DEMOCRATIC states. And there exist no democratic states in existence right now that have anything like that.

Mostly, however, I think it's real clear that this will be abused anyway, because the definition of antisemitism before this was being abused and this expands that. 

 

Right, just a quibble, but while the example notes 'democratic' the preamble restriction just says 'any other country'.  As far as misuse, sure, I can't guarantee it won't and suspect it will be.  However, I am sure the definitions of race, religion, sex, gender, age and every other protected class in the Civil Rights Act have been abused by bad actors, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included.  And lets be honest, these laws exist to protect the nation when people with a belief in the rule of law are in power.  When people with bad intent get too much power, they aren't going to care a fig how State Department or Congress defined anything. 

To bring it back to the wider point, I totally approve of the protestors trying to sway the electorate into bringing forward a government that is closer aligned to their positions even when I dont always agree (e.g. get more progressive democrats elected or votes changed), but, if you want to prevent authoritarianism, try to do it in a way that does not to tear down the only plausible alternative simply for the sake of keeping your conscience clean.  (Not saying that is you btw, I know many of the boarders here have stated basically a 'be critical now, support when the time comes' approach, which is fine).

[Dawn Vibration]

1 hour ago, horangi said:

See above: 'human rights violations, war crimes, and having an apartheid state' are all accusations you can make against other states and thus excluded from the definition.  The only area you can really get into hot water re: Israel is denying they have a right to self-determination, which no reasonable person is suggesting. 

And I say this still stifles the ability to criticize Israel. Israel back in 2018 put forth a nation state law.
The law basically has said only Jews in Israel have a right to self determination. That's saying only Jews in Israel have a right to say what the state of Israel does. That by default means that Palestinian citizens of Israel (Muslim and christian) don't have that right. It's an undemocratic and bigoted law that Israel put into place that puts citizens there into classes.
Actually, it is very much apartheid. It is a supremacist driven law.
The law also downgraded Arabic, which was an official language of Israel along with Hebrew for 70 years, to special status.


This is where the criticism of an Ethno states comes into play. But if that was to happen, specifically with Israel who we fund and arm (this is the major issue. Stop doing that and people will shut up), it will be met with cries of anti semitism, which under the bill proposed, could be considered unlawful anti semitism.

Ethno states should not exist,. The very existence of an ethno state results in a group of people being oppressed that are not apart of the ethnicity the state was established for. An ethno state will always have a supremacy problem. With Israel it is only getting worse under the far right government that controls it. The current National Security Minister of Israel, Ben Gvir, up until he was elected had a picture of a terrorist hanging on his wall because he supported what the mass murderer did, which was carry out the Cave of Patriarchs Massacre. A mass murder where 29 Palestinians were shot and killed during Ramadan in a mosque, and another 125 were injured. This also royally screwed up the Oslo Accords.

No foreign government should be protected from criticism like this. This is a major overreach that will be abused by the US government.


 

Edited May 2 by Dawn Vibration

[Dawn Vibration]

Pretty good by Hayes.

[The Anti-Targ]

15 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Can someone explain to me how the bad decisions possibly made by uni presidents and the sometimes violent overreaction of law enforcement in these protests doesn’t hurt Biden? Ya know, threats to democracy, authoritarians all around, individual rights, human rights, yadda yadda yadda. And not a peep about it at all… in NY it looks even worse for democrats given the dem trifecta. 
Young people weren’t too happy before, then TikTok, and now this. I don’t know but it doesn’t look good from where I’m looking. 

It's why Biden just announced moving dope from Sch I to Sch III, no doubt all will now be forgiven because young people have such short attention spans.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

9 hours ago, Dawn Vibration said:

Maybe you should read the act yourself.


"It requires the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism when enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws. The working definition says antisemitism is in-part "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews." The definition includes denying Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the State of Israel is a racist state and drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." (From Lauren Peller's ABC news article).

The bill would threaten any school that recognizes Jewish V For peace or SJP, or assigns anti-zionists texts, with losing federal funding. Sorry, this is a terrible bill pushed and  drafted by far right wingers and supported by very stupid Democrats that are bought at paid for by a Pro Israel lobbyist group. This is a bill that is worried about criticism of Israel and conflates that with anti-semitism, intentionally. Anti semitism is on the rise thanks to the GOP who drafted this bill. This does nothing to combat anti semitism, this just attacks legitmate criticism of a racist state we fund with our tax dollars, and arm, and turn a blind eye to as they oppress the shit out of arabs in Gaza and the West Bank.

For the love of Rod. Just paste and post in plain text. This text on blackbackground is getting bothersome.

[Darryk]

I really hope the Senate shoots this bill down. It's just gonna make things worse for Jews and give the anti-semites more fuel for their conspiracy theories.

[Zorral]

Yet it seems never necessary to pass a specific anti-racist African American law.  That's racist right there, right?

Yet more reason we utterly despise and loathe these useless jerkwaddies.

Moreover --

So much for this charlatan, criminal, corrupt, cretin congress wanting people 'to be safe' here in the good ol USA -- they won't allow a thing to be done about women's health -- or gunz.

As commented previously, in fact more than once, just about anyone younger than 35 has been traumatized all the way down, and particualrly this generation of university students by these terrorist actions.

Another school shooter, just hours ago. 

'I don’t think I’ll ever be the same after this': What happened when a student brought a gun to Mount Horeb
Claire Reid
Laura Schulte

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2024/05/02/what-mount-horeb-experienced-when-suspected-shooter-came-to-school/73532907007/

 

 

Edited May 2 by Zorral

[maarsen]

15 hours ago, Dawn Vibration said:

A disastrous foreign policy of the Vietnam war and clamping down on student protests certainly was a winning formula for the Dems then. Only difference between now and then is the US is just funding and arming Israel and their war crimes, but the gov is still attacking protesters on behalf bad foreign policy, all to keep the image of Israel clean and keep it's billionaire supporters happy.

Now it might be illegal on campuses to criticize Israel and Zionism. It will be unlawful anti-semitism. Gotta love the erosion of rights the Dems and Repubs are coming together for.

The Republicans won that election and then escalated the war in Vietnam to Laos and Cambodia. If more protestors had worked to get out the youth vote McGovern, who was antiwar, would have done much better. Getting involved and doing the work does more than yelling at the sidelines. If you want to protest and do the hard organizing work, all the better.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

3 minutes ago, maarsen said:

The Republicans won that election and then escalated the war in Vietnam to Laos and Cambodia. If more protestors had worked to get out the youth vote McGovern, who was antiwar, would have done much better. Getting involved and doing the work does more than yelling at the sidelines. If you want to protest and do the hard organizing work, all the better.

Yes, as I said earlier, how one protests and organizes does matter. Not all student protests were created equal. The student protestors of SNCC shouldn't be lumped in with the brattier students burning books and spitting on returning vets. The civil rights protestors were more disciplined and methodical than a lot of the later antiwar protests, effectively commandeering the media narratives rather than playing into the narrative of the opposition. And they were more tenacious too, waging a sustained campaign the change narratives and policies. Most importantly, they engaged at all levels that were available to them. It wasn't just demanding to be heard, it was a coordinated strategy to implement change.

[Zorral]

10 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

spitting on returning vets.

Still repeating that same old fictional tale.  Just like the early second wave feminists burned their bras.  They did not do that anymore than the vets were spit upon.