|
haveblue posted:No. Generally if another country finds itself in a legislative logjam like this, the legislature automatically dissolves and a snap election is held. Only in the US do the people who cause this sort of self-inflicted crisis get to stay for the remainder of their original terms Even if the US was on that boat we are at a point in history where we would probably keep electing the same government every snap election, it feels like
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Even if the US was on that boat we are at a point in history where we would probably keep electing the same government every snap election, it feels like I mean, that's often what happens (Israel has had a lot of elections recently) but it's the democratic equivalent of turning it off and then on again, which can clear out small issues like the NY snafu and move things towards a mean.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:CBS might have answered your question almost as soon as you asked it. sadly not surprised, Immigration outside DACA and couple other things is a losing issue right now for the dems thanks to GOP fuckery and massive backlogs. i guess my hope is they are able to keep the very worst parts from coming to pass. at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 22:30
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:With the exchange you quoted, it's an unfortunate reality that you need to be able to respond in a way that cannot be misconstrued when taken out of context. The only thing that matters to most people is the last question and answer in the excerpt you shared. theCalamity posted:We’re there calls for genocide against Jews in campuses or was it the “from the river to the sea” slogan that people are twisting into a call for genocide in bad faith? This is how Leon represented this exchange, for reference: quote:They say they would rescind someone's acceptance if they espoused racist views, but aren't sure if they would if someone espoused anti-Semitic views. (1:32:14, between Stefanik and Gay) quote:Stefanik: And, isn't it true, that Harvard previous rescinded multiple offers of admissions for applicants and accepted freshmen for sharing offensive memes, racist statements, sometimes as young as 16 years old. Did Harvard not rescind those offers of admission? I agree that this is a terribly put-together response that is easily misconstrued. But it's not what Leon Trotsky 2012 said. My concern isn't that the common news viewer is misconstruing Gay and Magill's testimony. My concern is that even on this board, people are misconstruing it. Right wing talking points are being repeated here, with anti-semitism being equated with anti-zionism, and to me that's worth calling out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 22:31
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:sadly not surprised, Immigration outside DACA and couple other things is a losing issue right now for the dems thanks to GOP fuckery and massive backlogs. i guess my hope is they are able to keep the very worst parts from coming to pass. at least. I suspect the administration is happy to accept some more enforcement powers. GOP Senators keep saying they want the White House to be more involved in talks, so I think they've made the same calculation. Some of that poo poo though, like mandatory detainment, is just designed to cause chaos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
AKA Pseudonym posted:I suspect the administration is happy to accept some more enforcement powers. GOP Senators keep saying they want the White House to be more involved in talks, so I think they've made the same calculation. Oh yeah. i think the plan is make a deal and hope the senate takes it and then watch the house either take it or kill it. then they can try to force the senate GOPs hand over it. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Dec 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 22:38
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:Oh yeah. i think the plan is make a deal and hope the senate takes it and then watch the house either take it or kill it. Why? I doubt it is some 9th degree chess move. The explanation they are giving (and some obvious subtext) seems like the most likely answer: - Ukraine aid is time-sensitive. - They are actually okay with some extreme measures that will bring some more order to the border and allows them to toss people claiming asylum who don't qualify, even if it will likely make life harder for people who actually have valid asylum claims. - They think they will win the election and many of those powers won't be a real issue (until 2029 and it is someone else's problem). - They think more extreme measures that will bring order, at the expense of asylum seekers, will help them in the election because 2/3 of Americans are very upset about illegal immigration and think Biden is too soft, and asylum seekers don't vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 22:44
|
|
|
What was the inquiry at the House where the Ivy League presidents hosed up their answers? Some committee inquiry on Anti-Semitism On U.S. College Campuses or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Sure, I'm not debating that. I'm responding mostly to this post, which was asking not whether their answers sounded bad or not, but whether they were actually anti-semitic when taken in full context: Nobody is saying that the Presidents weren't legally in the right. The issue is that this hearing would have faded into the ether and nobody would be talking about it if they hadn't done the same dumb thing over and over. When you are being accused of not caring about anti-Semitism and are asked if racist students would have their acceptance revoked and you answer, "Yes," then when asked about anti-Semitism you respond, "When speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies, including policies against bullying, harassment, or intimidation, we take action. And we have robust disciplinary processes that allow us to hold individuals accountable," and refuse to answer yes or no questions, then that looks terrible. And then you do that a few more times for different issues, then you are loading the gun for the bad actors. How much of the hearing does anyone else remember? Don't voluntarily decide to testify and then lob incredibly easy and obvious softballs of controversy to bad faith actors. They are bad actors and you can't control that, but you can control what you put out there. If you are running Harvard, a billion-dollar budget, and have a salary in the millions, then expecting you to not be incredibly careless in your responses is the smallest possible bar to clear for a job of that importance and at that level of compensation for your skills. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Dec 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
Hello all. The "electoralism" discussion a few days ago was, with all due respect, an embarrassment. As such, I'm going to be instituting martial law around that subject. You can still discuss it if it comes up again, but any rule violations while doing so will have a 1-day minimum probation - and presenting talking points everyone has heard before that are not falsifiable or a direct response to another argument is, as a reminder, against the rules. I think it would be a better solution to have a thread dedicated to the topic of voting vs. direct action, voting strategies, and so on. This would allow one to see what points have come up before, as well as give everyone the option to engage with it if they wish instead of finding it crowding a thread they might read for other reasons. But I won't have time myself to make one this week. So if anyone else would like to make one, with an OP that summarizes the issues and fairly presents the arguments of both sides, perhaps with some links to further reading, feel free. As always I will read and respond to any feedback about this, but would prefer it be sent via PMs so that this thread can stay on topic. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Why? I doubt it is some 9th degree chess move. yeah sorry. thats probably alot more accurate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Why does holding a Jewish person who donated food to a medical organization responsible for Israeli policy make more sense than protesting John Fetterman or the Israeli embassy? Why did they smash his windows? where are you getting your info? are you from here? Solomonov's are the only ones targeted for protest. the others have been subject to a boycott movement. Goldie also fired several gen z workers for pro palestine views. again this isn't some random antisemitism. members of my west philly synagogue were part of this protest, and defend it. (i don't protest because as a single parent i literally cannot afford potential police altercation) https://philly.eater.com/2023/12/4/23987446/boycott-michael-solomonov-restaurants-goldie-israel-palestine
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:21
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:thats kinda my view. alot of academic types fall into a trap of thinking everyone understands/cares to understand academic terms and ideals and processes so when they answer in a way that she answered those question. answers are ment to provoke more questions and go into the weeds of issues, thats great in academia and with friends and forums or whatever. but its loving dumb when its a clear bad faith trap. that being said, she had no good answer that would look good probably. something like "We had enough faith in our admissions standards that we didn't think "Don't call for genocide" is something we had to spell out but truly, the ability of young adults to disappoint is without bound."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:24
|
|
|
aBagorn posted:where are you getting your info? are you from here? Solomonov's are the only ones targeted for protest. the others have been subject to a boycott movement. The Philly Palestine coalition was one of the groups that organized the protests and boycotts and this is what their own instagram said:  
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:26
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Philly Palestine coalition was one of the groups that organized the protests and boycotts and this is what their own instagram said: so exactly what i said? the majority were targeted for boycotts, solmonov's (and specifically solomonov's) were on the protest route
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
aBagorn posted:so exactly what i said? the majority were targeted for boycotts, solmonov's (and specifically solomonov's) were on the protest route The slide explicitly says they are boycotting restaurants serving Israeli food and not restaurants that donated to a medical organization that has worked with the IDF. It says serving Israeli food makes you part of a campaign to erase Palestinian existence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Hello all. The "electoralism" discussion a few days ago was, with all due respect, an embarrassment. As such, I'm going to be instituting martial law around that subject. You can still discuss it if it comes up again, but any rule violations while doing so will have a 1-day minimum probation - and presenting talking points everyone has heard before that are not falsifiable or a direct response to another argument is, as a reminder, against the rules. Could you kindly clarify what your working definition of 'electoralism' is? I'm somewhat familiar with the term as its used in a polisci context, but as far as I can tell many people in this thread use it to refer to... anything related to elections or voting. I presume that in the primary US politics thread, we are still allowed to debate our reasons to vote for or against a specific candidate, right? Also, are we permitted to have discussions about values, which (unless someone has made a truly astounding discovery since I was in grad school), are not falsifiable? I'm using "values" in the "fact/value distinction" sense here, i.e. normative judgments which are (basically) by definition not subject to falsification by means of empirical data but which (imo at least, though I don't think anyone seriously disputes this) are necessary for normative reasoning. (I don't post a lot here & don't keep up with threads religiously, I apologize if the answers to my questions are obvious from what you wrote or the general context of discussion. Someone made an interesting post on deontology/consequentialism a few days ago and I wanted to respond when I had time, that's why I'm asking really.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The slide explicitly says they are boycotting restaurants serving Israeli food and not restaurants that donated to a medical organization that has worked with the IDF. It says serving Israeli food makes you part of a campaign to erase Palestinian existence. Is there a reason you keep conflating protest and boycott? Many restaurants were boycotted, only Solomonov's were protested. I've said this for multiple posts and you keep quoting me and saying nothing e: socialsecurity posted:Boycott is a form of protesting though? i'm trying to distinguish between physically going to and protesting outside the space vs a boycott. how would you like me to delineate them aBagorn fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Dec 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
aBagorn posted:Is there a reason you keep conflating protest and boycott? Many restaurants were boycotted, only Solomonov's were protested. I've said this for multiple posts and you keep quoting me and saying nothing Boycott is a form of protesting though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:36
|
|
|
Maybe I don't understand the GOP's 5D chess play here but how is clamping down on right wing hate speech at universities owning the libs?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:39
|
|
|
Burying a rule in the middle of a huge, fast-moving thread sucks - it should be added to the thread title or stickied.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
cgeq posted:Maybe I don't understand the GOP's 5D chess play here but how is clamping down on right wing hate speech at universities owning the libs? It's mainly about targeting people protesting Israeli policy and conflating pro-Hamas and anti-Semitic protestors with them. The anti-Semitic alt-right people are just kind of collateral damage of that effort. Edit: This too. Fork of Unknown Origins posted:They view higher education as a liberal indoctrination system so anything they can do to make it look bad or out of control helps them in terms of messaging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
cgeq posted:Maybe I don't understand the GOP's 5D chess play here but how is clamping down on right wing hate speech at universities owning the libs? They view higher education as a liberal indoctrination system so anything they can do to make it look bad or out of control helps them in terms of messaging.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
Gnumonic posted:Could you kindly clarify what your working definition of 'electoralism' is? I'm somewhat familiar with the term as its used in a polisci context, but as far as I can tell many people in this thread use it to refer to... anything related to elections or voting. I presume that in the primary US politics thread, we are still allowed to debate our reasons to vote for or against a specific candidate, right? Gladly. What you say is precisely the reason I put the term in scare quotes. On SA politics forums, the word is generally used to mean discussions over the utility of voting. The standard definition is different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoralism Gnumonic posted:Also, are we permitted to have discussions about values, which (unless someone has made a truly astounding discovery since I was in grad school), are not falsifiable? I'm using "values" in the "fact/value distinction" sense here, i.e. normative judgments which are (basically) by definition not subject to falsification by means of empirical data but which (imo at least, though I don't think anyone seriously disputes this) are necessary for normative reasoning. Yes, non-falsifiable arguments are necessary for normative debate and discussion, which is important for these issues. That's why I phrased it as "talking points everyone has heard before that are not falsifiable or a direct response to another argument." It has to meet all three criteria to be against the rules. If a non-falsifiable statement is original, it gives everyone something to chew on. If it's a direct response, it's needed for the flow of debate (as long as it doesn't start going in circles). And if it's falsifiable, then it can be decisively refuted and is therefore fruitful for debate. If an argument is none of these things it's probably dull political rhetoric that no one gains anything from, hence the rule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:45
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Boycott is a form of protesting though? Sure, and I find the food boycott to be a little, and I don’t want to be dismissive here but I can’t think of a better word but, silly. But the point of this conversation is that someone threw a rock at one place that was being specifically targeted for an in person protest due to specific ties to specific organizations. They didn’t have people picketing all places serving Jewish or Israeli food, they just put out a flier asking people not to eat there. Those are two very different levels of protest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nobody is saying that the Presidents weren't legally in the right. The issue is that this hearing would have faded into the ether and nobody would be talking about it if they hadn't done the same dumb thing over and over. I suppose this question is especially important to me to address, because when I originally tried to answer it for myself, it was fairly difficult to do. None of the articles I read provided details on exactly what Stefanik asked that prompted such poor responses. Nowhere online could I find a transcript of the hearing to search through. The Algorithm floods Google and Youtube searches for the testimony with dozens of 60 second reaction and summary clips, so even finding the full video of the hearing is a chore, and then you have to navigate through a multi-hour video trying to piece together why in the loving WORLD a sitting dean wouldn't be willing to firmly say her school is against Jewish genocide. So, I thought it was worth sharing what was actually being said, because if these institutions really are as rotten with anti-Semitism as the articles suggest, I would want to know that. And I want to know whether Magill lost her position as dean because she doesn't give a poo poo about Jewish people, or because she's terrible at PR and got targeted by a Republican smear campaign. Like you said, I think it's reasonable to expect Harvard's dean to cross the bar of not being incredibly careless, which she was. But I also think it's worth distinguishing whether or not she cleared the bar of anti-Semitism or not, as well. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:When you are being accused of not caring about anti-Semitism and are asked if racist students would have their acceptance revoked and you answer, "Yes,"
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
cgeq posted:Maybe I don't understand the GOP's 5D chess play here but how is clamping down on right wing hate speech at universities owning the libs? Because it's not clamping down on right wing hate speech, it's trying to create a false equivalency between anti-zionism and anti-semitism. The right will be happy to allow real anti-semitism to happen since that benefits both Zionists and white ethnonationalists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:This didn't happen, though. Gay said Harvard's commitment to free speech would be extended to them as well, and when Stefanik pressed her on whether students had ever had their acceptance revoked in the past, Gay responded that it had not happened during her time as president. The actual details of what's happening are very quickly blurring in a way that is fully supporting Stefanik's narrative. She says it has not happened during her time as President, but acknowledges that it has happened. It is also public record that it has happened several times. quote:Stefanik: But you understand that Harvard made that decision to rescind those offers of admission. I have no reason to contradict the facts as you present them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Do other countries have a quarterly crisis where one party tries to pass unpopular policies by threatening the government with insolvency? Back when Dems ran my state they had the foresight to install a provision that the previous year's budget will roll over if they can't get a new one passed. This is something the Federal Government clearly needs. It would've been nice if they'd also had the foresight to ban gerrymandering when the writing was on the wall for them in 2010... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 00:18
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:Back when Dems ran my state they had the foresight to install a provision that the previous year's budget will roll over if they can't get a new one passed. This is something the Federal Government clearly needs. It would've been nice if they'd also had the foresight to ban gerrymandering when the writing was on the wall for them in 2010... To ban gerrymandering you have to convince representatives in gerrymandered districts to commit electoral suicide. If anything that’s probably even harder at the state level than national.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:That's not the issue I was speaking to. Someone asked whether the responses from Gay & Magill & co were as anti-semitic as they're being reported, not whether they sounded like idiots, or whether they caused a PR storm with their bad responses. Those are worthwhile topics as well, but it's not the point I was making. If the question is whether the news is reporting a skewed version of their answers in bad faith, then yes, they are, and the details are as I posted. To me it sounds like the exchange, "Would you oppose students advocating for Jewish genocide?" "It depends," had the extremely mitigating surrounding context, "Specific statements like 'intifada' advocate for genocide. Would you oppose students advocating for Jewish genocide?" "It depends [on if they are actually advocating genocide or just saying 'intifada']" (Paraphrased, of course.) Like, the whole story becomes pointlessly stupid with that context, and an obvious ploy. I don't even think the responses are particularly stupid in that context. They're just honest. "Calls for genocide are always abhorrent," or some other evasion would have defended against the rhetorical trick that was being played, but I don't think it takes a particularly big fool to just answer earnestly in that context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 00:55
|
|
|
Eiba posted:I just want to thank you for this effort. That was my hunch based on how crazy this whole story is. The problem comes down to the fact that Stefanik is used to being in front of the camera, and the university presidents clearly were not. It's not a rhetorical trick, said presidents are more accustomed to academic debate and a willingness to engage on a topic - not someone who's looking for a 'Gotcha!' moment. As was pointed out above, they really needed some media training and better preparation before going in front of a camera, period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:The problem comes down to the fact that Stefanik is used to being in front of the camera, and the university presidents clearly were not. It's not a rhetorical trick, said presidents are more accustomed to academic debate and a willingness to engage on a topic - not someone who's looking for a 'Gotcha!' moment. As was pointed out above, they really needed some media training and better preparation before going in front of a camera, period. Yeah. Then you prepare for the event, your advisor/coach tells you "the primary goal of these GOP reps or this committee chair is to generate 'gotcha' ugly quotes from you, think about that before any answer you give". Then when you get that question about genocide it will make the gears turn before you answer and hopefully you don't generate the desired sound bite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:To ban gerrymandering you have to convince representatives in gerrymandered districts to commit electoral suicide. The process in other swing states that were gerrymandered was to use the courts or use ballot initiatives. This is a viable pathway for WI and NC at this point - take over the state supreme courts, use those to overturn gerrymandered maps and draw fair ones, then have a good year on those maps. A court case from NC - Moore vs Harper, establishes precedent for state Supreme Courts to have an independent commission draw constitutional maps if their legislature refuses its legal obligation to do so. In red states where dems can't win statewide races it's hopeless though. Goes without saying dems also gerrymander some of their own states. Ideally a bipartisan disarmament in Congress should happen but that's asking too much. Bodyholes fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Dec 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
aBagorn posted:so exactly what i said? the majority were targeted for boycotts, solmonov's (and specifically solomonov's) were on the protest route I’m a little confused by your previous post and this one. Was this restaurant specifically targeted for protesting because of the owner or was it protested because it happened to be one of the boycotted businesses along a pre-determined protest route?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
Anyone who gets to a position of president of a university that hasn't figured out that all Republican politicians are fascist shitheads (and thus their enemy as educators) gets no sympathy from me. How the gently caress can you be a functioning adult in 2023 and not realize this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
I don't understand how a university president didn't have either 1) media training or 2) enough intelligence to know stefanik was intending to shiv them
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 02:09
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I don't understand how a university president didn't have either 1) media training or 2) enough intelligence to know stefanik was intending to shiv them One of the core purposes of a university president is to attract wealthy donors. Adversarial engagements like this aren't common whatsoever. It's still a massive oversight, don't get me wrong, but this falls pretty far outside of their normal responsibilities. Edit: In case it wasn't clear, when I say attract wealthy donors - that includes Republicans/conservatives. University presidents are expected to learn how to get along with everyone during their attempt to gain patrons. Shooting Blanks fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Dec 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 02:16
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:The process in other swing states that were gerrymandered was to use the courts or use ballot initiatives. This is a viable pathway for WI and NC at this point - take over the state supreme courts, use those to overturn gerrymandered maps and draw fair ones, then have a good year on those maps. Ideally the US would expand the House considerably and institute Single Transferable Vote / Multi-Member Districts. Its easy to point out how often, conservative voices in Blue states essentially don't have any representation under first past the post and by instituting the above end gerrymandering while also granting that representation, making seats across the board more innately competitive as its still worth contesting the extra seats as extra votes are also no longer wasted votes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
Eiba posted:To me it sounds like the exchange, "Would you oppose students advocating for Jewish genocide?" "It depends," had the extremely mitigating surrounding context, "Specific statements like 'intifada' advocate for genocide. Would you oppose students advocating for Jewish genocide?" "It depends [on if they are actually advocating genocide or just saying 'intifada']" (Paraphrased, of course.) This interpretation (and to an extent, the entire conversation) violates a basic tenet of progressive ideology: intent isn’t relevant, causing offense should be enough to warrant protective and corrective action. Especially in academic circles, this has played out countless times over the past few decades - academic speakers are protested into silence, words are cherry-picked for potentially offensive speech, etc. Micro-aggressions are violence, silence is violence, but in this particular case, it’s vitally important to ascertain whether they meant “intifada” or “river to the sea” in the genocidal way, or not. It’s absurd. A mini-chud like Stefanik isn’t some rhetorical mastermind, she simply opened the curtain and the leaders exposed themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 02:35
|
|