Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It isn't about "calling for genocide" it is about the use of the phrase. If I am at a conference and we are discussing political slogans, and I show a video in which people are demonstrating, using that phrase, the context, as an academic discussion, makes the iteration of the words less problematic. All meaning is determined by context. My point was that the answer was therefore useless.
Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Evidently the Senator did have such evidence; otherwise she would not have been able to put the Presidents on the spot the way she did
the Presidents were not asked to denounce general public acts, they were asked if calling for Genocide of the Jews constitutes hate speech, and they refused to say it was. IMO they all should be fired and never allowed in a position of power again
That's not dancing, that's speaking the obvious truth! These presidents did not want to speak this truth because they didn't want to offend the bigots that were allowed to fester under their leadership. This is totally unacceptable
No, the question was NOT about the use of the phrase, it was about calling for genocide. Again; give an example of context where calling for genocide is acceptable speech in your view
I really wish you had read the rest of what I posted (to wit, "So saying "depends on context" is fine, but deciding that that context can allow sincere mass calls for violence is wrong. "). The problem I was commenting on was that "depends on context" is a valueless answer because it is inherently obvious and a trait of all communication.
I remember a few years ago A bunch of nut jobs began the “defund the police” absurdity, and a lot of the more reasonable people attempted to legitimize these nut jobs by saying “they really don’t mean getting rid of police, what they want is to allocate funds and jobs previously done by police and use other resources for those jobs”. But the cry was not to reallocate police funds, it was DEFUND the police. Defund means to stop funding IOW get rid of all police.
No, I'm saying that an answer of "it depends on context" is useless because that's a truth about all communication. In this case, the context that the presidents indicated might exist is that calling for genocide could be acceptable. While the words might be context dependent, there are limits to what context is an acceptable excuse and they were alluding to a potential where calling for genocide is excusable. So their answers were useless in that they were obvious, but they were implying that such a context is possible, which is wrong, so their answers were both useless in terms of understanding and harmful in terms of the underlying logic.
Was someone holding a sign? Was the person even a student?
That is begging for affirmations. When will israel denounce representing Jews so the Jewish students will not become targets of hatred.?
Thank you for your opinion.
People that require an affirmation are playing the dance. Will that big bibi affirm that illegal occupation is wrong?
Again, you have zero evidence, except what a politician said and then you have NO idea if even one person was a student.
Do you suppose those Presidents would have reacted differently had the people call for the lynching of black people; or the killing of Trans people?
Why point to other issues? Address the questions directly.
This is NOT another issue, because we both know had the bigotry been directed at black people, trans people or some other group the left is not allowed to hate, their reaction would have been a heck of a lot different.