pubic_assistance Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 On 1/23/2024 at 10:03 AM, tassojunior said: the "topic" is intentionally offensively political to stir up fights in the blog. It's good practice to discuss politically charged topics with facts instead of political bias. That's how you avoid fights. This topic is about the optics that Universities use to appear socially "evolved". The risk is that these same universities rely on donations from more traditional/conservative alumni. So allowing anti-seminism to fester in the name of diverse viewpoints is going to get some people, in power questioning your credentials. This isn't the first person of color who got a pass on doing diligence to fill a diversity hire. But when that person crosses a line, the due diligence gets done after the fact. In this case the woman is clearly out of her league and shouldn't be in a position of authority when she can't navigate a delicate situation like the (always) divergent viewpoints on the Middle East and Israel/Gaza in particular. ddzz1, + Vegas_Millennial, wsc and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ tassojunior Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 hours ago, pubic_assistance said: It's good practice to discuss politically charged topics with facts instead of political bias. That's how you avoid fights. This topic is about the optics that Universities use to appear socially "evolved". The risk is that these same universities rely on donations from more traditional/conservative alumni. So allowing anti-seminism to fester in the name of diverse viewpoints is going to get some people, in power questioning your credentials. This isn't the first person of color who got a pass on doing diligence to fill a diversity hire. But when that person crosses a line, the due diligence gets done after the fact. In this case the woman is clearly out of her league and shouldn't be in a position of authority when she can't navigate a delicate situation like the (always) divergent viewpoints on the Middle East and Israel/Gaza in particular. I hope you realize Palestinians are Semites. Amazing how many Americans are kept totally ignorant of that fact. Calling them antisemitic is Orwellian babble. Forcing intelligent academics to cower to the rich thugs in our society is simply killing academic freedom to foster propaganda and students realize that. Trying to force them to support genocide will not only not work but it will have a reaction that's not going to be pretty. But intentionally putting to death hundreds of Palestinians in the barbed-wired Gaza concentration camp and those in the West Bank camps, every day, mostly children, is not anti-Semitic. However, pointing out the fact that the wife of billionaire Ackman did worse plagiarism is anti-Semitism in the twisted logic of the ruling class genocide defenders. How many people have been expelled for supporting genocide of Palestinians? How many college presidents? The rich control the world and make the rules and even decide the Orwellian vocabulary. Especially in the US. Our history of genocides, like the UK's, is astounding. We fall for genocide defense easily. I clerked with the ICJ after a year at the Hague Academy and I'll assure you genocide is seen as the world's worst evil. It was in 1944 Germany and it is in 2024 Israel/Palestine. Only one out of 15 judges partly sided with Israel and didn't call it genocide. Don't pretend Ackman's allegations of "technical" plagiarism wasn't because she didn't jump when he said jump as he's used to getting. I'm not for preference based on anything but need or following whatever's trendy. But plenty of students put their citations in the wrong place in a thesis and that's all she did. His wife did worse but that's fine because she's his wife. Literally the pot calling the Black a kettle. Those are facts. It's as much an attack on academic freedom as any other. But I don't think a sex site is a good place for political wars. marylander1940, SouthOfTheBorder, Luv2play and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubic_assistance Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 47 minutes ago, tassojunior said: I hope you realize Palestinians are Semites. Amazing how many Americans are kept totally ignorant of that fact. Calling them antisemitic is Orwellian babble. Who are you addressing?? Where did someone say Palestinians aren't Semitic people ? 🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ tassojunior Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 2 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said: Who are you addressing?? Where did someone say Palestinians aren't Semitic people ? 🤔 calling Semitic people or those who support them antisemites is ridiculous. pubic_assistance, marylander1940 and Luv2play 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubic_assistance Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 minute ago, tassojunior said: calling Semitic people or those who support them antisemites is ridiculous. So what term do YOU prefer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthOfTheBorder Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 5 hours ago, pubic_assistance said: with facts instead of political bias unfortunately - peole choose their own facts now. put that together with most Americans believing US propaganda & it’s a toxic mix. and let’s be real here - if she was a well-connected white woman, she would still have the job. there are 2 systems in the US; one for white people and another for everyone else. Edited January 27 by SouthOfTheBorder Luv2play, marylander1940 and pubic_assistance 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubic_assistance Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 4 minutes ago, SouthOfTheBorder said: unfortunately - peole choose their own facts now. put that together with most Americans believing US propaganda & it’s a toxic mix. This is true. There is definitely a huge effort by the Corporate owned media in the US to spin narratives that benefit their own interests Its sometimes frightening to witness the number of people who believe things that just aren't true because they "heard it on the news". Few people seem to question the obvious bias in news media today. Always assuming that their choice of news-source is going to always report "the truth" as opposed to a viewpoint. Edited January 27 by pubic_assistance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthOfTheBorder Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 2 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said: There is definitely a huge effort by the Corporate also true - but not so relevant anymore bc most people get their “news” from Facebook, which is about as disreputable as it gets. online media changed everything in rapid succession for the worse and there’s no going back. Luv2play and pubic_assistance 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthOfTheBorder Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 On 1/23/2024 at 4:03 PM, tassojunior said: the "topic" is intentionally offensively political to stir up fights in the blog if you notice - the people who create these “topics” have zero to say about the main subject matter of the forum. they aren’t meeting providers, they aren’t traveling and evidently aren’t having any sex either. + Vegas_Millennial, Luv2play, pubic_assistance and 2 others 1 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubic_assistance Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 42 minutes ago, SouthOfTheBorder said: if you notice - the people who create these “topics” have zero to say about the main subject matter of the forum @marylander1940 contributes more to the site than most people do. C.o.M. has a variety of topics so everyone is free to participate how they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthOfTheBorder Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 2 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said: C.o.M. has a variety of topics so everyone is free to participate how they want. obviously. and if someone wants to stir shit bc they are otherwise bored af, that’s all permissible based upon TOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubic_assistance Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 minutes ago, SouthOfTheBorder said: if someone wants to stir shit bc they are otherwise bored af, that’s all permissible based upon TOS. I don't see any attempt here at "stirring shit". It's an interesting topic. Most people have behaved themselves even though the subject has significantly different viewpoints. Conversation isn't very interesting if people just always agree with each other. + nycman, Luv2play and mike carey 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylander1940 Posted January 27 Author Share Posted January 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, SouthOfTheBorder said: if you notice - the people who create these “topics” have zero to say about the main subject matter of the forum. they aren’t meeting providers, they aren’t traveling and evidently aren’t having any sex either. 20 minutes ago, SouthOfTheBorder said: obviously. and if someone wants to stir shit bc they are otherwise bored af, that’s all permissible based upon TOS. and projection! 23 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said: @marylander1940 contributes more to the site than most people do. C.o.M. has a variety of topics so everyone is free to participate how they want. Don't bother.... he joined the site a year ago knows everything, hates America, and easily made up his mind about who is who on here. Edited January 27 by marylander1940 pubic_assistance 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthOfTheBorder Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 while technically free to choose/post topics at will, except blatant politics - there are hundreds of alternate sites where one can discuss topics like Harvard academia, all things political and all adjacent subjects. yet, there is only this one site that is set-up to discuss providers, reviews & adjacent topics. and some people just can’t resist trying to drag everyone down into their miserable politicized rabbit holes. And if you notice - it’s always Americans doing this. They can’t help themselves. This is a site about sex - wtaf ?? pubic_assistance, matthatter, Luv2play and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ tassojunior Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, pubic_assistance said: I don't see any attempt here at "stirring shit". It's an interesting topic. Most people have behaved themselves even though the subject has significantly different viewpoints. Conversation isn't very interesting if people just always agree with each other. Defending genocide is not interesting. Especiallly when using "antisemitism" as an excuse to genocide Semites I just block the racist here but then people repeat their poison in comments. I guess I missed all the stimulating conversation they put out. I only find this site interesting on one subject and its certainly not politics. Quantity of posts does not matter as much as quality and the quality of politics here sucks. AAMF, putting out 10 boring threads a day off news headlines of the day just makes a site more boring. Edited January 27 by tassojunior pubic_assistance, SouthOfTheBorder and marylander1940 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ Vegas_Millennial Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 I hope the new president of Harvard is Gay, and not just in name only. It would be even better if he was an active Gay Escort; now that would be breaking a glass ceiling! marylander1940, + nycman and pubic_assistance 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylander1940 Posted January 27 Author Share Posted January 27 11 minutes ago, SouthOfTheBorder said: while technically free to choose/post topics at will, except blatant politics - there are hundreds of alternate sites where one can discuss topics like Harvard academia, all things political and all adjacent subjects. yet, there is only this one site that is set-up to discuss providers, reviews & adjacent topics. and some people just can’t resist trying to drag everyone down into their miserable politicized rabbit holes. And if you notice - it’s always Americans doing this. They can’t help themselves. This is a site about sex - wtaf ?? You can always suggest changes to the moderators and report everything you don't like in this site. One more thing, don't bump threads you dislike or consider inappropriate, it's better to let them die and be forgotten. + nycman and pubic_assistance 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ tassojunior Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 8 hours ago, pubic_assistance said: So allowing anti-seminism to fester in the name of diverse viewpoints is going to get some people, in power questioning your credentials. 3 hours ago, pubic_assistance said: Who are you addressing?? Where did someone say Palestinians aren't Semitic people ? 🤔 marylander1940 and pubic_assistance 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ tassojunior Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 3 hours ago, pubic_assistance said: So what term do YOU prefer ? Why use a 100 year old $10 word instead of "Jew" or "Anti-Jew". Anti-Semitism has nothing to do with the 80-year old civil war in Israel/Palestine. Is "Jew" a dirty word still like when "Anti-Semitism" was coined to describe Jews being hated because they were (falsely) labeled Semites? It's ok to say "Jew" when that's what one means. It's not a dirty word anymore. pubic_assistance, + Vegas_Millennial and marylander1940 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubic_assistance Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 25 minutes ago, tassojunior said: Anti-Semitism" was coined to describe Jews being hated because they were (falsely) labeled Semites And "coined" it was. So everyone now understands what is meant, inspite of your concern for the accuracy of genetics. Thank you for the history lesson. + Vegas_Millennial 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthOfTheBorder Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 hour ago, tassojunior said: I just block the racist here but then people repeat their poison in comments I’m kind of ok with racist people who can admit it - at least they are clear about who they are, take it or leave it. The ones that dance around the edges & can’t own up to it - NO + BOZO T CLOWN and pubic_assistance 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy768 Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 11 hours ago, pubic_assistance said: This isn't the first person of color who got a pass on doing diligence to fill a diversity hire. But when that person crosses a line, the due diligence gets done after the fact. In this case the woman is clearly out of her league and shouldn't be in a position of authority when she can't navigate a delicate situation like the (always) divergent viewpoints on the Middle East and Israel/Gaza in particular. For me, there has been a distinct difference in the general feeling around Liz Magill and Claudine Gay. I think you could argue that they both "couldn't navigate a delicate situation." But only one of them seemed to be questioned regarding whether she ever deserved the position to begin with. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't get a general sense that people doubted whether Magill ever should've been president in the first place. It just seems to me like Magill's failure was "allowed" to be "she made mistakes" without question on whether she was qualified to be president, whereas Gay has been less "she made mistakes" and more "she was a diversity hire." SouthOfTheBorder and + tassojunior 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+ tassojunior Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 (edited) "Everyone" understands that being Pro-Semite is anti-Semitic. What nonsense the media comes up with. Murdering 25,000 Semites is not antisemitic, but offending Ackman's wife is the most vile antisemitista and the Semites must be put to death for it. Genocidiing Semites is not anti-semitic but being against the genocide is anti-Semitic. Do these newscasters ever listen to themselves? It's pure hogwash. And I'm sure Ackman's wife wasn't given a pass on her worse plagiarism because he's a billionaire. . Mentioning that would be anti-Semitic toward the non-Semite. Orwellian babble. On the "get off or get in free because I'm rich scale" Blacks are way down the totem pole/ Money is what matters most. and every other accepted person seems to be incompetent rich people. I liked Gay's "fuck you" attitude toward the fascists more than her tongue-tied counterparts. And she is plenty smart. She''s getting $1 million/ year now to do nothing, Edited January 28 by tassojunior + BOZO T CLOWN, marylander1940, pubic_assistance and 1 other 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSR Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 11 hours ago, Andy768 said: It just seems to me like Magill's failure was "allowed" to be "she made mistakes" without question on whether she was qualified to be president, whereas Gay has been less "she made mistakes" and more "she was a diversity hire." Gay published only 11 peer-reviewed journal papers in her entire academic career (got her PhD in 1998). Most professors publish 11 (or more) in a single year. 11 papers is about what you'd need before being hired as a 1st-year tenure-track assistant professor at a state school, yet Gay somehow became a full professor at Harvard publishing far less. If a person is hired for a position despite being far less qualified, of course others will see that person as a diversity hire. + BOZO T CLOWN and pubic_assistance 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJF Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 1 hour ago, BSR said: Gay published only 11 peer-reviewed journal papers in her entire academic career (got her PhD in 1998). Most professors publish 11 (or more) in a single year. 11 papers is about what you'd need before being hired as a 1st-year tenure-track assistant professor at a state school, yet Gay somehow became a full professor at Harvard publishing far less. If a person is hired for a position despite being far less qualified, of course others will see that person as a diversity hire. The tenure document at most institutions states that 30-50 publications are required for promotion to full professor. However, most professors don’t publish 11 papers a year for sure 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts