Harvard University resists

[MicroB]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

What are you on about, those German politicians were handpicked by the Americans, British, French and Russians. Of course they picked non-Nazis. There was always a small minority of opposition politicians in Germany, mostly underground. However, the universities did influence how the students turned out. Heidegger himself was routed for being antisemitic. So were many German politicians post 1945.

 

The masses ARE weak willed. Just look at how the British now celebrate anti-white, anti-coloniali causes. Where did that come from? Universities and political activists.

 

 

We're talking about Harvard and normal universities. Chapels and such can stay open, only overt religious activism and political activism would be banned. This is very reasonable. People can still support their country, presidents can still throw balls, none of that is political activism obviously , don't be obtuse.

 

 

Stop talking nonsense, I don't want trade unions banned. Nor do I want to ban books.  Only political activism. And 18 year olds are gullible af, they are basically in danger of being perverted by these political activists.

 

 

Given your sychphantic support for Russia elsewhere, I suggest your political compass is extremenly screwed up.

 

So apprentices aren't being educated in the workplace then. If they join a trade union, by definition they will come into contact with someone you call an activist.

 

You want Jewish and Christian student societies banned? Seems a very left wing response. When you see the Hare Krishna people on the treet corner, are you constantly fighting urges not to join them? Or do yoiu cross the street to avoid them.

 

Priests don't learn to be priests by going to church, you dolt. They learn theology at a Theological college. Your recipe for self taught priests is the model adopted by ISIS and Al Qaeda, where a former drug dealer and car mechanic can suddenly delcare themselves to be religious leaders.

 

You are against debate. You are anti-democracy. I think old people and middle aged old soaks living in Thailand are as gullible af, given the voting demographics in recent elections and referenda.

 

Define a "normal university" and an "abnormal university"? Was Trump University a normal university?  Are abnormal universities then allow political activism in your New World? Or are you dismissing former polytechnics and the Rajabhat Universities as not "normal universities". Suggests you are an elitist.

 

Most of your post about the British is pure testicles and literally made up. Let me know when the next anti-colonial street party is being organised, in case I want a celebration. You obviously have a diary of all these events. Or its just a figment of some sort of imagination.

 

The Germans that were "outed" as your call it (adopting, I see, leftist, woke language) were Germans who were adults in WW2 with a hidden past. Heidegger, you muppet, was far too old to go to university and have a Nazi convert him, He was born in 1889. Post War,  West Germany had free elections. Someone graduating from university in 1945 would have been born about 1924, and would have likely entered German politics about 1974. Though many Germans of that age were in the military, and postwar, having seen what the Nazis did, completely rejected their ideology. Looking at the results of the 1976 German Federal election, I don't see any evidence of closet Nazis gaining power that you intimate. East Germans, who had highly politicised education, generally voted for conservative politicans following reunification, so all the efforts of the commissars seem to have gone to waste. How are the Communists doing in Russia these days? Not very well it seems, despite 70 years of rigging things.

 

Your reference to "Masses" is another example about how you use highly politicised language, of the sort used by Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Perhaps you have been brainwashed.

 

Those loudmouths screeching about activists do so from the perspective of being activists themselves. They so want it to be true that an activist tells you how to think. If that's not true, then what are they? Grifters spouting nonsense.

 

This is why politicans are stunned when they lose an election, because it turns out all the issues they  raise don't matter to the voters. Governments lose elections, rather than oppositions win them.

[MicroB]

51 minutes ago, Magictoad said:

"was in force protection. Harvard' research is about identifying extremism and radicalisation."

I don't believe you. It's so easy to say stuff like you wrote but it's very difficult to prove.  Trump has proven that.

 

 

Learn to quote properly. 

 

You can look up the DHS grants. They are a matter of record. Extremely easy to prove. In fact, its all detailed in the press releases from the DHS canceling the grants, as they allege the studies were identifying those on the Right as extremists (project title: " Implementation Science for Targeted Violence Prevention"). The other canceled project, "Blue Campaign Program Evaluation and Violence Advisement" they DHS doesn't say much about, except that it was somehow funding public health, like that was a bad thing. This is the DHS's own programme:

 

https://www.dhs.gov/blue-campaign

 

And this is Harvard's part in it:

https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2021/03/12/news-release-dhs-partners-harvard-university-support-blue-campaign

 

The Prwsident believes human trafficing is a cover to get terrorists into America. Now you support ending this research, and by extension, increasing the risl of terrorism.

 

And I know what projects I worked on. What you say is libellous. I am proud of my contribution to keep our troops safe. I request you retract your allegation.

[Cameroni]

43 minutes ago, MicroB said:

So apprentices aren't being educated in the workplace then. If they join a trade union, by definition they will come into contact with someone you call an activist.

 

So what, that doesn't happen at university, does it?

 

43 minutes ago, MicroB said:

You want Jewish and Christian student societies banned? Seems a very left wing response. When you see the Hare Krishna people on the treet corner, are you constantly fighting urges not to join them? Or do yoiu cross the street to avoid them.

 

Religious and political activism by them should be banned. That's all. 

 

44 minutes ago, MicroB said:

Priests don't learn to be priests by going to church, you dolt. They learn theology at a Theological college. Your recipe for self taught priests is the model adopted by ISIS and Al Qaeda, where a former drug dealer and car mechanic can suddenly delcare themselves to be religious leaders.

 

What are you on about? Self taught priests? Religious schools can instruct priests. Just not at university.

 

45 minutes ago, MicroB said:

Define a "normal university" and an "abnormal university"? Was Trump University a normal university?  Are abnormal universities then allow political activism in your New World? Or are you dismissing former polytechnics and the Rajabhat Universities as not "normal universities". Suggests you are an elitist.

 

A normal university is one dedicated to teaching and research. An abnormal one is Antioch, for instance where students are taught to obtain written contracts to kiss a girl, touch her breast and required to get "affirmed consent". That's not normal behaviour that is being taught at these universities. So pretty much all of them now.

 

46 minutes ago, MicroB said:

You are against debate. You are anti-democracy. I think old people and middle aged old soaks living in Thailand are as gullible af, given the voting demographics in recent elections and referenda.

 

I am pro debate and pro-democracy, but you didn't learn democracy at university. Nor should you. It's not a political institution, but an academic one. There is no reason to debate feminism or socialism at campus.

 

48 minutes ago, MicroB said:

Most of your post about the British is pure testicles and literally made up. Let me know when the next anti-colonial street party is being organised, in case I want a celebration. You obviously have a diary of all these events. Or its just a figment of some sort of imagination.

 

You Pattaya girlie bar addicts obviously don't follow the news;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2023/may/05/how-the-fall-of-edward-colstons-statue-revolutionised-the-way-british-history-is-told

 

50 minutes ago, MicroB said:

The Germans that were "outed" as your call it (adopting, I see, leftist, woke language) were Germans who were adults in WW2 with a hidden past. Heidegger, you muppet, was far too old to go to university and have a Nazi convert him, He was born in 1889. Post War

 

Lol, you're completely clueless, Heidegger taught at university under the Nazis. He was one of the pre-eminent lecturers at that time. 

 

51 minutes ago, MicroB said:

I don't see any evidence of closet Nazis gaining power that you intimate.

 

You're seriously clueless, Germany prohibited Nazi parties, how could one possibly gain power? Maybe ease up on the gin and tonics.

 

52 minutes ago, MicroB said:

East Germans, who had highly politicised education, generally voted for conservative politicans following reunification, so all the efforts of the commissars seem to have gone to waste

 

No they didn't you ignorant clown, they voted for the PDS and The Linke, pseudo communist parties.

 

53 minutes ago, MicroB said:

How are the Communists doing in Russia these days? Not very well it seems, despite 70 years of rigging things.

 

Plenty of pro-communists in Russia.

 

 

[CHdiver]

On 4/17/2025 at 8:41 AM, NickyLouie said:

 

 

 

FFS, she either aged like crazy in the last 4 month, or the left newspaper (and TV) had to work overtime to photoshop her pictures. During the election she looked like a 30 year old Top modell. Lucky for us, fake it till you make it did not work for her.

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

Lol, you are so naive. That is what government does, what it has done for centuries.

 

Or why do you think there are laws against defamation, incitement to violence, threats, "hate" speech, obscenity, national security, classified information, copyright....do you seriously think governments do not have the prerogative to determine what is free speech and what isn't? That's what they DO! For hundreds of years!

 

My proposal would be this: BAN ALL POLITICAL ACTIVISM on campus.

 

All of it. The problem is that leftwing ideologues are using university not for studies, but political activism. Just make it illegal.

 

 

Laws against defamation and copyright infringement are civil matters. Not criminal. The executive branch has nothing to do with this.  There are no federal laws against "hate speech" as such. Americans are free to espouse communism, racism, and they are even free to defend Adolph Hitler.

 

"do you seriously think governments do not have the prerogative to determine what is free speech and what isn't? "

The issue isn't governments in general, it's the US government that's the subject. Clearlly, you don't know that the courts have repeatedly put limits on what the the executive branch and congress can and can't do with regards to free speech. Stop making things up.

 

Your proposal to ban political activism really runs against the heart of First Amendment.  Good luck with that.

 

 

[Cameroni]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Laws against defamation and copyright infringement are civil matters. Not criminal. 

 

There is criminal libel on the books in the US, i hate to break it to you.

 

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

The executive branch has nothing to do with this.

 

Obviously the executive branch has a lot to do with it, since it implemented the laws that constitute the libel laws in the US. Or you think those laws magically appeared out of thin air?

 

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There are no federal laws against "hate speech" as such. Americans are free to espouse communism, racism, and they are even free to defend Adolph Hitler.

 

Not if they're at university. In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.

 

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Clearlly, you don't know that the courts have repeatedly put limits on what the the executive branch and congress can and can't do with regards to free speech. Stop making things up.

 

Indeed they have, however, the executive can pass laws that limit free speech. Just like Illinois when they put group libel laws in place to protect blacks.

 

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Your proposal to ban political activism really runs against the heart of First Amendment.  Good luck with that.

 

Lol, so did the "speech codes" adopted by 350 public universities regulating discriminatory speech. Yet, oddly, they are still in place. So basically leftists can do it, just no anyone else, right?

[placeholder]

28 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

There is criminal libel on the books in the US, i hate to break it to you.

 

 

Obviously the executive branch has a lot to do with it, since it implemented the laws that constitute the libel laws in the US. Or you think those laws magically appeared out of thin air?

 

 

Not if they're at university. In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.

 

 

Indeed they have, however, the executive can pass laws that limit free speech. Just like Illinois when they put group libel laws in place to protect blacks.

 

 

Lol, so did the "speech codes" adopted by 350 public universities regulating discriminatory speech. Yet, oddly, they are still in place. So basically leftists can do it, just no anyone else, right?

Well criminal libel is pretty much on the backfoot due to various court rulings. And that group libel law in Illinois hasn't been invoked since about 1950.  I doubt it would pass Constitutional muster today. And there is no Federal law establishing libel as a criminal offense.

As for the rest. What don't you understand about the fact that it's a university imposing rules. Not the Government. The First Amendment forbids governments from regulating speech. It says nothing about other entities.

No, the executive can't pass laws that limit free speech. Where did you come up with such a preposterous notion?  It could sign into law such a bill from the Congress. But the courts can still overturn it.

[MicroB]

 

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

I am pro debate and pro-democracy, but you didn't learn democracy at university. Nor should you. It's not a political institution, but an academic one. There is no reason to debate feminism or socialism at campus.

 

 

 

Now I know you made up the story about going up to Oxford University. Kind of the academic version of stolen valour.

 

Oxord Union anyone?

 

 

 

BTW, he's a Harvard man, just like Pete Hegseth. Obviously a dangerous Leftist in your view.

 

[Cameroni]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Well criminal libel is pretty much on the backfoot due to various court rulings. And that group libel law in Illinois hasn't been invoked since about 1950.  I doubt it would pass Constitutional muster today. And there is no Federal law establishing libel as a criminal offense.

As for the rest. What don't you understand about the fact that it's a university imposing rules. Not the Government. The First Amendment forbids governments from regulating speech. It says nothing about other entities.

No, the executive can't pass laws that limit free speech. Where did you come up with such a preposterous notion?  It could sign into law such a bill from the Congress. But the courts can still overturn it.

 

"Wilson pushed for sedition and espionage laws, adopted in 1917 and 1918, that made illegal certain speech about the war, including speech that might incite disloyalty within the military or be supportive of the enemy. These laws, which later were viewed as an instance of government overstepping the bounds of First Amendment freedoms, led to the conviction of several anti-war activists at the time. Wilson's attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, also led raids on communist and socialist groups, creating mass arrests and undermining First Amendment rights."

 

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/presidents-and-the-first-amendment/

[JAG]

On 4/17/2025 at 1:28 PM, FlorC said:

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service is making plans to rescind the tax-exempt status of Harvard University, CNN reported on Wednesday, citing two sources familiar with the matter.

GOOD !

US IRS planning to rescind Harvard's tax-exempt status amid Trump feud, CNN reports | Reuters

Are all private universities in the USA tax exempt, or is it just Harvard?

 

Was "Trump University" tax exempt? I mean, I am not for a moment suggesting that he would have paid any taxes anyway - that would be just silly!

[placeholder]

10 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

"Wilson pushed for sedition and espionage laws, adopted in 1917 and 1918, that made illegal certain speech about the war, including speech that might incite disloyalty within the military or be supportive of the enemy. These laws, which later were viewed as an instance of government overstepping the bounds of First Amendment freedoms, led to the conviction of several anti-war activists at the time. Wilson's attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, also led raids on communist and socialist groups, creating mass arrests and undermining First Amendment rights."

 

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/presidents-and-the-first-amendment/

Yes,  that has happened in the past occasionally. But not for a long time despite occasional government attempts to restrict speech. And what does that have to do with your attempt to equate non-governmental institutions that impose speech rules with thegovernment doing the same?

What really makes this funny is that right wingers complained about Facebook or and Twitter imposing restrictions on speech but favor governments doing the same. It's like they live in opposite world.

[Cameroni]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Yes,  that has happened in the past occasionally. But not for a long time despite occasional government attempts to restrict speech. And what does that have to do with your attempt to equate non-governmental institutions that impose speech rules with thegovernment doing the same?

What really makes this funny is that right wingers complained about Facebook or and Twitter imposing restrictions on speech but favor governments doing the same. It's like they live in opposite world.

 

You have to be a very blinkered leftist not to appreciate the delicious irony of seeing leftists trying to defend universities on the grounds of free speech, when it was these very universities, 350 of them, who adopted "speech codes" to severely restrict free speech at their universities.

 

The irony is just too delicious.

 

You do realise you are invoking the "free speech" defense for institutions who have themselves restricted free speech in the most glaring, and heinous, ways? You probably didn't, but  how do you reconcile the 350 universities in the US adopting "speech codes" to restrict free speech, with your free speech defense? Just curious.

[FlorC]

2 hours ago, JAG said:

Are all private universities in the USA tax exempt, or is it just Harvard?

 

Was "Trump University" tax exempt? I mean, I am not for a moment suggesting that he would have paid any taxes anyway - that would be just silly!

No idea if all private uni's are tax exempt.

I just did what all the lefties do and blindly repeat what CNN says .... 😄

[jerrymahoney]

Trump University (while it lasted) was a for-profit educational institution and not tax-exempt.

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

You have to be a very blinkered leftist not to appreciate the delicious irony of seeing leftists trying to defend universities on the grounds of free speech, when it was these very universities, 350 of them, who adopted "speech codes" to severely restrict free speech at their universities.

 

The irony is just too delicious.

 

You do realise you are invoking the "free speech" defense for institutions who have themselves restricted free speech in the most glaring, and heinous, ways? You probably didn't, but  how do you reconcile the 350 universities in the US adopting "speech codes" to restrict free speech, with your free speech defense? Just curious.

What don't you understand about  why the First Amendment bars governments from restricting speech but not  non-governmental institutions? 

Private institutions may have perfectly legitimate reasons to regulate speech and enforce respect for  members of the community. 

But the government has no such right and no legitimate reasons for punishing speech which it judges to be disrespectful or hateful. The Founding Fathers were justifiably wary of government attempts to encroach upon the practice of free speech.

 

[Cameroni]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What don't you understand about  why the First Amendment bars governments from restricting speech but not  non-governmental institutions? 

Private institutions may have perfectly legitimate reasons to regulate speech and enforce respect for  members of the community. 

But the government has no such right and no legitimate reasons for punishing speech which it judges to be disrespectful or hateful. The Founding Fathers were justifiably wary of government attempts to encroach upon the practice of free speech.

 

 

It doesn't bar governments from doingi so really, as we saw with Woodrow Wilson.  If governments want to restrict free speech they do it. Even in the US.

 

Aaaaah, when universities restrict free speech it's "legitimate", so the restriction of free speech can be legitimate then? So first you were attacking the restriction on free speech, but now you are defending it?

 

So you're flip flopping basically?

 

 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

It doesn't bar governments from doingi so really, as we saw with Woodrow Wilson.  If governments want to restrict free speech they do it. Even in the US.

 

Aaaaah, when universities restrict free speech it's "legitimate", so the restriction of free speech can be legitimate then? So first you were attacking the restriction on free speech, but now you are defending it?

 

So you're flip flopping basically?

 

 

More nonsense from you. I've repeatedly cited the first Amendment. The first amendment does not apply to private institutions. What don't you understand about that? 

As for Woodrow Wilson et alii, how many times has the government tried to  suppress or criminalize free speech and been prevented by the courts because of the First Amendment?

[mikebike]

18 hours ago, CHdiver said:

FFS, she either aged like crazy in the last 4 month, or the left newspaper (and TV) had to work overtime to photoshop her pictures. During the election she looked like a 30 year old Top modell. Lucky for us, fake it till you make it did not work for her.

What a barf of drivel. Because a handsome man like you always looks 💯 in every photo, right?