Jump to content

UT Pro-Palestine Protest Thread


Captainant

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Covri said:

 


 

Just get over being falsely detained/arrested/spending a night in jail because the cops realized they couldn’t continue their bullshit anymore. Just an inexplicably stupid take. 

I didn’t say they weren’t wronged. They probably were. What do you do when you’re wronged?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

That was the Summer of the CHOP in Seattle, right? Of the antifa riots right? Yeah it was great fun watching the country immolate. We should all do it again.

Yes all that happened that summer was "antifa riots". Just like how yesterday was yeah?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Yes all that happened that summer was "antifa riots". Just like how yesterday was yeah?

There is no point in trying to reason with a potato.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

Were the charges dropped because they were weak, or because the Travis County DA is a Cunt? If only there were a trail of past actions with which to discern.

Yes....if only there was a trail of past actions of the folks who submitted those affidavits, DPS officers, with which to discern.....hmmmm.

"DPS says it, I believe it."  That's not something to put on one's resume.  Unless you're applying to join the new gestapo, I guess.

Oh, and again, based on your stated standard, we need to shut down having crowds at UT football games, right?  I mean, we KNOW that there will be lots of lawlessness among that group of miscreants, why wait until they actually do something?  Let's nip it in the bud, and just get all of those assholes off our campus.  That's your rule.  Let's apply it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I didn’t say they weren’t wronged. They probably were. What do you do when you’re wronged?

Shorted my creamy pepper sauce at Whataburger? Get over it.

 

Falsely arrested and a night in jail. Lawyer up and sue.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PTINS said:

Does the UTPD have adequate resources to "control" the number of people that gathered?

That campus greeter featured in the LHN commercials could have handled it all by himself.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

This is from the group that organized this weeks UT pro-Palestine event  

 

IMG_6045.thumb.jpeg.6923fe2446a01375706585eab99cf87a.jpeg

 

As noted Jew Albert Einstein once said, “the ironing is delicious”.
 

IMG_6041.thumb.jpeg.645e31fafbadebe8d41eb885a0de8191.jpeg 

 

Ummmm.....show me the problem here?  It's perfectly fine for any group to tell the university "this shit/that shit doesn't belong here.  You shouldn't sponsor it it."  Put the complaint on the desk, let the university consider it and act/not act.  That's how the process works.

The Palestine in Austin committee can make the ask/demand - as is their right.  The university can weigh their ask, considering constitutional factors, and the university's mission (I note the distinction here -- the presentation at issue was not a public protest, but rather a SPONSORED lecture put on by the university.  So....there's a difference between speech the university allows (and must allow) vs. speech that the university endorses).  In any case, let them bitch to the university.  If the university thinks they have a good point, then the university can cancel the lecture  If the university doesn't agree, then the lecture stays, and the PIA folks are free to protest, peacefully.  That's how this works.  America, the Constitution, all that.

If these guys were demanding that the university not ALLOW a jewish group to march, speak, etc., because of the CONTENT of that message, they'd be in the wrong.  They can still make the demand, of course.  It's just that it should be summarily rejected.

  • Hook 'Em 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

This is from the group that organized this weeks UT pro-Palestine event  

 

IMG_6045.thumb.jpeg.6923fe2446a01375706585eab99cf87a.jpeg

 

As noted Jew Albert Einstein once said, “the ironing is delicious”.
 

IMG_6041.thumb.jpeg.645e31fafbadebe8d41eb885a0de8191.jpeg 

 

g7UyrCB.gif.38acd68577a758b3cdea33cadd34a5a1.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yes....if only there was a trail of past actions of the folks who submitted those affidavits, DPS officers, with which to discern.....hmmmm.

"DPS says it, I believe it."  That's not something to put on one's resume.  Unless you're applying to join the new gestapo, I guess.

Oh, and again, based on your stated standard, we need to shut down having crowds at UT football games, right?  I mean, we KNOW that there will be lots of lawlessness among that group of miscreants, why wait until they actually do something?  Let's nip it in the bud, and just get all of those assholes off our campus.  That's your rule.  Let's apply it.

Most in attendance aren’t even students!

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I haven't been down on campus for a while. Are there really people still wearing N95s as they walk around outdoors? You should have hit the accelerator. 

And poor fitting N95s at that. Performative. 

Perhaps the young person has a cold or some other respiratory illness and is trying to be considerate of others while still going about his day?

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't understand what is offensive or scary about this. Are we concerned that occupying grass is going to disrupt something?

What is offensive or scary or about the 2023 Israeli-American Council Summit in Austin that this same PSC group demanded to be shut down, on grounds of danger?

https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/article-715248

 

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ummmm.....show me the problem here?  It's perfectly fine for any group to tell the university "this shit/that shit doesn't belong here.  You shouldn't sponsor it it."  Put the complaint on the desk, let the university consider it and act/not act.  That's how the process works.

If these guys were demanding that the university not ALLOW a jewish group to march, speak, etc., because of the CONTENT of that message, they'd be in the wrong.  They can still make the demand, of course.  It's just that it should be summarily rejected.

I dont disagree. The state has no right infringing on speech that is not yet violent and the university has no place shutting down events that are not disruptive. 

Correct, its “fine” for the PSC to make this *plead* against another groups right to convene. My point wasnt that their demand per se is a problem, but that its hilariously backfired. Didnt know the jaguar would eat MY face. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

What is offensive or scary or about the 2023 Israeli-American Council Summit in Austin that this same PSC group demanded to be shut down, on grounds of danger?

https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/article-715248

Something tells me you didn't give a shit about any of this group or even know about them until abbott targeted them for brutality

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Correct, its “fine” for the PSC to make this *plead* against another groups right to convene. My point wasnt that their demand per se is a problem, but that its hilariously backfired. Didnt know the jaguar would eat MY face. 

Yes. We know you think it's hilarious when protesters are beaten up by cops. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captainant said:

Something tells me you didn't give a shit about any of this group or even know about them until abbott targeted them for brutality

Do I need to be sympathetic to either party to notice hypocrisy?

 

Just now, Captainant said:

Yes. We know you think it's hilarious when protesters are beaten up by cops. 

You should cry into your keffiyeh over it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abbott and bootlickers today: putting down this protest was all about fighting antisemitism!!!

 

When there were actual fucking neonazis marching in the streets y'all were more concerned about free speech then. 

image.png.a311824c5478d9da6d220dc37e35e074.png

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captainant said:

Abbott and bootlickers today: putting down this protest was all about fighting antisemitism!!!

 

When there were actual fucking neonazis marching in the streets y'all were more concerned about free speech then. 

image.png.a311824c5478d9da6d220dc37e35e074.png

They’re wearing masks!!!!!

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

What is offensive or scary or about the 2023 Israeli-American Council Summit in Austin that this same PSC group demanded to be shut down, on grounds of danger?

https://m.jpost.com/diaspora/article-715248

The Summit wasn't mere public speech, but an event sponsored by the University. Those are different things. The University has to allow the KKK to speak and march in the public forum. But that doesn't mean it must or should invite the KKK to a University conference on racial relations. 

As to particular Summit you identified, I don't know enough to comment either way. It also isn't relevant to the thread.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

This is from the group that organized this weeks UT pro-Palestine event  

 

IMG_6045.thumb.jpeg.6923fe2446a01375706585eab99cf87a.jpeg

 

As noted Jew Albert Einstein once said, “the ironing is delicious”.
 

IMG_6041.thumb.jpeg.645e31fafbadebe8d41eb885a0de8191.jpeg 

 

That this organization petitioned to silence another organization is irrelevant. I generally disagree with that approach, but they didn’t waive their own right to free speech by advocating that another group should be silenced. 

 

Edited by BrickHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

But you missed the difference: speech that is ALLOWED, vs. speech that is SPONSORED.

Imagine a group that says that jews exercise outsize control in the world, have sinister motivations, and we must keep our eyes on them.  Or, flip that, and make it a group that says the same thing about muslims.  That group, the anti-jew or anti-muslim group, intends to have a rally on campus, where they state their views and try to get the university and its students to adopt those views.  I am 100% in favor of such speech being ALLOWED, even though I find it abhorrent.

Now, imagine those same two groups....except the university INVITES the group's leader to come give a speech on "why the jews/arabs are the world's biggest problem, and my suggestions on how to drive them out of America."  It's part of the University of Texas Distinguished Thought Leader Lecture series.  I don't want my university SPONSORING such speech, so I don't think we should invite that speaker to our lecture series.

ALLOW abhorrent speech -- yes, we must.

SPONSOR abhorrent speech -- we should think really, really hard about it, weighing a shitload of factors.  But we should lean AGAINST doing so, as a university.

That's a big difference.

You missed a big difference: their call to action against the IAC had no element of sponsorship, and nothing to do with UT. (Which is separately from their cancellation request on a speaker). 

They demanded, verbatim, for that IAC event to be “shut down”. Meaning they wanted, if they had their way, that that event could not exist. 

And the nature of the IAC Summit is far from anti-anything. 

And yes, man, i already agree with you: that all this shit must be *allowed*, no matter how abhorrent and anti-whomever. Although people in this thread dont demonstrate the same beliefs. Im pointing how ironic the turns tabled in this instance. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The Summit wasn't mere public speech, but an event sponsored by the University. Those are different things. The University has to allow the KKK to speak and march in the public forum. But that doesn't mean it must or should invite the KKK to a University conference on racial relations. 

As to particular Summit you identified, I don't know enough to comment either way. It also isn't relevant to the thread.  

The summit they wanted to shut down was a private event merely hosted in the city of Austin. 

The single speaker (Yaron Brooks) whose UT lecture they wanted to cancel was a separate event. 

I dont know Yaron Brooks. But the relevance to this thread is obvious: a major matter of speech (and funny minor matter of hypocrisy)

 

Just now, BrickHorn said:

That this organization petitioned to silence another organization is irrelevant. I happen to disagree with their approach, but they didn’t waive their own right to free speech by advocating that another group should be silenced. 

well…ditto. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Someone espousing a stupid opinion about wanting an event shut down is a different thing than actual police in riot gear teakettling a peaceful protest. Even if the people with the dumbass opinion are the ones being teakettled, which may or may not be the case here.

 

not hard

Edited by Celery Man
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

The summit they wanted to shut down was a private event merely hosted in the city of Austin. 

The single speaker (Yaron Brooks) whose UT lecture they wanted to cancel was a separate event. 

I dont know Yaron Brooks. But the relevance to this thread is obvious: a major matter of speech (and funny minor matter of hypocrisy)

 

well…ditto. 

Ok? So it was private event that they were protesting? Freedom of speech includes protesting the speech of others and shaming other private entities to shun that speech. That's perfectly acceptable. It only becomes a constitutional issue when the government gets involved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Ok? So it was private event that they were protesting? Freedom of speech includes protesting the speech of others and shaming other private entities to shun that speech. That's perfectly acceptable. It only becomes a constitutional issue when the government gets involved. 

Which post number suggested that the PSC has no right to protest other parties speech, or that that invalidates their own future right to speech, or that their suppression this week was legal/constitutional?

Why are we litigating a non argument? 

Just dont feign as if theres zero moral/logical/karmic (but not legal) relevance to these incidences though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Do we really need to go through the freedom of speech basics again?

Based on the past few days the answer is a resounding yes. Our university clearly failed a good many on basic American civics. 

And fails a good many at the current. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Which post number suggested that the PSC has no right to protest other parties speech, or that that invalidates their own future right to speech, or that their suppression this week was legal/constitutional?

Why are we litigating a non argument? 

Just dont feign as if theres zero moral/logical/karmic (but not legal) relevance to these incidences though. 

I don't know, why are we discussing it if you understand these are different things?  The PSC never ordered anyone to shut down via threat of legalized violence (i.e., government power). There is only irony here if you don't understand the difference or why the difference exists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I don't know, why are we discussing it if you understand these are different things?  The PSC never ordered anyone to shut down via threat of legalized violence (i.e., government power). There is only irony here if you don't understand the difference or why the difference exists. 

If you wish other people get shutdown, and you end up getting shut down, thats karmically related. Has nothing to do with the legal aspect.

Thats why the first post that brought it up mentioned only irony.

Why are you pretending ive said anything else. Or is your comprehension truly that poor? given ive been explicit, 5x by now, i neither agree with the police action nor believe it has legal standing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

If you wish other people get shutdown, and you end up getting shut down, thats karmically related. Has nothing to do with the legal aspect.

Thats why the first post that brought it up mentioned only irony.

Why are you pretending ive said anything else. Or is your comprehension truly that poor? given ive been explicit, 5x by now, i neither agree with the police action nor believe it has legal standing. 

So you're just trolling? Again? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I went to UT, while I was at UT, and after I went to UT :

UT is not my mother, father, nor caretaker.

I am my own person. They owe me nothing, and I owe them nothing.

I don't understand people wanting universities to follow their own individual views of the world. Am I crazy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Steel Shank said:

Before I went to UT, while I was at UT, and after I went to UT :

UT is not my mother, father, nor caretaker.

I am my own person. They owe me nothing, and I owe them nothing.

I don't understand people wanting universities to follow their own individual views of the world. Am I crazy?

I mean you are, but not about this 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

But you missed the difference: speech that is ALLOWED, vs. speech that is SPONSORED.

Imagine a group that says that jews exercise outsize control in the world, have sinister motivations, and we must keep our eyes on them.  Or, flip that, and make it a group that says the same thing about muslims.  That group, the anti-jew or anti-muslim group, intends to have a rally on campus, where they state their views and try to get the university and its students to adopt those views.  I am 100% in favor of such speech being ALLOWED, even though I find it abhorrent.

Now, imagine those same two groups....except the university INVITES the group's leader to come give a speech on "why the jews/arabs are the world's biggest problem, and my suggestions on how to drive them out of America."  It's part of the University of Texas Distinguished Thought Leader Lecture series.  I don't want my university SPONSORING such speech, so I don't think we should invite that speaker to our lecture series.

ALLOW abhorrent speech -- yes, we must.

SPONSOR abhorrent speech -- we should think really, really hard about it, weighing a shitload of factors.  But we should lean AGAINST doing so, as a university.

That's a big difference.

 

Curious on your thoughts outside this direct discussion - During the Civil Rights Movement there were Clansmen rallies trying to prevent colleges from integrating and trying to intimidate blacks and keep them out of universities. Later, there were racist screams on campus calling blacks names and making them feel unwanted. I assume all that hate speech was stopped. What was done to protect blacks and help the schools integrate and provide a safe and welcoming environment?

I can tell you for fact that Jews feel uncomfortable at many colleges including UT. The fraternities and sororities at UT  have had to beef up security. Women are told to walk in groups. Most jewish organizations were grateful to Hartzel and Abbott for the protection. You stated:

Jewish students shouldn’t be threatened or terrorized. Neither should Arab or Palestinian students. They each should be able to take public positions that make the other side uncomfortable or even angry, so long as they do so peacefully without violence, threats, or intimidation. And people who engage in violence, threats, and intimidation, should be held accountable.
I don’t care what your cause is, I stand for that proposition. If we don’t, then we’re worthless as well.

Where is the line drawn between uncomfortable and dangerous? From your words, I assume it is okay to make groups feel bad and unwanted and scared or angry but when is the line drawn? Is it when an individual gets hurt or injured? Is it when people bring guns and knives? Can words do it? When should we feel worthless?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

Curious on your thoughts outside this direct discussion - During the Civil Rights Movement there were Clansmen rallies trying to prevent colleges from integrating and trying to intimidate blacks and keep them out of universities. Later, there were racist screams on campus calling blacks names and making them feel unwanted. I assume all that hate speech was stopped. What was done to protect blacks and help the schools integrate and provide a safe and welcoming environment?

I can tell you for fact that Jews feel uncomfortable at many colleges including UT. The fraternities and sororities at UT  have had to beef up security. Women are told to walk in groups. Most jewish organizations were grateful to Hartzel and Abbott for the protection. You stated:

Jewish students shouldn’t be threatened or terrorized. Neither should Arab or Palestinian students. They each should be able to take public positions that make the other side uncomfortable or even angry, so long as they do so peacefully without violence, threats, or intimidation. And people who engage in violence, threats, and intimidation, should be held accountable.
I don’t care what your cause is, I stand for that proposition. If we don’t, then we’re worthless as well.

Where is the line drawn between uncomfortable and dangerous? From your words, I assume it is okay to make groups feel bad and unwanted and scared or angry but when is the line drawn? Is it when an individual gets hurt or injured? Is it when people bring guns and knives? Can words do it? When should we feel worthless?

Reminder that the only student hurt or injured on campus in the current unrest is a Muslim student and his companion that were attacked leaving their Mosque. All students need to be protected. It seems like the University is doing a very good job protecting Jewish students.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know. I guess maybe don’t suck off on Hamas and cry fowl when the chickens come home to roost? Like this is a very organized protest across college campuses for what purpose? educate all of us on how sad it is? This 1000 year old war. Make us stop what exactly? Protesting the strikes on Gaza for what end? Why now? Especially after an unprecedented attack by Hamas. These fucks protesting need to go the fuck home. Go home. 
 

You have to pick a side in this war. Sitting and cover your faces and crying about a thousand plus year old war. I have sympathy  for the innocent people in harms way. But this is bullshit and these hired fucks should go the fuck home. 
 

if you do what you’ve always done you will get what you’ve always gotten. The Middle East and Russia remind me of this. Still trying to do the same shit and get different results. Maybe I don’t know try new leadership. Find better leadership. I have about as much sympathy overall for the Middle East as I do the Russian people. Time and again they choose poorly. Boo the fuck hoo. 
 

if I seem pissed the fuck off I am. I rarely wade into this shit. I’m Lebanese, Jewish and German/english. I studied history. What the fuck do I know? Not much. Go home protesting dumb fucks. Go home. And who paid them to organize like this? And fuck them too. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

Curious on your thoughts outside this direct discussion - During the Civil Rights Movement there were Clansmen rallies trying to prevent colleges from integrating and trying to intimidate blacks and keep them out of universities. Later, there were racist screams on campus calling blacks names and making them feel unwanted. I assume all that hate speech was stopped. What was done to protect blacks and help the schools integrate and provide a safe and welcoming environment?

I can tell you for fact that Jews feel uncomfortable at many colleges including UT. The fraternities and sororities at UT  have had to beef up security. Women are told to walk in groups. Most jewish organizations were grateful to Hartzel and Abbott for the protection. You stated:

Jewish students shouldn’t be threatened or terrorized. Neither should Arab or Palestinian students. They each should be able to take public positions that make the other side uncomfortable or even angry, so long as they do so peacefully without violence, threats, or intimidation. And people who engage in violence, threats, and intimidation, should be held accountable.
I don’t care what your cause is, I stand for that proposition. If we don’t, then we’re worthless as well.

Where is the line drawn between uncomfortable and dangerous? From your words, I assume it is okay to make groups feel bad and unwanted and scared or angry but when is the line drawn? Is it when an individual gets hurt or injured? Is it when people bring guns and knives? Can words do it? When should we feel worthless?

 

You don't stand for shit.  You just saw cops attack, threaten and intimidate people for exercising their free speech, and you did......nothing.    Sorry that is not fair,  you defend the political goon squad who did the intimidating, threatening and violence. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Where is the line drawn between uncomfortable and dangerous? From your words, I assume it is okay to make groups feel bad and unwanted and scared or angry but when is the line drawn? Is it when an individual gets hurt or injured? Is it when people bring guns and knives? Can words do it? When should we feel worthless?


It’s nearly impossible to draw the line in the abstract. The answer is “it depends.”

Yes, physically hurting someone is over the line. Brandishing weapons may well be over the line (although our governor and his buddies have so protected that, that about the only time you can deem someone carrying an AR to be a threat is after he starts shooting. Unless he’s black to brown, of course). And yes, words can be over the line, but that’s where it gets tough.

Painful speech, speech that makes people feel bad, feel worthless, is not necessarily outside first amendment protection. It sucks. I hate it. But the law allows many things I really don’t like. If those words are directed to terrorize, threaten, and the like, then they may be actionable under the law.

I know that’s not the answer you want. It’s not an answer that makes me happy. But in order to protect all speech, essential speech, the law must protect abhorrent speech.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...