Not the point. He was invited and he was canceled by cancel culture. This is the definition of cancel culture.
OT: Rutgers gonna Rutgers, graduation speaker cancelled
- Thread starter DJ Spanky
- Start date
- Status
Still can’t answer any basic questions
Act like a wuss and deflect and that’s what you’ll be called
Wow !
Your excellent post says all that I wanted to...but decided not to. Mine would have been deleted quickly after complaints from the "free speech" crowd.
Thanks.
Actually I think a greater issue uniting Americans of all faiths and political stripes is Iran NOT getting a nuke.
Like that was ever gonna happen.
And if they did, how would they get it here... UPS or Fedex ?
Did you click through to the article linked in the X post? Schapiro wasn’t banned from speaking at Georgetown, he withdrew: “For his part, Schapiro wrote campus leaders: “I have presided over 28 commencements as a president and dean, and those ceremonies are about celebrating the graduates and their supporters. I was looking forward to giving a talk about humility and gratitude, but I don’t want my presence to distract from the day’s festivities. I wish the law school graduates the best of luck in the days ahead.”
And this article quotes the dean’s views on the matter: “I have listened carefully to the students’ concerns. In my view, withdrawing our invitation to Dr. Schapiro would be inconsistent with Georgetown’s commitment to free and open inquiry as articulated in our Policy on Speech and Expression, and the University has not done so.”
It’s a shame he felt the need to withdraw, but he was not banned for making pro Israel statements.
G
Condoleezza Rice also withdrew from Rutgers. She was not banned.
yes it;s not against first amendment rights legally, but morally it's taking away his right to speak because those that disagree with his POV are whining about it and the school capitulates to the whiners
The whiners caused "Condi" to decide it wasn't worth the hassle and withdrawal from her speaking engagement.
Institutions like Rutgers have every right to give or withdraw an invitation to speak at their ceremonies.
Just like those they invite can accept or reject.
But there are those that don't want any other person to be able to say anything that is different from the opinion they have and do their best to make sure they don't speak by whining, crying and carrying on about the invitation.
That is their right, but it also shows they want to suppress what people can say and stop speeches from those that don't have the same POV they have.
So you can loosely associate as wanting to stop someone from being able to talk at a graduation ceremony as a free speech attack in the moral sense .But doing so is permitted by individuates and institutions like Rutgers because it's covered by the first amendment if done in a peaceful manner
Last edited:
lol..you supported Capehart speaking at Newark a leftist very partisan and then listed his accomplishments from msm as some way to portray him as legit.thats not a neutral speaker
i wouldnt want Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham speaking at Rutgers either
speakers should be non controversial and appeal to everyone. I know its tougher to find nowadays but it can be done. The fault lies with the vetting by whoever is in charge of selecting the speaker.perhaps someone who is in silo thinking that everyone thinks like them
I'm sure you'd be saying Sean Hannity , Laura Ingraham or other conservitive icons should stay away like you feel
"leftist" need to be rejected.
Good for you
Replying to the bold- No, you cannot do this. This is precisely my point, the moral sense. He has no right to speech on their property except on their terms. You acknowledged I was right, then spent a hundred words prefacing a contradiction back to your original point. You don’t get to nuance your way into an entitlement. Property rights are an absolute. That means no wiggle room. No mental gymnastics.
I would. Its rather odd you are being caughtI'm sure you'd be saying Sean Hannity , Laura Ingraham or other conservitive icons should stay away like you feel
"leftist" need to be rejected.
Good for you
I agree fully, stopping someone from fulfilling a speaking engagement is an Inalienable right for those with a different viewpoint .
Free speech , to many people, only means the speaker must abide by their opinion or be told they aren't wanted .
And it will be pointed out doing so is not a free speech violation, in the legal sense
Did you support Rosanne losing her show. Thats what cancel culture actually is.
Are you addressing that question to me? If so, the answer is no. Didn’t really care and didn’t watch the show anyway. But that said, always felt the show was separate from an actor’s political leanings. If you want to tune out because of that, fine it’s your right. But never thought a show should be pulled.
Michigan had to issue an apology in 2024 (the year protests began and not 2023) after a prof went off agreed upon address outline.
www.commondreams.org
Personally I don't think a commencement address is a place for extraneous political topics from anyone. If I go to a diner I dont want "look-at-me!" speeches from waitresses and will stop going. Right now I dont see credibility on any side. If I was in charge of speakers at my college that is #2 in nation for Jewish student population (RU) I'm not getting a speaker who only made dontions to "The Squad." Should have just gotten Taryn Hatcher imo
'Cowardly': University of Michigan Blasted After Apologizing for Commencement Speaker's Praise of Pro-Palestine Students | Common Dreams
"It should not be controversial to have one's 'heart opened to the inhumanity and injustice of Israel's war in Gaza,'" said Professor Derek R. Peterson. "Having an open heart to other people's suffering is a fundamental human virtue."
www.commondreams.org
Personally I don't think a commencement address is a place for extraneous political topics from anyone. If I go to a diner I dont want "look-at-me!" speeches from waitresses and will stop going. Right now I dont see credibility on any side. If I was in charge of speakers at my college that is #2 in nation for Jewish student population (RU) I'm not getting a speaker who only made dontions to "The Squad." Should have just gotten Taryn Hatcher imo
Last edited:
My God you really don't believe this do you? I am asking sincerely as I've seen you post some doozies for effect but no one is this willfully ignorant.Like that was ever gonna happen.
And if they did, how would they get it here... UPS or Fedex ?
Ummm, I was implying if there were a Mr. Rodgers type of personality (even him if he were still alive) he wouldn't have been cancelled because doesn't everybody love Mr. Rodgers? I know it didn't come across well. I'll blame the late night and a few nips of bourbon for the bad post.
I can't believe you would think I would care one bit about your opinion.
I thought the nuke was "obliterated" in June. Was the lie then or now?
Shouldn't we more focused on the countries that actually have nukes that can reach us? You know at the minimum, Russia, China and North Korea?
Sure do. In fact, we also, in all our generosity, gave Argentina 40BN, another country with free healthcare and free college, and are now working on doing so for UAE- which actually ranks AHEAD of the US in the Human Development Index, and of course, has the same free healthcare and college.
To be fair though, pretty much all but the absolute poorest and us have those programs. We just can't afford it, it might get in the way of funding Israel and ballrooms.
Yeah, pretty much everyone, most Republicans, Dems and indies, basically every country...you will always have the chainsaw guy in Argentina and the PA Senator with brain damage and Ben Shapiro and his 3 views but. Something to celebrate, I suppose.
Absolutely there is blame on both sides, but I don't hear anyone demanding Hamas be charged with war crimes being called Islamophobic.
OTOH, I hear literally daily that Jewish Americans are themselves anti semitic for wanting the Israeli government charged with crimes, despite said gov currently facing charges in Israel!
In fact, I hear from certain quarters that Canada, the UK and Denmark are repressive, but yet those people don't get accused of prejudice.
No, the innocent citizens killed on Oct 7 was an absolute outrage and those who did it need to be charged with murder among other things.
And, the people who bombed churches in Gaza and Lebanon need to be charged with murder.
And the settlers who set homes on fire in the West Bank? Charged with murder.
And the IDF soldiers and settlers who murdered several American citizens? Charged with murder.
And the people who dropped bombs on a girl's school in Iran? Charged with murder.
See, this is very easy. You murder innocent children and civilians? Charged with murder.
Somehow though- I can say it about Hamas, and I can even say it about the US government without being harangued, but if I say it, or even a Jewish American says it, we will be called bigoted and self haters. Not OK.
Every day, someone will go on TV and say, we can't have Putin bombing daycares (and we can't). Does saying so make the person anti-Russian? If I say, we can't have China throwing the Uighurs into concentration camps, am I hating 1BN plus Chinese people? It just baffles me how anyone who says "we can't have Israel bombing churches" or "we can't have Israel murdering Americans" somehow is doing something the Russia and China critics are not. And, I am not paying Russia and China with my taxes. And I'm only paying Hamas because the Israeli PM allowed Qatar to fund them (as found by Israeli news outlets) to try to weaken the PLO, which I am outraged by. We essentially had US dollars propping up 2 corrupt murderous governments that got Americans killed.
Well said. It's a sad and terrifying example of how much influence the media has--we have a large chunk of Americans completely brainwashed by our politicians from both parties and the lapdog complicit media to the point where they are vociferously defending a government that is deliberately shooting children in the street, shooting at starving unarmed people lined up for food, bombing camps of people who have been displaced from their bombed homes, shooting doctors, journalists, etc--and the people who want the killing of unarmed civilians to stop, or at the very least don't want our tax dollars to keep funding this (America first???) are somehow the ones labeled terrorist sympathizers. Completely backwards.
There's a bit more to the nuke thing. Im not sure even the admin believes about the nuke. For decades the US protected global shipping practically for free while Lloyds collected all the booty for protection. The plan is to stop protections for free and keep the money from going to Lloyds and others. They also want to sell military arms to gulf states to make debt decreasing money there while having the "client states" protect themselves better instead of US (who cant do it that well anyway). Reducing debt is a part of the shift - stop doing real global protections for free, dispense with Euro-grifters and sell military goods to others who need to do more for themselves
Controlling/protecting shipping also puts a crimp in CCP goals. Venezuela, Panama, Cuba and others are part of the same flip. In a lot of ways Iran, Venezuela, Cuba are part of the same larger picture and "nukes" are possibly ae excuse. A lot of military, intelligence etc see no nukes
See Professor Professor Jiang on Diary of CEO - he cleans-up all the "City of London" stuff thats been going around since US and China also targeted London Metals Exchange (they set prices without really even producing anything)
The current war resulted in lifting sanctions on Iranian and Russian gas which also boosted China. And, exploded our debt.
Essentially the war is at cross purposes with everything here being cited as an issue.
The long and short of it goes very simply- there are elections in Israel and here in the fall, and those who wanted this war thought, foolishly, it'd be quick like replacing one repressive Venezuelan regime with another. Much like Putin thought he'd have in Ukraine. And that of course didn't happen. So now it's hurting everyone. It's destroying economies in Southeast Asia who don't have gas. It's hurting Midwestern farmers who don't have fertilizer.
But Putin, Xi and Kim are sitting pretty, the Ayatollah and IRGC are as strong as ever, and middle class people in the US and other "democratic" nations can't afford basic necessities. Brilliant.
And Iran never had a nuke, were never close. Netanyahu was saying they were weeks away since he first came to office in the 90s and begged every US President to go to war with Iran since. Of course, who fell for it? Shocker. And we all pay the price. Iran poses absolutely *NO* threat to the US at all. Meanwhile, the countries that do- Russia, China and North Korea- are all stronger for it.
Yawn. Meanwhile University of Wisconsin is having a good time at graduation.
Truth ^^^
The excellent posts just keep coming from you. Thanks.
In general I'm not a fan of the war. I don't like wars the people dont feel the need for in their gut. I come from a military family and seeing people go to war over abstractions debated in graduate seminars doesn't resonate with me (and I like a lot of Iranians).
However I know such things do influence leaders and with that in mind I do see a global economic strategy that Iran is part of. Professor Jiang also mentions the "greater Israel project" which is a real thing and that's why some Israeli officials already saying "Turkey is the next Iran" (Jordan, Syria, Lebanon also targets but Turkey of course is NATO). Israel would like Iran to resemble a broken mess like Libya (there will ne no long term peace in ME imo).
Venezuela and Iran go together since they are seen as hubs in the dark economy that feeds cartels, drugs and terror groups . Like an Ex Soros guy, Bessant is an expert on dark economy and he also sees a substantial portion of US debt as a result or corruption. He wants to flush that out and use it to nullify some US debt while increasing asset values. In DC they have been afraid to fight corruption because its so big they feared excessive economic damage from fighting it too early.
Blocking China also a part of strategy. I've found China's capacity exaggerated but their style is to worm their way into societies and economies. The were digging into Venezuela, Peru, Argentina, Panama and the resurrection of the neglected Monroe Doctrine is part of the hemispheric activity (including Greenland). I dont know if its possible to succeed in such strategies but I appreciate effort to think around corners. Most economists I read/listen to dont even understand what inflation actually is (a monetary problem - debauched currencies from too much increase).
Time to lock this now that we're straying into the Iran War. At least we got some decent discussion out of it.
Exactly.
Exactly.
- Status