Yesterday, a reader alerted me to a piece published in the New York Times Magazine this weekend, “How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life.” After reading it, I recognized just how much it relates to the flap that has emerged locally in regard to ASUCD senator Azka Fayyaz.
As I wrote on Saturday, I see little to be gained by the public flogging of a UC Davis student, even a student senator who does not seem to be able to extricate herself from a self-created mess. Ms. Fayyaz became the center of a controversy when she posted on Facebook, “Hamas & Shariah law have taken over UC Davis. Brb crying over the resilience.”
The story told by New York Times reporter Jon Ronson is about 30-year-old Justine Sacco, who flew from New York to South Africa, to visit family during the holidays in 2013. At the time she was senior director of corporate communications at IAC (InterActiveCorp, an American media and internet company).
During her travels, she began tweeting “acerbic little jokes about the indignities of travel.” On December 20, she made a tweet that would change her life forever, as she was about to fly to Cape Town from London, she tweeted, “Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!”
She did this about half an hour prior to departure from Heathrow, and no one replied. She had only 170 Twitter followers.
It was an 11-hour flight and she went to sleep. She finally turned back on her phone on the runway. Suddenly she got texts from people she had not heard from since high school. Her best friend texted that she needed to call immediately. Her friend called, “You’re the No. 1 worldwide trend on Twitter right now.”
Mr. Ronson writes: “Sacco’s Twitter feed had become a horror show. ‘In light of @Justine-Sacco disgusting racist tweet, I’m donating to @care today’ and ‘How did @JustineSacco get a PR job?! Her level of racist ignorance belongs on Fox News. #AIDS can affect anyone!’ and ‘I’m an IAC employee and I don’t want @JustineSacco doing any communications on our behalf ever again. Ever.’ And then one from her employer, IAC, the corporate owner of The Daily Beast, OKCupid and Vimeo: ‘This is an outrageous, offensive comment. Employee in question currently unreachable on an intl flight.’ The anger soon turned to excitement: ‘All I want for Christmas is to see @JustineSacco’s face when her plane lands and she checks her inbox/voicemail’ and ‘Oh man, @JustineSacco is going to have the most painful phone-turning-on moment ever when her plane lands’ and ‘We are about to watch this @JustineSacco bitch get fired. In REAL time. Before she even KNOWS she’s getting fired.’”
He adds, “The furor over Sacco’s tweet had become not just an ideological crusade against her perceived bigotry but also a form of idle entertainment. Her complete ignorance of her predicament for those 11 hours lent the episode both dramatic irony and a pleasing narrative arc.”
“By the time Sacco had touched down, tens of thousands of angry tweets had been sent in response to her joke,” he writes.
Jon Ronson segued to write, “In the early days of Twitter, I was a keen shamer. When newspaper columnists made racist or homophobic statements, I joined the pile-on. Sometimes I led it.”
He noted, “In those early days, the collective fury felt righteous, powerful and effective. It felt as if hierarchies were being dismantled, as if justice were being democratized. As time passed, though, I watched these shame campaigns multiply, to the point that they targeted not just powerful institutions and public figures but really anyone perceived to have done something offensive. I also began to marvel at the disconnect between the severity of the crime and the gleeful savagery of the punishment. It almost felt as if shamings were now happening for their own sake, as if they were following a script.”
It was at this point, he writes, that he started to wonder about “the recipients of our shamings, the real humans who were the virtual targets of these campaigns.”
As Mr. Ronson notes, when they finally met, the first thing Sacco told him was, “Only an insane person would think that white people don’t get AIDS.”
Mr. Ronson writes, “I could understand why some people found it offensive. Read literally, she said that white people don’t get AIDS, but it seems doubtful many interpreted it that way. More likely it was her apparently gleeful flaunting of her privilege that angered people. But after thinking about her tweet for a few seconds more, I began to suspect that it wasn’t racist but a reflexive critique of white privilege — on our tendency to naïvely imagine ourselves immune from life’s horrors.”
“To me it was so insane of a comment for anyone to make,” she told him. “I thought there was no way that anyone could possibly think it was literal.”
My takeaway from the Justine Sacco saga from a little over a year ago is that she wrote something incredibly stupid in a forum that she very well should have known was public. She was a communications executive, for crying out loud. And while social media is relatively new, people have long come under fire for ill-considered remarks, especially about a touchy subject such as race.
Long before Justine Sacco and the advent of Twitter, ill-considered comments about race would land public figures in hot water. Remember Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder, who was a sports commentator who told a reporter in a Washington, DC, restaurant that African-Americans were naturally superior athletes because they had been bred to produce stronger offspring during slavery.
This was 1988 and CBS fired him. According to his New York Times obituary when he died in 1996, he regretted his comments, remarking: “What a foolish thing to say.”
The year before longtime Dodgers General Manager Al Campanis, who had played with Jackie Robinson, on the 40th anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s April 15, 1947 baseball debut, on Nightlight stated that there were few black managers and no black general managers in Major League Baseball because blacks “may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager” for these positions.
A protest would erupt the next morning and two days later he resigned.
As we learned as early as the late 1980s, racial comments of this sort would no longer be tolerated. Many people in public life have gotten themselves in hot water, if they have not lost their job due to off-color remarks and jokes made in poor taste. Some would argue this is political correctness run amok; I would argue that, given the racist legacy in this nation, we can no longer give people the benefit of the doubt that words won’t turn into action.
There is really no defense for what Ms. Sacco said. However, what is different is the medium has changed. Ms. Sacco was not making her comment on national TV, she was not making her comment to a news reporter – she was on a private trip and made the mistake of making the comment on social media.
As the reporter Jon Ronson notes, at some point the shaming became disproportionate to the offense in some of these incidents. And instead of targeting people in influential positions – Jimmy the Greek had a national platform as a commentator and Al Campanis was a general manager of a prominent baseball team – the shamers of the social media age are indiscriminate in who they target.
This gets me to the point about Azka Fayyaz. Like Ms. Sacco, it is hard to defend the content of her comments.
As we reported last week, there was harsh criticism for them as they threw gasoline on an already flammable situation surrounding the divestment vote by ASUCD. She also did herself no favors in her extensive public statement in the Aggie where she called the comment “satirical” but then turned the blame onto others.
In last week’s column, seeking to end some of the public flogging, the response from a couple of readers was interesting. One stated that it “seems more than a bit hypocritical to me considering your previous rabid stances regarding anything remotely resembling hate or hate speech.” Another, “I totally agree. Some on the left are willing to look the other way and let bygones be bygones if the hate speech is coming from a leftist cause.”
Those are interesting to me for a few reasons, and I think those reasons underlie why I chose to defend Ms. Fayyaz – not for what she said, but against the reaction for her saying it.
First, the Vanguard has rarely gone after private individuals on issues. It is one thing to be critical of public officials for their public remarks, but there is a clear line here. Ms. Fayyaz falls into an interesting gray area.
In fact, two gray areas. The Aggie editorial notes, “Although the posts were published on her personal Facebook profile, Facebook posts are a grey area, as ASUCD senators historically use Facebook politically to promote their campaigns, publicize events and release public statements.”
While Ms. Fayyaz serves on ASUCD, it is a student body that lacks authority on the issue of divestment and, moreover, she is a student.
The second point is, in response to the second reader, I don’t agree with her. I believe that she, like Ms. Sacco, said something incredibly stupid, and, while she was not in a completely public venue when she said it, young people should be sophisticated enough to know that what they say on Facebook can end up haunting them possibly for the rest of their lives.
Much like Ms. Sacco, what Ms. Fayyaz said was wrong, and unlike Ms. Sacco, she said it as the result of a controversial public debate over policy, and she inflamed it.
Jon Ronson writes, “I would be the only person she spoke to on the record about what happened to her, she said. It was just too harrowing — and ‘as a publicist,’ inadvisable — but she felt it was necessary, to show how ‘crazy’ her situation was, how her punishment simply didn’t fit the crime.”
But Justine Sacco was a 30-year-old professional in communications. Azka Fayyaz is just a student, learning that her words can come around to bite her.
Jon Ronson puts a human face on this situation. He writes, “Whenever possible, I have met them in person, to truly grasp the emotional toll at the other end of our screens. The people I met were mostly unemployed, fired for their transgressions, and they seemed broken somehow — deeply confused and traumatized.”
I think, in the end, this is what we need to remember. There is a real person on the other end of this. Sacco made mistakes. She certainly did not help herself once things blew up, but they were just mistakes.
We may agree with her positions on the issue or what she did, but, at some point, hammering her is beating a dead horse.
At the conclusion of the article, we learn that Ms. Sacco has a new job in communications. Mr. Ronson notes that her view changed, “perhaps she had now come to understand that her shaming wasn’t really about her at all. Social media is so perfectly designed to manipulate our desire for approval, and that is what led to her undoing. Her tormentors were instantly congratulated as they took Sacco down, bit by bit, and so they continued to do so. Their motivation was much the same as Sacco’s own — a bid for the attention of strangers — as she milled about Heathrow, hoping to amuse people she couldn’t see.”
I am not asking the reader to sympathize with Azka Fayyaz or Justine Sacco. I’m certainly not defending their actions. Some will undoubtedly argue that their situations are not that parallel.
However, my purpose here is to argue that I do think as we all learn the intricacies of the new social media age, we learn a little about proportionality of the offense and the overwhelming public ostracism that comes with shaming.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“I would argue that given the racist legacy in this nation, we can no longer give people the benefit of the doubt that words won’t turn into action.”
“As I wrote on Saturday, I see little to be gained by the public flogging of a UC Davis student,”
two conflicing statements. FYI she was not publicly flogged.
she most certainly was publicly flogged just not literally.
“FYI she was not publicly flogged.”
I would say that this depends upon your definition of “flogging”. From a conversation with my son who, although not a student there himself, is closely connected with the UCD campus through friends, that there is a great deal of “flogging” going on and that the “hate comments” and/or religiously motivated derogatory comments depending on your point of view are not isolated to any one group but are being bandied back and forth. “Flogging” today is not limited to what occurs in person, but also to what occurs in the news and on social media. Seen in this light, Ms. Fayyaz has indeed received quite a “flogging”.
“ we can no longer give people the benefit of the doubt that words won’t turn into action.”
I fundamentally disagree with this statement. I believe that unless the comment is overt and immediate such as a call to violence, we are obligated to “give the benefit of the doubt” and be tolerant of the speech of others even if we do not agree. This country has as one of our basic principles, freedom of speech. We have an obligation in my view to call out offensive speech when we hear it, but we have no obligation nor any right to attempt to silence it.
This is as true for those who would attempt to “silence” Ms.Fayyaz by calling for her ouster as it is for those who would “silence” speakers at a public forum by shouting them down.
Tia,
You mix two separate issues. First is her right to free speech. Let her speak her mind and be judged on her views. The second is her fitness to be in ASUCD. Should someone with her views be an elected student representative? She can continue to post offensive comments on Facebook, but maybe not as an elected member of ASUCD. I for one would not want to silence those who call for her removal from this position. If the students at UCD want to recall her for her views let them go through that process.
zaqzaq
‘I for one would not want to silence those who call for her removal from this position”
I agree with this statement. I would not call for silencing anyone. My point was merely to point out that a call to remove her from a post of responsibility is, in effect, an attempt to stifle her voice. All points of view should be heard. I simply do not believe that she should be removed for this particular expression of her sentiments, just as I would not support the removal of a Jewish student who promoted the establishment of more settlements even though I do not agree with that position.
Tia,
Not at all. She can still make statements if removed from office. Her points can still be heard although many may not respect them. Holding a representative office has certain responsibilities and removal is appropriate if the views she takes are not supported by those who elected her. That is democracy at work.
[moderator] edited for language I find it difficult to believe that she is just some naive student. This was a celebratory statement after a “political” victory on campus. She followed it up with additional incendiary comments in news articles and again on Facebook. More importantly there was not apology, just excuses or blame on the audience for not getting it. These young politicians use Facebook as a tool for getting their message out. They see the white house doing it and find it effective. She got her political message out there loud and clear. Her comments on Facebook clearly identify her agenda and where she stands on the Israeli/Palestinian issue. She earned the scorn of the public and it should follow her. This type of hate should not be tolerated.
Hamas used religion as a weapon. Over the last year we have witnessed a man burned alive, over twenty Christian men beheaded for being Christian, shootings in Europe motivated by religion and women and girls sold into slavery where they are raped. Some as young as ten years old. Either because they were Christian (Nigeria) or Yazzidi (Syria/Iraq). All in the name of Islam, allegedly a religion of peace.
zaqzaq
“This type of hate should not be tolerated.
Hamas used religion as a weapon. Over the last year we have witnessed a man burned alive, over twenty Christian men beheaded for being Christian, shootings in Europe motivated by religion and women and girls sold into slavery where they are raped. Some as young as ten years old. Either because they were Christian (Nigeria) or Yazzidi (Syria/Iraq). All in the name of Islam, allegedly a religion of peace.”
Please show me where in the writings of Ms. Fayyaz, she has defended any of the actions that you have posted here. Her statements in my view were against the theocracy that is the state of Israel, not in favor of forced immolation, beheading, rape or child slavery. Please correct me if you feel I have missed some of her statements favoring these activities.
If the Vanguard was truly sincere in ending “the public flogging”, the Vanguard would stop creating articles about her and what she did/said, for people to react to, as the Vanguard keeps her name “out there” as a target.
If the Vanguard is sincere in this matter…
The Vanguard used the young woman’s name 7 times in the article, and in the title of this piece. The Vanguard shouldn’t be sticking a metal rod into an electrically charged atmosphere and then being surprised if the rod/name gets strikes of lightning.
Think the expression “you will reap that which you have sown” may be “on point”.
The same for the New York Times article?
Hell yes. Monkey see, monkey do?
David, I’m coming to the conclusion that you “want to pick this scab”, keep the issue fresh, to increase readership (and revenue?). Your protestations that the young lady (please not I am not using her name, and feel a tad guilty that due to your headline, it keeps coming up when I post on this topic) has “had enough” is belied by by the fact you are keeping her “front and center”… to what purpose?
suppose we adjusted her language a bit – replaced the word “Hamas” with “KKK”. would Tia and david feel the same way then?
What makes you think I like Hamas?
How about tweak this a bit to say it is the wives, daughters, sisters and mothers of KKK members. Nobody is making the point that this young woman is personally responsible for the evil acts of the extreme actors in her “family”, but she appears to be a least complicit and maybe even supportive of some of this given her statements that indicate obvious hostility toward Israel.
let’s say she is supportive of some policies of hamas, what does that mean? is she not allowed to be? i guess i’m struggling with the “and then what”?
So, then you would be fine if a person in a leadership position was supportive of some of the policies of the KKK?
David Duke was elected to the Louisiana legislature and served one term. Should they have not allowed him to be seated?
i agree with david on that point, i think it’s extremely unlikely that a student would reference the kkk, but i would point out that conservatives are supportive of some of the policies of the kkk and wouldn’t argue for their dismissal.
Bulldookey!
Bulldookey times two!
But nice and predictable deflection.
Former Grand Master KKK Robert Byrd was a Democrat. It was Bill Clinton and Al Gore who were surrounded and nurtured by Segregationists.
BTW, recent GOP presidential hopefuls include Alan Keyes, Herman Cain, and Dr. Ben Carson. Right now, I’d say Walker and Carson are tops on my list, though I sure wish Bobby Jindahl were a better public speaker.
interesting, none of you guys saw what i did which was restate what steve scalise said in 1999 in generic terms.
“The novelty of David Duke has worn off,” said Scalise. “The voters in this district are smart enough to realize that they need to get behind someone who not only believes in the issues they care about, but also can get elected. Duke has proven that he can’t get elected, and that’s the first and most important thing.”
http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/scalise-vitter-talked-to-roll-call-about-david-duke-in-1999/
I agree, I like both Walker and Carson.
[moderator] off topic….
Frankly
“hostility toward Israel.”
With this limited statement, I agree. She has demonstrated towards hostility towards Israel, not that I can see towards Jews. Is there anyone here who cannot discern that distinction. My comments have not been in support of her message, but have attempted to clarify the meaning of her words when they have been distorted ( substituting “racism” for disapproval of a theocratic state ) for example, and defending her right to express her opinion, just as I would the right of anyone else whether or not I happen to agree with them.
“would Tia and david feel the same way then?”
My feelings are not the point. The point is whose freedom of speech are we willing to defend ? If the answer is not that of everyone who is engaged in attempting to incite violence, then I think we have a problem. For heaven’s sake, I have defended the right of the Westboro Baptist church to spew their evil. I would have thought that should have settled the issue about my feelings about the right to free speech…..but I guess not.
Nothing. BTW, a straight answer to the question will suffice.
I don’t have an answer. It would depend on the specifics. But as a general rule, I think in this case, the response was disproportionate to the offense.
If this were an isolated incident. I did a quick search yesterday and found numerous instances and groups which consider Students for Justice in Palestine a “hate group”.
1. Given that racism, race, intolerance, and any number of small instances are assumed to be worthy of investigation and consideration here on a consistent basis, why are the Students for Justice in Palestine given a pass?
My search also revealed consistently poor behavior, if not hate, directed by Students for Justice in Palestine towards Jewish students across American colleges.
2. Was what Ms. Fayyed said simply stupid, or do they reveal her true feelings and convictions? She is clear that she wants Israel to cease to exist. “God Willing.” #NotSureHowtoSpinThat
3. Might this situation illustrate the hypocrisy of the Left? A stupid comment from someone on the right, especially a white male, will be seen as hate talk which violates the Principles of Community; but a woman of color gets a double pass, and her hate comments are called “stupid” and “a flap”.
“why are the Students for Justice in Palestine given a pass?”
I’m not asking that Students for Justice in Palestine be given a pass.
“Was what Ms. Fayyed said simply stupid, or do they reveal her true feelings and convictions?”
Do we have freedom of speech in this country? Or is it just freedom to say things we agree with? I’m all for discourse, debate, I’ve tried to the best of my ability to create that environment here. But there are also boundaries and rules we establish for fairness and civility, and that is where this discussion is focused – where are those boundaries and what are they?
“Might this situation illustrate the hypocrisy of the Left?”
How is this an example of hypocrisy of the left? I’m defending someone whose comments I disagree with. And as I responded above, I believe I would feel the same if she were conservative.
#3 and add to that most on the left are on the pro Palestinian side of this so they’re more apt to forgive and forget. They won’t come out and just say that or admit it but I think we all know the truth.
Except, I’m a pro-Israeli Jew. So maybe we can focus on the real.
Technicality… unless the rules have changed relatively recently, people of Arab, Persian, even Indian/Pakistani descent are “white” for affirmative action purposes. Not saying that’s “right”, but by UCD admissions guidelines, don’t think a Palestinian would be considered “a person of color”. I may be wrong, as my experiences in the matter are ~ 15 years old.
I told you the specifics.
I think it’s highly unlikely that a college student would have an occasion to proclaim support for the KKK. I’m not convinced that Hamas and the KKK are synonymous, particularly since Hamas is the ruling party of a nation. The more likely scenario would be someone making a conservative or right wing comment that was inflammatory in which case, I would feel similarly.
George Wallace making a public statement about Selma is a reasonably close parallel.
george wallace was contemporary about half a century ago. that said, he repented later in life.
Most people don’t know that George Wallace was a Democrat.
Yeah, BP, a “southern democrat”. Today’s “southern republican”. The first elected Republican president waged war against his own people, is famous for emancipating the slaves, is noted as a very spiritual yet non-religious person, suffered personal loss and tragedies. What’s your point? Wallace very much changed his world view after he was nearly killed (and was paralyzed) by a deranged idiot. He seemed to realize that life and human values were more important than raw politics. Would that others do the same, without being shot.
Matt
George Wallace was the governor of a state when he was taking his stand against integration. I do not see that as a reasonably close analogy. But for the moment, let’s pretend it is. He had every right to say what he did. People have the right to say things that are wrong and which they may later regret. It is called free speech. It is not qualified by “if I happen to like it.”
The KKK is not a ruling party of the US only because the people of the US generally reject parties that have a primary platform of hate. That is the point here… the platform of the governance of the Palestinian people is primarily hate directed at Israel and the people of Israel. The ASUCD organization models and reflects the positions of the government of the Palestinian people even if they don’t openly admit to supporting the terrorism and violence against Israel.
Well, that, and the fact that they ‘hated’ too many people… blacks, Jews, Catholics, Muslims (to the extent they were around), etc., etc.
The guy back east who shot and killed the 3 Muslim students recently… the accounts look more and more that had the students been black, Catholic, Pakistani Hindus, whatever, there would have been bodies. If I was his attorney, I’d definitely go with the mental illness/defect approach.
The ASUCD vote was 8-2. Do we know how many students from Students for Justice in Palestine are senators?
Is this a nationwide shift?
As a student, I recall senators promoting Homecoming, student services, expanding bus service, the Tipsi Taxi. I recall being a naive freshman and hearing a South African man speak about apartheid.
I don’t recall the venom, shouting down other students (there were one-on-one spats), intimidation, the call for nation’s to cease to exist. Given recent and ongoing attacks in Europe, I am concerned for our Jewish brothers. There is a new internet video of a Jewish man walking through Paris for 9 hours, and he receives insults, is threatened, and spat upon. And our President wants to let Iran – with abundant resources in oil, natural gas, and solar – go down the unneeded nuclear path? At the same time, he continually disrespects the Israeli leader?
“The more likely scenario would be someone making a conservative or right wing comment that was inflammatory in which case, I would feel similarly.”
our government has classified Hamas as a terrorist organization, not merely a political party, political ideology, or somewhere along the spectrum of liberal vs. conservative organizations.
so the parallel of some “right wing comment” as if hamas is merely a political organization like greenpeace or the NRA supporting “inflammatory” political positions is false. They are officially classified as terrorists.
Thank you to the moderator for editing zaqzaq’s statement above. It was more than inappropriate. Hypocritical, at best.
I believe that the young woman needs to learn, and hopefully has, that satire and elected politicians rarely mixes well. She should leave that for comedians or fake newscasters who can be easily forgiven for a joke falling flat. She could also learn more about how to apologize. This seems to be the crux of it. All the rest is just noise – hatred laced noise.
This is UCD student government, folks. These are students.
“She could also learn more about how to apologize. ” Strongly agree. Failure to do so is a big part of this “story”. She wouldn’t have to admit she was “wrong” (but she shouldn’t continue to publicly assert she is “right”), but she should apologize for her public “speech” that was hurtful, divisive. Had she apologized earlier, we probably wouldn’t still be picking at the scab to see if it’s still bleeding.
(I just clicked the “report comment” button by accident. I’m sorry.)
Yes, the elements of an apology: Acknowledge the offense that makes clear who the offender is and who is the offended; an effective explanation, which shows that the offense was not personal, nor intentional, and unlike likely to recur; expressions of remorse, shame and humility and a recognition of the suffering of the offended; a reparation of some kind, in the form of a real or symbolic compensation for the transgression.
“This is UCD student government, folks. These are students.”
my thoughts precisely.
These are students that have been setup for this type of firestorm from the brainwashing of their left-leaning college professors preaching their version of politically-correct intolerance against people and groups not behind the victim firewall.
This is an appropriate and much needed firestorm because, frankly (because I am), the college campuses are out of control.
“This is an appropriate and much needed firestorm because, frankly (because I am), the college campuses are out of control.”
here is the problem i have with this entire discussion.
you seem to be holding her accountable because you perceive college campuses out of control.
we have true blue seeming to accuse david of hypocrisy of the left for what he personally wrote “Might this situation illustrate the hypocrisy of the Left?”
we have barack writing “add to that most on the left are on the pro Palestinian side of this ” even though david has repeatedly indicated he is not on the palestinian side of this, opposes divestment, opposes hamas, favors a two state solution.
we have true blue again writing “Vandals set fire at Florida church, write ‘Allahu Akbar’”
seems to me that the three of you guys are trying to hold the student and david to some sort of collective guilt even though both are really unique individuals with their own viewpoint. that’s not helpful to this discussion.
the question i ask you is what is proportionate to the girl’s offense? i often see the right complain that the left cracks down on the right when they disagree with speech, now we see the right doing the exact same thing they complain about regarding the left.
No, I am holding her accountable for her words and actions, not putting her behind the certified victim’s group firewall because she is a:
– Student
– Woman
– Palestinian
– Muslim
– Not of white European descent
– Not a Republican
Here is the other point I am trying to make. When you go so far to protect people from having to accept personal responsibility for their words and actions because you see them as being a certified victim, you in fact set them up for developing a screwed-up perspective that they will be protected all the time… and then eventually they step in it so big that they step outside the firewall and get rightfully pummeled.
That is the emotive problem with liberal orthodoxy… excuse bad behavior of the victim and demand greater than perfection (forced giving) from those outside the victim firewall.
For example, it is understandable that Palestinians lob rockets at Israel because those Palestinians are so oppressed and sad and poor (victim certifications). Israel should open up their borders and give up their people’s relative peace, safety, freedom and prosperity because they are so fortunate (outside the certified victim firewall).
It is that destructive tendency of low expectations. It is a flaw in liberal cognitive processing… their emotional responses for assessments of fairness overwhelm logic and the big picture.
This young woman does not need protection because she is a victim, she needs tough love because she is a human.
again, what do you believe is the appropriate and proportionate response to her “offense” and how do you reconcile it with your complaints that liberals are intolerant towards views they disagree with?
I’m in the “I need more information” mindset, not the “sweep it under the rug” mode.
Is her group a hate group?
Did her actions violate our much-publicized Principles of Community”?
http://occr.ucdavis.edu/poc/
Step down or be removed from her post.
i wasn’t aware you were a student at uc davis presently.
I’m a taxpayer. I’m an American citizen. Since when did specific membership in a group become the requirement for demanding actions against misbehaving members? Would you recuse yourself from demanding actions against some Christian preacher advocating that Palestine will fail God willing? I think not.
Frankly, Palestinians had a lot more freedom (no physical wall) but they kept up terror bombings in cafes, night clubs, discos, and public buses… so Israel built a protective wall and cut the suicide killings by 98%.
Hey Don… you ought to clone yourself and have the clones go work for Facebook, as moderators! Then we wouldn’t be spending as much time, etc. on this “issue”.
“This is UCD student government, folks. These are students.”
That’s pretty much disrespectful to students.
“Thank you to the moderator for editing zaqzaq’s statement above. It was more than inappropriate. Hypocritical, at best.”
Is it now not hypocritical after editing? I agree with what’s left, anyhow.
“She should leave that for comedians or fake newscasters who can be easily forgiven for a joke falling flat.”
Yeah I love it when Conan jokes about the fall of Israel, I’m rolling on the floor laughing every time.
“She could also learn more about how to apologize.”
Yes, like apologizing to those that were offended by showing you understand why they were offended, instead of “apologizing” to your supporters for any trouble you may have caused them.
I agree that she shouldn’t (can’t) be removed from office by anyone except by the rules of the body that elected her. However, I think she is so bad at covering her true agenda that there is great value in her staying put.
Do I really need to expain each line?
Do you just hate every opinion i give or do you just dislike me?
OK, here I go:
This is student government comprised of young adults – students, not polished politicians – who are bound to make mistakes. This is an educational environment.
The original post proposed a brutal and horrific punishment, before it was removed by the moderator. I said that this was “hypocritical, at best.” Actually, i found it really offensive and a violation of the Principles of Community. I’m glad that the moderator edited it out.
The student stated that her post was an attempt at satire. I recommended that she leave satire to people that specialize in this sort of humor. Comedians, such as Jon Stewart, have addressed the Israeli/Palestinian conflict using satire, but I don’t see elected representatives doing this successfully.
We agree that she needs to give a better apology that includes a recognition of how she has offended and some sort of real or symbolic reparation for the offence.
“Do I really need to explain each line?”
No.
“Do you just hate every opinion i give or do you just dislike me?”
Where did that come from?
Maybe I’m not paying attention, but I don’t believe I know who you are. I do appreciate your using your real name (I assume it is). I don’t respond to names, as such, I respond to comments.
A friend and neighbor posts here frequently. We disagree about many issues on this comment feed. That does not mean I do not like them as people.
So, no, I don’t hate your opinions, nor dislike you . . . not yet anyway. You may want to be checked for victim mentality, though, after coming to that conclusion. Lucky for you, however, that psychological trait does not officially exist.
Vandals set fire at Florida church, write ‘Allahu Akbar’
Melbourne police investigate possible hate crime
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/vandals-set-fire-at-brevard-church-write-allahu-akbar/31313628
are you alleging that azka did this too?
That statement/question is a provactive, [edited], unnecessary non-sequitar.
not at all. there seems to be this idea of collective guilt where azka is being held accountable not just for her own mistakes, but for others as well.
DP apparently misses the context of how Allah Akbar is repeatedly used during acts of terrorism and is not some innocent phrase. It is extremely “insensitive”.
i missed nothing of the sort. but you’re ascribing collective guilt to this student. allah akbar is an extremely common phrase in the muslim faith that just happens to have been coopted by terrorists/ jihadists. its use doesn’t mean one’s a terrorist.
DP… the concept that TBD was trying to equate the incident in Australia to the young lady IS provacitive, IS a non-sequitur, and is (yeah Don, et al., I know the following will land me go into the “penalty box” again), unadulterated BULLSHIT. [Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade, particularly when it is a shovel.]
Regretfully (very), I have to side with DP about the term “Allahu/Allah Akbar”… source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir
It is reprehensible for anyone to shout out “God is Great” (or Allah, Yahweh) to “celebrate” harm to God’s creation. Arguably, it is a form of ‘blasphemy’. God is most likely “pissed off” by people who do so. Yet I do not find the words Allahu Akbar offensive, particularly if it celebrates how we can collaborate, respect, and nurture each other as human beings.
Editorial board/moderator… how does the “report comment” feature work? When I hit it, I expected a “report” box to open… no dice.
[moderator] At the moment I just see a notification next to the comment in the special screen that I scroll through. That’s helpful because it makes me slow down and review the comment sooner than I would otherwise. They’re working to get me an email notification.
If it can be done, it would be useful to all, particularly you, to see “why” the comment is reported… in my case I was trying to flag the drift of the “left vs. right” mental mas****ation (sorry, meant “self-gratification”), that the responses to the article seems to be taking.
This is where we are heading. Much of Europe is already too far gone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2956040/Journalist-puts-Jewish-skullcap-walks-streets-Paris-filmed-hidden-camera-safe-streets-are.html
We should demand greater sensitivity for hostility against Israel and Jews… not make excuses for people that should be held accountable.
“This is where we are heading.”
i see no evidence that this is where we are heading.
“We should demand greater sensitivity for hostility against Israel and Jews… not make excuses for people that should be held accountable.”
and yet when people ask the same for blacks or hispanics, we get the discussions that we’ve had for the last few months. i’m all for sensitivity, i’m all for admonishing the student, i’m also for proportionate responses. what i have seen is that you and your right wing colleagues on this site, are trying to have it both ways with regards to response to issues.
Are you really drawing a moral equivalency between liberal Davis citizens who get their feelings hurt because a citizen was asked for his identification by a police officer who called him “Sir”, treated him with respect, and left when he verified who he was; and students who shout “Allah Akbar” at Jewish students, pray for the end to Israel, broadcast it on social media, and support a terrorist organization (Hamas) and Sharia Law – while swastika’s magically appear on two buildings owned by Jewish citizens?
i find it insightful that no one on her has actually defended the conduct of the student, and yet you continually minimize the conduct of police and everyone else in other racial issues.
“and yet when people ask the same for blacks or hispanics, we get the discussions that we’ve had for the last few months. i’m all for sensitivity, i’m all for admonishing the student, i’m also for proportionate responses. what i have seen is that you and your right wing colleagues on this site, are trying to have it both ways with regards to response to issues.”
IM’ also for proportionate responses and I would argue you David and Tia are trying to have it both ways. You admonish us for not responding forcefully enough on race issues for blacks or hispanics, but then a muslim student comes unhinged against jews and advertises support for a terrorist group, your side argues for us to back off.
“IM’ also for proportionate responses and I would argue you David and Tia are trying to have it both ways. You admonish us for not responding forcefully enough on race issues for blacks or hispanics, but then a muslim student comes unhinged against jews and advertises support for a terrorist group, your side argues for us to back off.”
i’ll offer you an alternative – it’s not that we’re trying to have it both ways, but rather looking for the sweet spot in the middle between your lack of reaction to police killings and what not and your complete disdain for a student senator on what is largely a symbolic body.
Seems to me they could censure her. That would give the ASUCD Senate an opportunity to revisit their community principles and how they apply to individual senators and things like their postings on Facebook.
Another Senator could introduce a resolution affirming Israel’s right to exist and to live without terrorist activities being directed at them.
They could vote on a resolution condemning hate speech and specifically condemning the graffiti and vandalism that occurred after the vote.
I sure don’t remember ASUCD doing anything interesting while I was a student. I don’t remember them doing anything at all, really, except pass the budgets.
Don has some excellent suggestions. Can someone please forward them to ASUCD leaders, The Aggie, Mrak Hall and Student Affairs?
What Don said.
“a muslim student comes unhinged against jews”
Please cite any specific comment that she made against Jews. Her comments seemed to me to be consistently against the Jewish state which is a theocracy of a different religion from hers. Again, if I am wrong, please quote her.
I don’t think Israel is a theocracy. As far as I know, the only functioning theocracy in the world right now is Iran.
Plus Vatican City.
Israel doesn’t sound like a theocracy, why do you think so? Don, you may also want to consider Tibet, North Korea, and Japan?
Cinko de Drinko vs Hamas & Sharia Law Rule UC Davis
UC Davis officials immediately condemned the “Cinko de Drinko” party thrown by CoffeeHouse employees last year.
Adela de la Torre, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs wrote: “It is clear that the students’ actions are not aligned with our Principles of Community. As a teaching and learning environment, this is an opportunity to create a sustained dialogue about our distinct and diverse communities and to reaffirm our Principles of Community. Student Affairs staff will be working directly with the students who organized this event to heighten their cultural sensitivity and understanding of the impact of their actions.”
Chancellor Katehi did immediately comment on the divestiture vote, but I haven’t seen much regarding the insensitive comments from Ms. Fayyaz.
Will Student Affairs work with Ms. Fayyaz to be more sensitive to her fellow Jewish and Americans students?
Will the Students for Justice in Palestine be taught that when Americans hear “Allah Akbar”, it is heard by some as highly insensitive and painful?
https://davisvanguard.org/2014/05/the-ugly-veil-of-racism-comes-back/
“The planned party was quickly condemned by UC Davis officials and student leader. Administrators are reportedly looking into internal sanctions to punish the students responsible.”
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2014/05/05/uc-davis-students-cancel-cinco-de-drinko-celebration/
“BDS activism, anti-Semitism, swastikas, celebration of terror—these things are found together,” said Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel. “The U.C. Davis administration should be deeply alarmed that a member of the student senate has openly endorsed Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization whose charter calls for the murder of Jews worldwide.”
Johanna Wilder, a StandWithUs Pacific Northwest campus coordinator, said that the Facebook postings by student senator Fayyaz highlight SJP’s ongoing promotion of hatred.
“This demonstrates the dishonesty and hypocrisy of divestment campaigns on campus,” Wilder said in a statement following the vote. “They claim to be about social justice and human rights, but this student senator’s statement revealed SJP and the BDS movement’s real agenda.”
http://freebeacon.com/issues/hamas-on-campus/
“Azka Fayyaz is just a student, learning that her words can come around to bite her.”
I would agree with this sentiment. Students are still “half-baked” and not “fully cooked” in terms of maturity, and often do foolish things. I have no problem with others expressing their opinions about how wrong-headed Ms. Fayyez’s comments were, but personal attacks against Ms. Fayyez are just as wrong as Ms. Fayyez’s incendiary comments were inappropriate. As the old adage goes, two wrongs don’t make a right.
That said, I have three major concerns here.
1. I do think the ASUCD would be wise to have Ms. Fayyez removed as an ASUCD representative, because she is too polarizing, does not represent university students appropriately, and has definitely violated the ASUCD Principles of Community. I would also strongly encourage the UCD administration to remind the ASUCD about ASUCD’s obligation to abide by the Principles of Community. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility, which is the lesson I hope Ms. Fayyez takes away from all of this.
2. I find the fact that students are being allowed to heckle speakers at UCD (and there is video to prove it), with the campus police being directed by school administrators not to interfere with heckling a very disturbing trend. From where I sit, that essentially means the Principles of Community are not being enforced, but are mere words on paper without any teeth to them. As such, certain points of view are not getting heard on campus, while other points of view are getting more than their fair share of attention. This is not good for freedom of speech, our basic principles of democracy, or campus life. Pushing only certain ideological viewpoints becomes subliminal brainwashing.
3. If you start doing some research about the organization Students for Justice in Palestine, there seems to be a disturbing element, indicating a possible connection to Hamas. See http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Everett-Stern-student-group-Hamas/2014/08/12/id/588385/
“Everett Stern, CEO of Tactical Rabbit, told “MidPoint” host Ed Berliner that his firm’s investigation of Students for Justice in Palestine leads him to think the campus organization is helping to finance Hamas in violation of U.S. law.
Stern said he has forwarded his findings to federal law enforcement authorities and he’s still awaiting a response…
“The leader of Students for Justice in Palestine — there’s photos of him online actually in Gaza carrying an AK assault weapon and holding flags for [the Lebanon-based terrorist group] Islamic Jihad,” said Stern. “That’s not normal for a leader for a student organization.”Stern said that SJP has moved well beyond simple advocacy, with campaigns including a fundraising drive that sent “convoys into the Gaza Strip and actually met with Hamas leaders.””
Do you have a link to this alleged photo?
Ironically, if Sharia Law were in place here, this senator likely wouldn’t even be a student, or if she were in portions of Britain where Sharia Law is permitted, she would have half the vote of a man.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/03/pro-palestinian-students-heckle-cal-davis-opponents-with-cries-allahu-akbar/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/02/fascist-muslim-thugs-disrupt-jewish-event-at-uc-davis
This second link is ugly. I believe this is why SJP are barred from demonstrating at UC Berkeley.
Older adults are so over-baked by being burned so many times that their bitterness can lead to depression and anger, leading them to do and say foolish things.
There is no end in sight. Sigh.
Lots of opinions, seemingly all the same, except when they want to digress to political attacks. But I hear the word “stupid” and not “ignorant” which is usually ascribed to students or young people with no filter on their mouth.
I blame part of this mentality on the last 50 years I have been aware, or maybe even forever. The blatant statements by politicians and presidents that “we won” the election, with the accompanying attitude that the losers have to “eat it”.
This is similar to the press releases I read that we all are “broke” when things have “never been better” or are “fully recovered”.
Some of the students in politics at UC are not much different than the locals running for offices promising to “change the world”. They forget who they represent, and there is a wide line between hubris and humility. When the lady goes back to her country, will she be held in such esteem, or married off to a tribe member by her parents as planned before she even got to this country?
there seems no “end in sight”.
“But Justine Sacco was a 30-year-old professional in communications. Azka Fayyaz is just a student, learning that her words can come around to bite her.”
The apologist attitude here and in many posts sickens me. No one would write, “He was just a white boy from suburbia who yelled N****r on the Quad. He was just a student and didn’t realize that words would come around to bite him.”
“I began to suspect that it wasn’t racist but a reflexive critique of white privilege — on our tendency to naïvely imagine ourselves immune from life’s horrors.”
I’m still waiting for an opinion from a professional psychologist, or a pop-psych article in Psychology Today link, debunking the existence of “Privilege Denial Personality Disorder”.
Still waiting . . .
so you’re in the she must resign camp, ritual flogging, what is the suitable punishment for her expression of an opinion you disagreement?
Why not this: “Administrators are reportedly looking into internal sanctions to punish the students responsible.””
i once read a book by nat hentoff entitled, free speech for me, but not for thee. as i read your comments it is remarkable to juxtapose what you are saying right now versus the complaints i’ve seen from the right about crackdown of free speech on campus.
Did you gnash teeth when administrators proposed this for Coffee House workers, do you see the contradiction? I didn’t propose this, the campus administrators proposed it.
All of the comments, chants, postings, and then swastika’s on the buildings owned by our Jewish brothers is very troubling, and these aren’t the first times our Jewish brethren here at Davis have been singled out in recent years. I simply didn’t see this 20 years ago, am I wrong?
I think that a real apology and her offer to resign from her position with ASUCD student government might be appropriate here. She made a mistake and she needs to own it. However, I doubt that forgiveness would be forthcoming, which would be the next appropriate step in helping to resolve the local issue and put a stop to the public shaming of this student.
Good Lord, DP, where did you get the impression I thought she must resign?
TBD
“Will Student Affairs work with Ms. Fayyaz to be more sensitive to her fellow Jewish and Americans students?”
Now this sounds like a good idea which I would fully support.
“Will the Students for Justice in Palestine be taught that when Americans hear “Allah Akbar”, it is heard by some as highly insensitive and painful?”
This should only be the case if we are also going to teach Christians that “Praise the Lord” or “Gracias a Dios” is heard by some as highly insensitive and painful. Do you advocate that we sanction all religious speech, or only that of religions of which you do not approve. My seventy year old mother in law frequently used the expression “Allah Akbar” when something she approved of happened. Are we going to tell her how she should not say that out in public because terrorists also say it ?
Alah Akbar was said before planes were flown into the World Trade Center, right? There seems to be a troubling pattern with this phrase.
Actually, I believe the “troubling problem” is with politically motivated, very likely mentally deranged individuals who, for political reasons, destroyed their innocent “brothers”, and attempted to cloak their insanity citing a being, who, in pretty much all religions would be really ticked off with that insanity/blasphemy.
When asked, “who is my brother?”, a great prophet, recognized in the Qu’ran (Koran), and as the Son of God in Christian texts, said that it was a Samaritan (reviled by the society he lived in) who saved a Jew who had been beaten by robbers, to near death, and made sure he was well kept for in his recovery. Oh, yeah, this “prophet” was a Jew. The “pious” ones left the beaten man to deal with himself.
911 was an affront to all true believers in Yahweh/God/Allah. It was an “abomination”.
Saying Allahu Akbar (God is great [beer is good, people are crazy]) is not intrinsically bad. Or “hurtful”. IMHO.
The problem is that these monsters were grown from the preachings of Islam within “moderate” Islamic countries.
I was thinking… what if these suicide bombers and terrorists where Christians yelling “Grace to God”. Would you and others be so nuanced or would you pound on Christianity? There is evidence that the pounding would be profound… just look at the response resulting from the few deranged pedophile Catholic priests. Christianity gets major bad press and bad branding from that, but we are supposed to separate all the murdering terrorists from Islam? Disconnected to say the least.
Unless you understand that Christians are outside the politically correct victim firewall, and Muslims are behind it.
DP: “so you’re in the she must resign camp, ritual flogging, what is the suitable punishment for her expression of an opinion you disagreement?”
Had Ms. Fayyez spoken respectfully about the issue of the BDS vote, I would have no problem with her expressing her opinions, and would not be calling for her ouster. But as a student rep, she should not be making statements that Hamas (a terrorist organization) and Sharia Law (strict Muslim religion) rule UCD; Israel will fall God willing; that she hoped to make people “mad”; and her ugly statements were mere “satire”. The words she uttered did not comport with the Principles of Community, and as such, she should not be an ASUCD rep if she cannot keep a civil tongue in her head.
How would you feel if an ASUCD rep said the KKK rules UCD and civil rights for African-American students will be repealed, God willing?
Anon
“How would you feel if an ASUCD rep said the KKK rules UCD and civil rights for African-American students will be repealed, God willing?”
Again, I do not feel that personal feelings, or agreement or disagreement are the point here. I would not like it anymore than I like what Ms. Fayyaz said. But I fully defend her right to say it and I would defend theirs equally.
Again, a straight answer will suffice.
Tia, you are dodging the question. If an ASUCD rep said the KKK rules UCD and civil rights for black students will be repealed, God willing, would you want that student removed as an ASUCD rep?
“But you don’t seem to want to judge the actions of Fayyez as an ASUCD rep! “
I have already stated that I did not like her statements. This is what I wrote.
“ I would not like it anymore than I like what Ms. Fayyaz said.”
I don’t see why that statement is not sufficient.
Anon
I do not believe that my answer is a dodge. I do not have a personal investment in whether or not Ms. Fayyaz remains on as a ASUCD rep. What I do think is that what should occur is whatever process is used when the actions of an ASCUD representative are called into question as hers have been. The process should play itself out and she should either be allowed to remain on or not according to the established rules.
We have some basic principles in this country. One is innocent until proven guilty. Now this is not a court of law, however, I believe that Ms. Fayyaz is entitled to due process as spelled out in what ever set of processes exist for the situation in question.
Another basic principle is freedom of speech. Unless an individual’s speech is an incitement to violence, which I do not believe hers was, or unless it poses an imminent danger, which I do not believe it did, she has a right to express her opinion. And this is true regardless of whether or not we like the views she is expressing.
I am much more worried about the advocacy I am seeing here for suppression of speech than I am about the use of common every day Islamic references to the will of God.
Straight enough for you ?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/virginia-democrats-flee-vote-pro-israel-resolution_857090.html
Apparently Ms. Fayyaz is in good company with some of the Democrat party.
Yet they still vote something like 80% Democrat. I think Daniel Horowitz’ explanation for this was that many Jewish Americans don’t identify with Israel and aren’t religious, and government has become their religion.
Give the Republican/Democrat, Right/Left (‘wrong”?) thing a long rest Frankly. It destroys your credibility with those of us who actually think. Those who really ponder/think/act are not out beyond the 2nd deviation, and the great majority are within the 1st.
The “outer limits” are reserved for the knee-jerk ideologues.
hear, hear
Group think warrants identification don’t you agree?
Silence is as much an ideological statement as is criticism in light of material evidence that the ducks all walk and quack alike.
And frankly, (because I am), the media template over the last several years has been directly and profoundly critical of Republicans. So I am just helping to provide some balance. If my stuff makes a good Democrat irritated, then maybe that good Democrat should consider what his party stands for these days. Apparently it stands against Israel.
And one more point… the two political parties control the levers of public policy. So although people may not like partisanship, ignoring justified criticism of the actions of one party or the other is unpatriotic IMO.
Opposition to the policies of the Netanyahu government does not equal “against Israel.” The GOP has chosen to align itself with the hardline faction in Israel, and Netanyahu actively supported the Republican candidate in 2012. The current Israeli ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, was one of the authors of Gingrich’s “Contract for America.” He has deep ties to the neoconservatives that provided the foundation for the Bush administration foreign policy.
So yes, I imagine it’s hard for a member of the Democratic party to vote in favor of a resolution clearly intended to express support for the current government of Israel.
Here is the concluding text of the resolution, which I’m guessing you never bothered to read:
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?151+ful+HJ659E
I would need to know what the author intended by “a whole and united Israel governed under one law for all people.” Do you know what that means?
“Group think warrants identification don’t you agree?
Silence is as much an ideological statement as is criticism in light of material evidence that the ducks all walk and quack alike.”
Two points we agree on.
Your posts, and many of the others who are in the second deviation, either “right” or “left”, both show all the signs of “group think”.
There was a Disney character, a “duck”, who easily got upset, and when he did, he was loud and hard to understand, making him ineffectual (and, for some, comedic). Well, Donald, your posts often “quack” me up, but what I suggested is you present your views more calmly, politely, without all the evocative, silly, antagonistic, jingoistic, knuckle-dragging, pious, self-righteous, and ill-considered (yes, I’m trying to make a point) adjectives you use in many of your posts. Your message is being lost in your “medium”. Marshal your better angels. Trust me on this. Or, Trump me if you will.
I’d agree. Obama has turned his back to Israel, it seems like, from the minute he got into office.
WHY would we unilaterally release sanctions against Iran, release their monies, and loosen their ability to develop their “nuclear program”? This, a country sitting on vast amounts of oil, natural gas, and some of the best sunlight in the world.
I also find it appalling that there are Christians and Jews being slaughtered in the middle east and Europe, being killed and tortured in various ways, and our President won’t even name the culprit! Instead, he wants to lecture us about the Crusades from centuries ago.
The Obama administration requested, and we provide, over $3 billion in military aid to Israel last year. That amount has increased every year of the Obama administration. We funded their missile defense system.
Don and hpierce – some good stuff and also some BS.
Don BS:
Read it again. What a hoot!
So, those Democrats are full of objective nuance, but the GOP has chosen to align itself with the hardline faction.
The only difference between my point about the Democrats and your point about the GOP, is that I am just direct, and you hide behind phrasing.
Many people ignoring the truth cause a lot of problems for all of us.
Here is what I think is going on. Democrats and liberals and politically-left leaning people have gotten used to railing about Republicans, conservatives and right-leaning people without retort. Now when they get the same, they cannot handle it. They take it personal. They attack the messenger instead of taking up the content of the debate.
And lastly, they claim some ethical and moral higher group by claiming their independence. Right.
It is the same as the problem with Islam. Some like Don demand that we break it down to just some misbehaving individuals and not a problem with Islam.
Which gets me back to the point that this type of nuanced ignoring of the problem causes a lot of problems for all of us. I’m sure Don would have said the same about the German people in the mid-late 1930s… that those Nazis were just some misbehaving individuals and not representative of the entire group.
You see, excuses like just serve to remove the group stress for the alternative call to action.
And by the way hpierce, I am proud to be of that group of ducks unafraid to quack about the damaging and destructive behavior of groups. I’m sure if you think about it a bit, you will recognize that you do the same… just other groups.
Wow. [edit]
Wow. [edit]
Explain yourself please. I think you have even written as much… that the problem was the Nazis and not the German people. That was the parallel I was drawing with your claim that the terrorists are a separate entity from Islam. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I don’t know what conversation you might be thinking of.
The fight in the region is with ISIL. Most of the governments we will be arming, providing intelligence to, providing air support for, and providing weaponry are countries that are majority-Islam. In fact, we will likely even be working in a shaky alliance with Iran. So the fight is not with Islam. It is with ISIL.
Hence the constant efforts to decouple “Islamic” from “terrorist” by Presidents Obama (and Bush with respect to Al Qaeda) in their public speeches. They understand and understood the importance of showing solidarity with Islamic people and their governments against terrorists.
Thanks for the explanation.
I actually completely agree with the President that we are not at war with Islam. How can any country or people be at war with a religion?
What I wish he would say is “We are not at war with Islam, but let’s be clear. The culture of Islam as practiced in many places throughout the world, has a big problem. It has demonstrated incompatibility with the modern world. It cannot make the world go backwards to a Medieval time more suited to how some, may I say many, interpret the teachings of Islam. Much of Sharia Law is incompatible with democratic principles and with modern civil rights.
Islam needs a reformation as has Christianity before it. Islam is a beautiful and peaceful religion at its core, but to be this is must reform practices and teachings to incorporate the expectations of modernity. And if Islam wants to attract more followers, it will do this.”
Or something like this.
He does not say this or anything like this and he loses so much support and credibility on the subject, I don’t think he can be effective.
President Obama’s speech to the General Assembly.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/24/remarks-president-obama-address-united-nations-general-assembly
It’s a good speech. You ought to read it.
After you get done reading it, just go ahead and Google how Fox covered it.
Frankly, (because you are), I see this in a lot of companies and Universities, one located in Davis. If the entity is already successful, oversubscribed if you will, then there is no impetus to improve services or enforce rules because they are “already the largest”. Since plenty of people willingly try to work or matriculate, then they don’t have to do the introspection or ask themselves what they can improve or admit.
The nepotism and alumnae who keep an institution alive on inertia only make things worse by corrupting the process, and that is how the Danae get started and tolerated.
Don… you bring up a really good point:
“Opposition to the policies of the Netanyahu government does not equal “against Israel.”
Yet, many people, worldwide equate their perception of the policies of our government (as filtered by their government/media) with the American people. Except for the two planes on 911 who were supposed to hit the Pentagon, a government institution (with a lot of civilians, just trying to make a living), the other two were destined either towards the American people, or to what some folks thought were the REAL ‘government’, the financial “establishment”.
So, for some, particularly the “wackos”, may well equate the Israeli government with the people who inhabit the sate of Israel.
Frankly, we have some who equate a health care ‘system’ that covers folk who have a ‘pre-existing’ health condition, provides more affordable rates for coverage, etc., with leftie Democrat, Socialistic, stupid people.
My point is, many people just don’t think, have to group people into ‘pigeon-holes’, and those that don’t think cause a lot of problems for all of us.
BTW, sometime I have to make a ‘pilgrimage’ to Shanksville, PA to honor those who in effect said “no mas!” to zealots who “lump” people together, despite the fact that they knew, in doing so, that they would not survive. True heroes. “Let’s roll”.
Interview / spin from Ms. Fayyaz
The Electronic Intifada
California’s “pepper spray chancellor” stays silent over racist abuse of Arab and Muslim students
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora-barrows-friedman/californias-pepper-spray-chancellor-stays-silent-over-racist-abuse-arab
Jewish Defense Groups Urge UC Davis Chancellor to Investigate Students for Justice in Palestine
“Twenty-three advocacy groups have signed a letter to Linda Katehi, the Chancellor of the University of California, Davis, demanding an investigation into Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), an antisemitic organization that has continually harassed Jewish and pro-Israel students on campuses across the United States.”
http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/02/10/jewish-defense-groups-urge-uc-davis-chancellor-to-investigate-students-for-justice-in-palestine/
http://www.independentsentinel.com/following-swastikas-and-new-anti-semitic-vandalism-at-uc-davis/
Her latest:
Rich Rifkin, The Enterprise
The Israel haters are missing the big picture
“The far greater crimes committed by others in the Middle East should not excuse any mistakes in policy of Israel. But one has to be as deaf, dumb and blind as a pro wrestling ref to think the Jews are the real bad guys in this ring.”
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/the-israel-haters-are-missing-the-big-picture-2/
Good stuff by Mr. Rifkin.
“But one has to be as deaf, dumb and blind as a pro wrestling ref to think the Jews are the real bad guys in this ring.”
That is fine. But, I am not in the practice of dividing the world up into “the good guys” and “the bad guys”. What I am into is judging each action by its own merits. There people who are willing to use their power for violence to oppress and kill those on the other side. Yes, and they exist in both the Jewish and the Palestinian camps and one would have to be “deaf, dumb and blind” to ignore this simple fact.
Tia Will: “What I am into is judging each action by its own merits.”
But you don’t seem to want to judge the actions of Fayyez as an ASUCD rep!
so what is it tia? everytime someone from the palestinian camp issues a statment wanting the destruction of Jews, Israel, (or the more likely both) or support for terrorist groups are you and david going to answer with “they exist on both sides” so you don’t have to address the observed behavior head on and possibly go outside your standard political box?
so my question is how many officials or representatives get to do this and how often do they get to do this before you begin to acknowledge it is a problem that needs to be dealth with other than a token statement of how we all just need to get along?
how many terrorist sympathizers are allowed to be on the ASUCD senate?
SJP = the usual suspects.
http://www.theaggie.org/2012/04/05/letter-to-the-editor-anti-semitic-comments-on-facebook/
Yuck. I don’t get why the administration goes after the Cinco de Drinko offenders, but not these vile comments. Would it be because the Cinco de Drinko ‘offenders’ have no organized group, and are not a victim group?
Yup. Just test the “behind the victim firewall principle.”
“…such speech is protected under the First Amendment, and although the comments are not consistent with the campus’ Principles of Community, those principles do not constitute a policy,” she wrote.”
Just as I thought, the Principles of Community are not worth the paper they are written on because UCD administrators are not willing to enforce them. This is precisely why UCD becomes notorious – a lack of good leadership. If Chancellor Katehi is extremely good at raising grant funding and alumni funding, great. But she needs to assign someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to dealing with obstreperous students in a responsible way.
Anon
“But she needs to assign someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to dealing with obstreperous students in a responsible way.”
Agreed. But then we have known this ever since her irresponsible handling of the quad demonstration that led to the pepper spraying incident. This is nothing new.
No, it is nothing new, but it is precisely why UCD keeps making the same mistakes over and over again and makes itself notorious in the news. I would like to see that change for the better.