Columbia University - Remote Learning As Campus ‘Rancor’ Puts Jewish Students On Edge

[Cow Poke]

Personally, I don't think what Brezinski said constitutes profanity (although, by the technical definition...).

OK, that was a head-scratcher until I realized that you thought I was talking about Brezinski when I mentioned profanity -- it was a podcast to which somebody called my attention where the "host" was using the bad word for poop, and the F word for... well... the F word.

And PLEASE don't tell mossrose I said poop!

[rogue06]

OK, that was a head-scratcher until I realized that you thought I was talking about Brezinski when I mentioned profanity -- it was a podcast to which somebody called my attention where the "host" was using the bad word for poop, and the F word for... well... the F word.

And PLEASE don't tell mossrose I said poop!

Okay. Here's an audio of it from Tickety tock

[Cow Poke]

Okay. Here's an audio of it from Tickety tock

Yes, thanks!

[Sam]

You're doing it again, Sam --- you didn't say "flowing" - you said "flooding", neither of which I said.



No, I didn't "propagate" it, I merely reported that was being said. "Propagate", in this sense, means to "spread and promote".



You lied, Sam, and now you're in full spin cycle. Not a good look for you to keep smacking yourself in the face with that rake.

I will be magnanimous, however, and accept your unserious apology and drop the matter. Feel free to continue the spin cycle.

You got exactly the apology you deserved; no more, no less. I'm certainly not going to apologize or correct substituting "major funding was supplied to purportedly Soros-backed local candidates" with "Soros-money allegedly flooded/flowed into our local elections". The two statements are substantively identical.

Likewise, if you spread a rumor you yourself acknowledge is unverified, with no more detail attached other than the credulously-offered allegation itself, that's spreading a rumor. You can complain about it but you can't argue otherwise.

Finally, I'll remind you that the moderation rules are supposed to apply to moderators, too. My recollection of your post was erroneous only in the detail of attribution and when that detail was brought to attention, I not only corrected the statement for precision but apologized for the misattribution. At no point do you have, or have offered, evidence of a purposeful misstatement. If you want to continue to violate the rules of etiquette, you can probably do so without having to worry but I suggest you at least switch your handle over to black font.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

You got exactly the apology you deserved; no more, no less. I'm certainly not going to apologize or correct substituting "major funding was supplied to purportedly Soros-backed local candidates" with "Soros-money allegedly flooded/flowed into our local elections". The two statements are substantively identical.

Likewise, if you spread a rumor you yourself acknowledge is unverified, with no more detail attached other than the credulously-offered allegation itself, that's spreading a rumor. You can complain about it but you can't argue otherwise.

Finally, I'll remind you that the moderation rules are supposed to apply to moderators, too. My recollection of your post was erroneous only in the detail of attribution and when that detail was brought to attention, I not only corrected the statement for precision but apologized for the misattribution. At no point do you have, or have offered, evidence of a purposeful misstatement. If you want to continue to violate the rules of etiquette, you can probably do so without having to worry but I suggest you at least switch your handle over to black font.

-Sam

beating-a-dead-horse-funny.gif

[Juvenal]

The pressure/weight on the wrist would pull upwards on his other wrist, which would not be supporting most of his weight, most of the weight would be his torso hanging from the shoulder side. Might be uncomfortable on his wrists and far shoulder but I don't think it would be as painful as this guy is pretending. Most of his weight would be distributed between the leg hold and the arm hold through the torso and shoulder.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and lack the knowledge to know you have no idea what you're talking about. You've never drawn a free body diagram in your life. This is as clear a case of the Dunning-Kruger Syndrome as it gets.
.

most of the weight would be his torso hanging from the shoulder side

For the safety of the general public, stay away from bridge design.

The guy was crying about being hurt even before he was being carried.

And you thought that was hilarious.

He was playing for sympathy. He was merely being marched by the cop, his hands were in soft cuffs.

The reason you're wobbling between exaggeration and minimization is because a straightforward examination of the facts would lead to the conclusion you're being a tool.

When you need him to be overplaying his pain, you exaggerate his yelling to screaming and crying. When you need to minimize his pain, you insert pads into the cuffs. To prove there was no pain, you make up your own physics to redistribute forces in ways they never taught me in school, and I've got an engineering degree.

It's okay to be suspicious of motives, and it's also okay to ask for sympathy when it's due. I'm not sure the kid deserved sympathy when the tape started rolling. I am sure the cop was using excessive force when it ended.

My read's a lot more simple, and doesn't require new physics to make it work, just a little bit of psychology.

The cop cinched the cuffs tight enough to cause pain and ignored the student's complaints because his intention was to teach the kid a lesson. "Don't mess with the GSP." They've got a reputation. When the kid decided not to play along and laid down, rather than pulling him upright decided to teach another lesson by showing him what pain from cuffs could really be like.

I'm basing that on the cop's lack of reaction to the increased volume of the complaints.

This was not "deadly force" it was moving an uncooperative prisoner the most efficient way possible.

If he ran him down with a squad car and then tied him to the hood, he could get him to the station a whole lot faster than that.

Efficiency was the standard when the Nazis went looking for their Final Solution.

The standard for our peace officers is reasonable force.

Don't be a nazi.

[seer]

The standard for our peace officers is reasonable force.

Don't be a nazi.

I never took you for a Nancy boy, get over it...

[Juvenal]

I never took you for a Nancy boy, get over it...

I was kidding when I said Sparko was treating this like a competition.

[Cow Poke]

....
My read's a lot more simple, and doesn't require new physics to make it work, just a little bit of psychology.

No, just a lot of guesswork.

The cop cinched the cuffs tight enough to cause pain

You have no way of knowing that.

and ignored the student's complaints because his intention was to teach the kid a lesson.

More guesswork.

"Don't mess with the GSP." They've got a reputation. When the kid decided not to play along and laid down...

A) wow - "They've got a reputation", so this particular Trooper had to be playing to that "reputation" because "they're all alike".
2) As opposed to walking as he had been doing, hollering as they walked "you're hurting me" - he didn't say "these handcuffs are too tight" but "you're hurting me".
c) at least you're not pushing the narrative that the Trooper threw him to the ground, as some have alledged.

[Sam]

A) wow - "They've got a reputation", so this particular Trooper had to be playing to that "reputation" because "they're all alike".

If this is a fair point, how do you square it with your routine generalizations of the protestors?

-Sam

[Juvenal]

Based on the fact that all campus encampments began at Columbia, and the fact we're 300 posts in, I don't think it's a derail to widen the discussion to other campuses reaction to student encampments.

University of Chicago President Says ‘Encampment Cannot Continue’
The university is home to the Chicago statement, a framework for free expression that has been embraced by other colleges.
.

The president of the University of Chicago said on Friday that the pro-Palestinian encampment on his campus’s quad “cannot continue,” a position that was being closely watched in higher education because the university has long held itself up as a national model for free expression.

Administrators had initially taken a permissive approach to the camp and pointed toward what is known as the Chicago statement, a set of free speech standards adopted in 2015 that have become a touchstone and guide for colleges across the country. But President Paul Alivisatos said on Friday that those protections were not absolute, and that the encampment had run afoul of university policies.

“On Monday, I stated that we would only intervene if what might have been an exercise of free expression blocks the learning or expression of others or substantially disrupts the functioning or safety of the university,” Dr. Alivisatos said in a message to the campus. “Without an agreement to end the encampment, we have reached that point.”

If ever there was an institution I could confidently declare will not divest in response to any protest, it's the U of C.
.

The University of Chicago, a private college that is one of the country’s most selective, has been praised by conservatives and free speech advocates in recent years for its approach to expression on its campus.

As part of its free speech philosophy, the university also put forward the principle of institutional neutrality.

In a 1967 declaration, the university called for schools to remain neutral on political and social matters, saying a campus “is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” But at other colleges, students over the years have frequently and successfully pressed their administrations to take positions on matters like police brutality and global warming.

At the same time, they are the originators of the most celebrated free speech statement across the political and ideological divides.
.

In August 2016, the University of Chicago informed incoming freshmen: “We do not support so-called trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

Versions of the university’s declaration of free speech principles have been adopted by dozens of other colleges in recent years.

“In a word, the university’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the university community to be offensive, unwise, immoral or wrong-headed,” that declaration said.

Of course that cuts both ways. The principle of free speech afforded the pro-Palestinian protestors also covers their pro-Israeli opponents.
.

Dr. Alivisatos, a chemist who became president of the university in 2021, said in his message to campus that the encampment had become far more than a cluster of tents. He accused protesters of vandalizing buildings, blocking walkways, destroying a nearby installation of Israeli flags and flying a Palestinian flag from a university flagpole.

“The encampment has created systematic disruption of campus,” Dr. Alivisatos said. “Protesters are monopolizing areas of the Main Quad at the expense of other members of our community. Clear violations of policies have only increased.”

The above is neither the full contents of the article nor presented in the same sequence.

[Juvenal]

If this is a fair point, how do you square it with your routine generalizations of the protestors?

-Sam

It's not a fair point. There's explicit and implicit denial of the oft repeated and independently obvious fact I'm stating an opinion, not a conclusion. That fundamental error leaves the entire presentation wandering in the wild-haired wilderness.

Then there's the more serious issue of the deliberate excision of the stated reasons behind my opinion.

As he's proven incapable of incorporating let alone comprehending standard English, perhaps a better response could be constructed in his native tongue.

Try pointing and laughing.

[Sam]

It's not a fair point. There's explicit and implicit denial of the oft repeated and independently obvious fact I'm stating an opinion, not a conclusion. That fundamental error leaves the entire presentation wandering in the wild-haired wilderness.

Then there's the more serious issue of the deliberate excision of the stated reasons behind my opinion.

As he's proven incapable of incorporating let alone comprehending standard English, perhaps a better response could be constructed in his native tongue.

Try pointing and laughing.

Unquestionably true that it's fairer to say the actions of an individual working within a professional department with standardized training regimens would reflect the reputation of the department than the actions or character of a volunteer student protestor participating in an informal group activity can be extrapolated to the group at large, even before we get into anything else.

For people who regularly indulge themselves in the latter, though, it would be interesting to see the rationale in denying the former. But no need for me to intrude.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

If this is a fair point, how do you square it with your routine generalizations of the protestors?

-Sam

I'm clearly talking about the ones who are acting up, Sam. I am 100% for peaceful protests.

[Cow Poke]

It's not a fair point. There's explicit and implicit denial of the oft repeated and independently obvious fact I'm stating an opinion, not a conclusion. That fundamental error leaves the entire presentation wandering in the wild-haired wilderness.

Then there's the more serious issue of the deliberate excision of the stated reasons behind my opinion.

As he's proven incapable of incorporating let alone comprehending standard English, perhaps a better response could be constructed in his native tongue.

Try pointing and laughing.

You've made some really dumb assumptions, Jesse, in a specific case, and I have pointed those out - addressing you directly.

Your pettiness won't allow you to do likewise.