@kollegeguy Please, what?
I’m surprised people think the Palestine comment is OK.
Well, I’m the only person on this thread and it was being used privately so I personally don’t see the big deal.
Shocker that members of a Jewish fraternity would hold pro-Israel sentiments and not be pro-Palestine! Again, if they were shouting it at Palestinian students, I’d feel differently.
Pro-Israel and pro-Palestine are not necessarily mutually exclusive points of view. Also, neither point of view requires racism, even though some of the loudest and most obnoxious voices (and their violent bedfellows) are racist.
I really don’t understand why this isn’t protected free speech. Donald Trump says worse things on TV and no one is freaking out.
The students are not threatening anyone, or doing anything in public. If there was a history of Jews killing Muslims in America, then I think I would feel differently, but there isn’t as far as I know.
What am I missing?
If Catholics send emails to each other expressing a desire to convert atheists, is that offensive to atheists? Idk Should they get a suspension? Or are we treating Jewish and Christian groups differently?
Oh? Here, this is from Buzzfeed:
If you don’t find this offensive, then that says something about you. And the Muslim comment is just as disgusting - saying that C-4s and Dynamite are fixtures of Islam is akin to saying trucks labeled “free candy” are fixtures of Christianity. Absolutely abbhorent and dangerous in the current climate. The Palestine comment is beyond insensitive. I’m not about to have a debate on the atrocities committed against Palestinians, but @Pizzagirl, I doubt you would have found it funny if a Muslim frat on campus called a desolated, barren lot ‘Auchwitz’.
@InfinityMan “If you don’t find this offensive, then that says something about you.”
It may be offensive, but it still sounds like protected speech to me. What should the test be? If one person finds it offensive? Free speech that everyone likes does not need protection.
Those kids’ goofy comments aren’t going to be making the KKK Hall of Fame any time soon.
“saying that C-4s and Dynamite are fixtures of Islam is akin to saying trucks labeled “free candy” are fixtures of Christianity. Absolutely abbhorent and dangerous in the current climate.”
I’m a strong Christian. If some college kids said that “free candy” thing, I wouldn’t find it “abbhorent” (and certainly not “dangerous”) at all. I wouldn’t even be mildly offended. Who cares.
I find the rapidly increasing fascist level attacks on speech and thought more troubling, personally.
Heck, forget Donald Trump - Joan Rivers, George Carlin, and other comics got paid for saying way worse.
“comment is beyond insensitive. I’m not about to have a debate on the atrocities committed against Palestinians, but @Pizzagirl, I doubt you would have found it funny if a Muslim frat on campus called a desolated, barren lot ‘Auchwitz’.”
The Muslims were responsible for Auschwitz?
I meant to type Palestinian frats. And no, they’re not. Quite frankly I don’t understand your comment. I gave an example of a naming that would equally insensitive to the Palestine thing. What does who committed what at Auschwitz have to do with anything? Did those frat boys kill Palestinians?
Every time I see this, I type the same response : free speech is not liscence to be a jerk. Just because its legal doesn’t make it any more palatable.
@Much2learn Please do share the dimension you live in where Donald Trump’s words are being calmly accepted. I guess half a million people signing a petition to ban him from entering their country is routind practice in your book.
There doesn’t have to be a history of genocide to make words insensitive. That’s like saying Native Americans can insult black people 'coz they never enslaved them. Smh
“free speech is not liscence to be a jerk.”
Actually, it is.
Hate speech is free speech. Yet under the terms of the code of ethics at UChicago, they have a right to revoke the chapters charter. I love free speech, yet it is not without consequence.
Calling an empty lot Palestine and having a fried chicken dinner for MLK day don’t rise to hate speech. Perhaps tacky and ill-advised, but it doesn’t rise to any level of threat. Much like we water down the definition of sexual assault by stretching it to include every time a guy put his hand on a girl’s butt on the dance floor, we water down the definition of hate speech by including this kind of thing.
Is the movie Borat hate speech? How about Monty Python? Joan Rivers? Sarah Silverman? Chris Rock? Richard Pryor? Amy Schumer? All of them have made jokes about certain types of people / certain stereotypes that are far worse than what is portrayed here. You may or may not find each of them humorous, but are they hate speech?
However, is there any government censorship here? Seems like if anyone chooses to take action, it would be private individuals or entities (e.g. if the university withdraws recognition, or the fraternity national penalizes the chapter, or current pledges depledge, or future pledges choose to avoid that house, or people on internet forums taking a lower opinion of that chapter, etc.).
Making jokes about stereotypes and making fun of them is not like acting out the stereotype. There is difference between a sketch making fun of the use of the N word and the actual use. One member specifically told them that he did not appreciate being called a N*gro, and they basically told him that he shouldn’t be offended because * they * think it’s okay. I never said it was illegal, I said it was tasteless and disgusted me. I am entitled to my opinion.
@ucbalumnus You are correct. I get that UofC is private and does not need to protect free speech on its campus under current law.
However, most elite schools try to go out of their way to do so. To me in this case they are just being insensitive idiots. As far as I can tell there is no threat, or implied threat here. It sounds to me like they are guilty of making tasteless, unfunny jokes.
When you begin to ban free speech then what is the test? Who decides? When a minister or Muslim group talks about how evil non-believers are, I think that is much closer to hate speech. Yet many of the same people who think these boys’ charter should be suspended, would freak out if UofC announced that any comments from religious groups about converting other people to their religion are offensive and their charters are being revoked.
@InfinityMan " I am entitled to my opinion."
Well, I am the one saying you are entitled to your opinion.
You are saying that you are only entitled to your opinion until the majority decides that your opinion is offensive, at which point, you are no longer entitled to it, just like these boys.