Message auto-removed

[Name removed]

[question everything]

1. And their definition of "Justice for Palestine?" Eliminating of Israel

[Think. Again.]

7. That would be your assumption of their definition...

...perhaps you could research what they are actually calling for though?

[Maraya1969]

50. Did you ever think "Justice for Palestine" means "Please stop murdering us"?

[question everything]

68. No, it should have meant, in 2005, that Gazans had their chance to establish their own

state, with people working to support themselves but Hamas took over, brutally killed the PLO reps and turned the area into a hellhole. Any opposition resulted in jail torture and death.

Even if Israel withdraws completely, give them 5000 prisoners, 10,000 prisoners, their lives will still be miserable, Hamas will still steal humanitarian aid and will brutality suppress any opposition.

[redqueen]

72. It's interesting that they steal humanitarian aid on top of the cash from Israel

It's like they're trying as hard as they can to be supervillains

[Big Blue Marble]

90. Your claim is just not true. It is a fairy tale which continues to dehumanize Palestinians.

They were still under occupation. Israel left the Strip while maintaining control of the borders,
air, and sea. Israel controls everything that goes in or out of Gaza including people.

Some state.

[Cha]

63. These poor "Bullied" groups Got Suspended at Rutgers..

Ben-Shimon said that Rutgers SJP and other student groups “have called Hamas’ massacre of Jews in Israel ‘justified'” and added, “Their actions against Jewish students on campus have moved far beyond microaggressions.”

So "From the River to the Sea" isn't calling for "peace"" from these Assholes.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18524441

[Sky Jewels]

66. B.S.

There are millions of young people who want the corrupt extremist rightwing Israeli government to stop its genocide and erasure of Gaza and its decades-long imprisonment and brutal oppression of Palestinians who also believe that Israel has a right to exist. My Gen Z daughter and most of her friends, including Jewish friends, are among them.

[TheKentuckian]

70. Yet the adore the far more regressive murderous, rapist, hyper theocrats?

Brilliant!

The New Children of the of the murderous Caliphate can get fucked sideways with a flaming rusty dumpster whatever their heritage.

There are always traitors and Uncle Ruckus types to be found.

[Sky Jewels]

78. Yeah, no.

They do not support Palestinian terrorists, just as they do not support the terrorist Netanyahu and his genocidal minions.

Fun fact that you seem to not grasp: Not all Palestinians are terrorists.

[Big Blue Marble]

92. I bet it is even billions of people through out the world.

The truth is becoming clearer all the time.

[David__77]

2. Sloppy rerun of McCarthyism won't shut people up.

[Basic LA]

3. Bingo! Nicely put.

[malaise]

18. THIS

Rec

[redqueen]

23. Indeed, in fact it will have the opposite effect. nt

[Sympthsical]

4. Wherein we've found the limits victimhood

People calling for the destruction of Israel trying to paint themselves as "the real victims" who are being bullied.

No one's buying this anymore outside of select bubble enclaves. They can't "I'm a victim!" their way out of every criticism where they themselves are the aggressors. Which I guess is an important lesson better learned now rather than later.

Welcome back, I suppose.

[Think. Again.]

8. As the article clearly states...

...the students were not calling for the destruction of Israel.

[Sympthsical]

10. I actively reject the article's premise and selectivity

When that premise relies upon pretending that obvious and clearly observable things do not exist in order to make their narrative work.

How much do I need to see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears before people stop telling me I don't see or hear it?

If they want to pretend it doesn't exist, that's nice for them. Dangerous, but nice.

But people really need to stop demanding everyone else join them in their make believe.

[Think. Again.]

11. You may be projecting.

Edit to add:

This just happened, students calling for ceasefire and divestment of arms, nothing else:

https://democraticunderground.com/100218523864

[Sympthsical]

16. The article cites an AP article from October as evidence

And then leans real, real hard on it, which is a tactic I've seen here - trying to make an old article seem contemporary.

It erases all that has happened in the last seven weeks or goes to excruciating lengths to pretend it doesn't exist. It's a neat magic trick that works on people who don't click on articles or read the dates underneath them.

If you're using that kind of dishonesty as a foundation for your argument, why am I supposed to engage it?

As for the post you linked. Students were arrested for being where they aren't supposed to be. Yes, and? That's called civil disobedience. The disobedience part is kind of the point of the exercise. It's Letter from Birmingham Jail not Letter from Mom and Dad's Second Vacation Home. It says you're willing to sacrifice something or suffer some consequence to show others you strongly believe in your cause.

If people are blocking a highway, do we just say, "Well, fuck it. Guess no one can use this highway today. Go home, everyone. They're protesting. Better call your boss and let them know there's no roads today. If anyone tries to remove them from the roads, we're bullying them."

That's not how the real world works, and that's not "bullying". That's logical outcome of actions known in advance.

[Think. Again.]

24. Your post that I am responding to was pretending...

...that students are suffering the consequences of "calling for the destruction of Israel".

[Sympthsical]

29. You're attempting a bait and switch

You brought up the student protest after I made my comments about the Common Dreams article - which does not concern the protest you linked. The CD article relies on claims made by an October AP article (which is manipulatively erasing reality all by itself, but that's a whole other post).

My initial remarks were not in regards to the protest you later cited.

Chronological order is a thing.

[Think. Again.]

32. The title of the OP...

...is "Stop Bullying US Students Calling for Justice for Palestine " and the context is true to that title.

In direct responsse to the OP you posted:

"Wherein we've found the limits victimhood
12:15 PM

People calling for the destruction of Israel trying to paint themselves as "the real victims" who are being bullied.

No one's buying this anymore outside of select bubble enclaves. They can't "I'm a victim!" their way out of every criticism where they themselves are the aggressors. Which I guess is an important lesson better learned now rather than later.

Welcome back, I suppose."

I responded to that.

[Sympthsical]

37. This is game playing

First, I never said the students in the protest you cited called for the destruction of Israel. My response was to the claims in the article - not that protest. You brought that protest into the conversation.

Second, you seem to be making a claim that protesters being arrested for trespassing is bullying. This is total nonsense.

Third, too busy for games today (I'm supposed to be writing a paper as part of a sociology final of all things).

So, for the cheap seats. If An Argument Can't Be Made Without Dishonesty, It's Not a Good Argument.

I really need to get that tattooed or something.

[Arazi]

26. Nailed it 🎯

[brooklynite]

81. And "civil disobedience" brings with it the idea that 1) you're breaking the law and 2) you'll be arrested.

What's the complaint?

[stopdiggin]

17. and trespassing - after and against verbal warning

which can often lead to ... Arrest. Who knew?!

[stopdiggin]

21. the AP has 'discredited' in one particular incidence

(a chant 'accusing' - rather than 'calling for' genocide)
Weighing against that are the multitude of instances where we have heard and seen with our own eyes chants, signs, placards and media posts - that clearly call for exactly that. To suggest that all these cases did not happen - is disingenuous, and somewhat insulting to our own senses.

[Think. Again.]

27. I agree...

...which is why I have not suggested that all these cases did not happen.

[sarisataka]

5. Would it be ok

to ask these students to stop harassing their fellow students who are Jewish?

Or is that integral to their protesting political injustice?

[Cha]

13. No, it's ok for them to Harass Jewish Students and Teachers

Violently at times because they're the "victims" being "bullied", don't you see?

Fucking

[sarisataka]

25. It is very apparent that is true

I have been refreshing myself on the Holocaust watching documentaries and movies like Conspiracy. It is quite chilling to see the actions and verbal parallels ninety years after "Never Again".

Also, the inversion of victimhood is nothing new. Many (I no longer say most) people have heard of Kristallnacht. Very few however are aware that the Jews were fined collectively a billion RM for the murder of a German official which was the excuse for the pogrom. As for the businesses damaged/destroyed by the mobs had their insurance payments seized for "damages to the German nation". In other words, the Jews were held responsible for the crimes against them and had to pay for the damages of those crimes.

[Takket]

6. Who is bullying them?

From what I’ve seen they seem to have quite a bit of support and it is acts of antisemitism that seem to be dominating the news cycles right now.

I have not seen or heard of any widespread backlash against PEACEFUL protests in support of Palestine.

[Think. Again.]

9. That seems true...

...very little coverage is given to the peaceful protests and the media does seem to focus on the more sensational instances of true antisemitism.

Edit to add: But of course, if you've read some of the posts here, or seen reports of the backlash on student groups after the University hearing, you would see the point of the article.

[Chakaconcarne]

12. Would this be bullying?

https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2023/12/forty-one-students-currently-being-arrested-booked-inside-university-hall-following-second-sit-in

[stopdiggin]

15. no it would not. 'protest' has never provided immunity from sanctions

for illegal behavior. i.e., 'arrest'.
(and I'm always surprised that so many people seem to be unaware of this .. )

[stopdiggin]

14. The article makes a solid point in that free speech is a fundamental

principle - and should be defended vigorously. And that goes double for college campuses. Further, (I personally) found most of the attacks upon college administration to be grandstanding manipulation and theater of the right. (also not in small part opportunistic - in that the right has had universities in their political sights for a good deal longer than just this last controversy)

But - having gotten the above out of the way - some of the speech (and action) that is going on in our college campuses is also clearly (and purposefully) antisemitic - in no uncertain terms. This is also not at all new - but has just found a new 'agent' in the pro-Palestinian voices. (antisemitic fliers, harassment, Jewish symbols and sites vandalized and defaced) So, while I might call the latest congressional 'hearings' theater - I think it is entirely fair to pose the question of whether 'free speech' on college campus now encompasses virulent antisemitism, and calls for genocide? And how that might contrast with virulent speech against race, ethnicity, orientation or disability? Are standards of speech being equally applied? And,if not - what do you intend to do about it?

[Think. Again.]

30. Thank you for clarifying...

...that 'some' of the speech that has been reported is anti-semitic.

The article is clearly talking about situations when there was no antisemitism being shown.

[stopdiggin]

42. not really. the article is really aimed at the congressional hearing

(and the backlash provoked) - and the focus and thrust there was clearly on antisemitic protest and speech. To work that up into an argument that students are being 'bullied' because of exercise of 'free speech' - is a stretch - and neither accurate nor strictly honest. The article may want to focus on a select instance where antisemitism was not expressed - but that's clearly a case of ignoring the elephant residing in the room. The university heads got shredded because when questioned about calls for genocide - instead of addressing the issue, they preferred to deflect and turn the discussion toward 'context'.

The question wasn't about whether this or that protest or chant invoked a call. The question clearly revolved around, "What is your position regarding calls for genocide?" And the answer was (unfortunately) - "Well .. context .. "

[Think. Again.]

65. The article is clearly about...

...pro-Palestinian demonstrators who did not call for the genocide of Jews.

[stopdiggin]

85. in one particular incidence

and the hearing, which was a substantial focus of the same article, clearly was focused on a much larger context.

Are we going to try to pretend the free speech, free expression, concerns for college campuses and faculty - also a major thrust for the article - are also in regard to a singular protest? That's just not an honest assessment. There is clearly a larger and overriding context that the authors are attempting to address.

[Think. Again.]

87. Are you trying to imply...

...that all pro-Palestinian protests except one are not protests at all, but are deliberate, planned, instances of mass antisemitism?

[stopdiggin]

89. I'm not trying to IMPLY anything

I am simply stating that there is an (immediately identifiable) larger context here. And that applies to both the discussion - and the article that centers the OP.

[Celerity]

45. Some try to falsely paint almost any pushback against Israel's actions as antisemitic and/or pro Hamas. #facts

Within a day or two (around the time some here were advocating for lining up bulldozers and pushing Gaza into the sea) after October 7th, a long time poster here (no longer here btw) called me antisemitic simply because I was already raising the alarm about the distinct possibility of Israel violating international law/rules of war via a disproportionate response and collective punishment. Another poster called ludicrously me 'Trump' over the same issues.

From day one there has been a concerted effort to weaponise the antisemitism charge via expansionist definition tactics and then use it as cudgel to induce a chilling effect on most any pushback and to stifle legitimate debate. I am well-versed in these tactics, as I have been active (internationally, in the UK, in the US, and in Sweden) in the BDS movement since my early teen years. I am absolutely positive that my being active in BDS will cause some to once again falsely label me as antisemitic, despite the fact I was introduced to the movement by some of my Jewish friends (some were classmates, and some were Israeli expats) in London.

[stopdiggin]

88. I certainly haven't seen any lack of 'debate' (or opinion) on this subject

If there has been a chilling effect - it has apparently only acted around the margins. This war is still being addressed (and debated) here on DU - ever hour, on the hour.

(I do think there might be a certain amount of voices that have just drawn back and 'self censored' to some degree - but suspect that the overriding reason there would be due to just sheer fatigue, and not wishing to confront the conflict and strife ever day. I myself have considered taking such a break. But it certainly isn't for the reason of being 'intimidated' or cowed!)

[egduj]

19. "From the river to the sea" is a call for genocide.

I know it's popular nowdays to tell Jews what they're allowed to find offensive, but this phrase is not just a "political statement," it calls for the destruction of Israel and the current inhabitants "from the river to the sea."

[David__77]

20. Nonsense.

[egduj]

22. Thank you for educating me, but could you be a little more precise?

What am I to learn from your post? That "From the river to the sea" is just a mere political statement, that Jews should not be offended by it, or that it wasn't chanted by the students along with "intifada" which calls for violence and terrorism against the current inhabitants?

[Nanjeanne]

35. If you really want to understand - it has definitely taken on a meaning that some believe means the elimination of

Israel. But, as the Likud Party uses the same phrase in their 1997 platform - it can also mean the elimination of Palestine.

Phrases take on different meaning over time. The full saying goes: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – a reference to the land between the Jordan River, which borders eastern Israel, and the Mediterranean Sea to the west. The question then is what that means for Israel and the Jewish people. It can be interpreted a variety of ways. It could be looked at as freedom for Palestinians who are now under occupation. The ADL has labeled it anti-semitic but that again poses problems given it is in the Likud Party platform.

No one can really say what is in the heart of those who use the phrase. That is why it is such a charged statement.

Regarding "intifada" - that also is not a call for violence and terrorism - although some may use it that way. The word translates to "uprising" but literally translates to "the act of shaking off". It can be violent. It can be nonviolent. The Lebanon 2019 protest is considered intifada. Re Israel/Palestine - The 1st intifada was a peaceful one. The 2nd was not. The Great March of Return in 2018 was peaceful. So again, it's hard to know what's in the heart of those who use certain phrases.

But there are nuances and complexities to all these phrases - perhaps they shouldn't be used - but perhaps their origins might make them ok to use. What is frustrating for me is that people will react to phrases because they have been told by someone what something means without looking more deeply.

There is no one answer. People make their own decisions on what something means - but they should also recognize that because they say it means something - they may not actually know what is in the heart of someone saying it.

Whew . . . long-winded and probably you really didn't want to know that much!!

[egduj]

41. So Jews are over-reacting, too thin-skinned, and it's an "only words" type of thing?

Sort of like "“Final Solution to the Jewish Question” was just a bunch of guys spitballing, throwing ideas back and forth?

[Nanjeanne]

44. Who said that? Did someone use the words thin-skinned. Over reacting? You are making something up

in your own head something that’s bizarre at best. I gave you some context and said people will have reactions to words based on their understanding of a phrase. That goes for Jews. That goes for Israelis. That goes for Pa,Estonians. The phrase you asked about is used by the Likud party. It is also used by Palestinians. You can react however you choose to react. I gave you context.

I am horrified of your completely misinterpreting what I said. As a Jew I’m horrified. As a human being I’m horrified. As a thinking person I’m horrified You can continue this conversation in your own head if you wish. You seem to be perfectly capable of making up my words so have at it. But leave me out. I’m done trying to actually answer your question like we were having an actual adult conversation.

[Celerity]

49. that is OTT projection, a blatant attempt to universalise a smear against anything you disagree with in regards to P/I

Last edited Wed Dec 13, 2023, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)

with a ludicrous charge of being somehow in-line with

“Final Solution to the Jewish Question”

you are literally try to equate legitimate dissent and/or opinions you happen to not like with the most horrid essence of Hitlerian Nazism

shameful reply

[TheKentuckian]

74. The aims are exactly the same. Wipe out the Jews and

on to conquering all of us infidels.

[Celerity]

82. Absolutely ridiculous, legitimate criticism over such things as disproportionate response is not the same as

the fucking Hitlerian Final Solution.

And now, for added spice, you drag in ludicrous RW (and so Islamophobic in language) fear mongering:

on to conquering all of us infidels

As if Hamas (and TBH all of overtly hostile to the West Islamic nations combined)has a snowball's chance in hell of 'conquering' the non Muslim nations on the planet.

Shameful parroting of so much of the hard RW, christofash, white nationalist parties' bollocks framing worldwide.

just wow

SMDH

[OilemFirchen]

43. Are we there yet?

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

[stopdiggin]

56. well written (as well as long winded)

and "nuances and complexities" aside - some ways from entirely persuasive. The history of area, the people, and the conflict - do not really allow for any (credible) benign interpretation of the slogan. The fact of the matter is - regardless of what some college students might perceive - the Palestinian people (and a large portion of their neighbors) still resolutely believe that a 'free Palestine", is the equivalent of the nonexistence of Israel. Now in some schemes or imaginings this may not envision the genocide or removal of Jewish population - but it unequivocally means the elimination of the Jewish state. Period. To pretend that this is not the case - or that it might be 'seen as an expression' or 'interpreted' as this or that or the other ... Can only be done by ignoring what the Palestinians (in great part) themselves believe.

And, in that context - the idea that Jewish people themselves (much less the rest of us) should be encouraged to regard the slogan as something other ... Is completely laughable, and beggars belief.

[Nanjeanne]

59. If I concede your point then it holds true for Israel saying no Palestinian state deserves to exist as well

as Palestinians saying Israel does not deserve to exist. That’s fine. We can agree on that. Both the Likud Party and Palestinians use the same phrase. I’m neither a member of the Likud party nor a Palestinian. Only a Jew. So I interpret it differently than you or some other Jews.

But what I said was everyone will interpret as they wish and in more recent times words and phrases have taken on different meanings. I don’t propose the definitive answer. You believe you have the definitive answer. On that we disagree.

I, however, don’t use terms like laughable or imply simplicity in responses. But have at it.

[emulatorloo]

33. Nonsense.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. Like "Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty"?

As the article says, that was Likud's 1977 official manifesto. So has Netanyahu belonged to a genocidal organisation for decades, in your opinion?

[redqueen]

39. And recently tweeted my the Minister of Communications

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218523704

[Celerity]

54. Was it a call for genocide when it was first used by Israeli Zionists?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#History_of_the_phrase

snip
...................According to American historian Robin D. G. Kelley, the phrase "began as a Zionist slogan signifying the boundaries of Eretz Israel." Israeli-American historian Omer Bartov notes that Zionist usage of such language predates the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and began with the Revisionist movement of Zionism led by Vladimir Jabotinski, which spoke of establishing a Jewish state in all of Palestine and had a song with the slogan: "The Jordan has two banks; this one is ours, and the other one too," suggesting a Jewish state extending even beyond the Jordan River.

Was it a call for genocide when Likud used it?

In 1977, the concept appeared in an election manifesto of the Israeli political party Likud, which stated that “between the sea and the Jordan there will be only Israeli sovereignty.”

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party

[Voltaire2]

83. Is it also a call for genocide when used by rightwing Israeli politicians?

[BlueTsunami2018]

28. I say let the Hamas supporters bray all they want.

We should want to know who they are. Just like with any hate group. But when their “protesting” turns to harassment and assault as we’ve seen, deal with it appropriately.

[Think. Again.]

31. This OP is not about...

...hamas supporters, in fact they are not even mentioned.

[OilemFirchen]

38. Of course they're not mentioned.

If they can, by omission, hide behind the pretense that these people do not exist, then they can hide behind the pretense that they are not amongst them.

[Eko]

46. I don't see anywhere

Where someone said Hamas doesn’t exist.

[OilemFirchen]

48. Huh?

Hamas supporters.

[Eko]

51. Then to clairify

I don’t see where anyone said hamas supporters don’t exist.

[OilemFirchen]

53. No. To ACTUALLY clarify...

there are those who pretend that Hamas supporters don't exist.

[Eko]

57. Really?

Who?

[Think. Again.]

64. You seem to be...

...trying to insinuate that anyone who has concern for non-hamas Palestinian civilians is actually a closet hamas supporter.

Stop doing that.

[OilemFirchen]

71. I'll speak for myself, thank you.

More so, don't you dare tell me what to do.

[Sky Jewels]

67. Lol. "Hamas supporters." Nice try!

But no cigar for you!

[BlueTsunami2018]

75. If it walks like a duck.....

And all that.

Do you really think a “free” Palestine would look any different than Iran, Afghanistan or any of the other Islamic theocracies?

I think not. 🤷🏾‍♂️

[Think. Again.]

77. Do you have any idea how racist that is?

[BannonsLiver]

34. I think a simple standard should be applied

If these dopes who are only caught up in this as a trendy way to socialize can pick out Israel and Gaza on a map then they should be allowed to continue to speak out. If that can’t, they should shut the fuck up and do their homework.

[Eko]

47. I agree

Only people Bannons liver think are smart enough should get to have an opinion.

[BannonsLiver]

62. I'm glad we're on the same page.

Now, can I get you a map? 😉

[madaboutharry]

40. A most predictable opinion from Jeffery Sachs.

Jeffery Sachs, professor of economics at Columbia, will always offer an opinion from the furthest left and most anti-Israel position he can find. It would be shocking if he had said anything different. One only needs to peruse his editorial contributions to Common Dreams to understand how he sees the world.

On edit: Bringing up the misguided words of Netanyahu and the right-wing extremists he surrounds himself with is equally disingenuous. 76% of Israelis want Netanyahu to resign and want him to take his right-wing nut job coalition with him. He no longer represents the opinions of the Israeli people.

[Chainfire]

52. I will not support the government working to ban peaceful protest based upon ideology, any ideology.

The Government tried that in the 60s and we wouldn't stand for it then either. Protesting for human rights for the Palestinian people is not calling for the destruction of Israel.

We better be damn careful about restricting the right of the freedom of expression, lest it comes back to be used against us.

[redqueen]

55. And it will - the groundwork has already started

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218515987

[Tomconroy]

58. Jeffrey Sachs is a putin apologist who has

Appeared on Russian propaganda shows. He's some sort of economist who spouts off on all sorts of topics he knows nothing about. He holds many controversial views which would get him kicked off DU in a new york minute.

[LymphocyteLover]

60. NYTimes ran a similar piece today "Campus Speech Codes Should Be Abolished"

by James Kirchich

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/opinion/college-free-speech-antisemitism.html

[Cha]

61. These poor Fucking "Bullied" Groups Got Suspended

at Rutgers..

A dean’s letter to the group stated that it had violated several university policies, including those forbidding “disruptive or disorderly conduct,” failure to comply with university directives, improper behavior by campus guests, and “inappropriate use of space.” It referenced student complaints that members of SJP had disrupted “classes, a program, meals, and students studying.”

Ben-Shimon said that Rutgers SJP and other student groups “have called Hamas’ massacre of Jews in Israel ‘justified'” and added, “Their actions against Jewish students on campus have moved far beyond microaggressions.”

So "From the River to the Sea" isn't calling for "peace"" from these Assholes.

https://www.jta.org/2023/12/12/united-states/rutgers-u-suspends-students-for-justice-in-palestine-amid-further-campus-uproar-over-israel

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=18523042

[TheKentuckian]

69. These soft ass chumps don't know what being bullied even is

and that is part of why they cannot process self defense.
They have never dealt with anyone dedicated to doing them harm in any real and present way and can only relate to hitting a sibling back when the bickering in the third row of mom's SUV got out of hand, at most.

Now any pushback on their bullshit is "bullying" and have adopted and barely tweaked their heroes' model of starting shit, harassing the living daylights out of anyone Jewish or daring to stand with Israel and crying foul.

Further, the referenced AP article debunked a figment.
Virtually no one was saying the Hamas Glee Club was chanting for an Israel genocide, the world knew they were stupidly "charging" restaurant owners, teachers, the remains of Roslyn Carter, Biden, any random Jews, and of course Israel with genocide.

Also, this article is hash.

The premise was about students being bullied and goes on to nevah evah cite any such actual cases (that should be dealt with harshly) likely because the whole thing is a bunch of bullshit seemingly half ass cribbed from posts here (or maybe he posts here, who cares).

The real student bullying situation is mobs chasing down teachers for being Jewish and trying to batter down doors, "charging" random usually Jewish folks with genocide, defacing any property with a Jewish name somewhere, and yes calling for wiping Israel off the map and that genocide whatever is in their hearts.

Bullying? Fucking weak ass flakes.

I cannot even count the number of beatings and fights to or to try to defend myself from 5 to 13 or so just for being born a little mixed kid at the wrong time in the USA.

MAGA like crybabies and chumps.

[LexVegas]

73. They seem to be whiny fucks. nt

[Autumn]

76. Fuck Stefanik and her fucking supporters.

[David__77]

80. I agree!

[Voltaire2]

84. This.

They are running their game and all the marks are getting conned. For about the 10,000th time.

[Prairie Gates]

79. The phrase "Bullying, " RIP...here it lies next to its cousin, "Trauma"

[Oopsie Daisy]

86. "Bullying" ... LOL. Boo-hoo. 😢😥😂

[Jedi Guy]

91. Bullying? Bullshit. Let me tune my violin, it's the tiniest in the world.

They're not being "bullied." They said their say and people are reacting to what they said. This is what we in the adult world call "the consequences of one's actions." They are absolutely free to say whatever comes into their soft, pointed little heads. The world around them is absolutely free to label them as ignorant berks and react accordingly.

This might mean people push back on their narrative rather than just blindly agreeing with them. It might mean people aren't nice to them. It might mean people don't want to hire them for that job they wanted. It might mean people don't want to associate with them in any capacity whatsoever. That's not "bullying." That's people judging them to be assclowns and wanting nothing to do with them. Period, full stop, the end.

To quote Ron Swanson, "I regret nothing, the end."