TCD swastika and sex allegations

Tar.Aldarion

/smokes a cool 50

Lottie127

look some fools acted the cnut..they would of acted cnuts if they went to any college, because they are cnuts so give it a rest..

Fact is a few fools went and actedthe fool, ****, drawing terrible things and trying to act the big dick and it seems that everyone can acknowlegde the fact they are tools already so ya nobody panic...

andrew

vicelin11 wrote: »

The number of responses in this thread which focus not on denying the article's claims but rather on dismissing the students' alleged activities as "harmless fun" is physically repulsive.

Really? Physically repulsive? A real life decomposing dead body; that's physically repulsive. Rape and murder perhaps, they're repulsive. If you find people not really giving a crap about what some dickheads did on holiday physically repulsive, then your 'physically repulsive' threshold is very low.

Daubing a swastika on a hotel wall is not "harmless fun," regardless (and I can't believe I'm saying this) of whether the person daubing it hates Jewish people or not. It doesn't matter if they are a Jew. It's a swastika. If I am a Jew, and I see that symbol on the wall of a hotel I'm staying in, I can reasonably infer that collective social desire for my death has either not gone away or is seen by some privileged white kids as a funny joke.

Woah there. So if there's a swastika painted anywhere, it means you can infer that everyone in society would like to murder you? That's a bit much. I think it's pretty clear that this is no longer the case. Perhaps it would be more reasonable to assume that the individual who did it was just being an asshat, rather then going OMG SWASTIKA...it's a SWASTIKA. Don't get me wrong, whoever did it is a shit person, but the fit people are having over the fact that it was a swastika seems a bit OTT. Maybe I just have a really high offensive threshold.

dubpunter

check out the email that tried to prevent the Trinity newspaper from printing allegations and then the video of one of the muppets off his head

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/01/26/sociopathic-southside-students-ski-trip-the-asstard-email/

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2011/01/26/video-the-sociopathic-southside-ski-trip-scumbags/

liamygunner29

Lottie127 wrote: »

look some fools acted the cnut..they would of acted cnuts if they went to any college, because they are cnuts so give it a rest..

Fact is a few fools went and actedthe fool, ****, drawing terrible things and trying to act the big dick and it seems that everyone can acknowlegde the fact they are tools already so ya nobody panic...

Unreal stuff

Doug Cartel

andrew wrote: »

Woah there. So if there's a swastika painted anywhere, it means you can infer that everyone in society would like to murder you? That's a bit much.

It's not much of a jump to infer that the person who painted the swastika does not want you or your kind around. If we as a society allow that swastika to remain, and don't take action against the people that painted them, it implies that we share their views.

I think it's pretty clear that this is no longer the case.

Do you live under a rock or something? I'm afraid it very much is still the case.

Perhaps it would be more reasonable to assume that the individual who did it was just being an asshat, rather then going OMG SWASTIKA...it's a SWASTIKA. Don't get me wrong, whoever did it is a shit person, but the fit people are having over the fact that it was a swastika seems a bit OTT.

Having people throw ****-fits at/about you is the price you pay for being an offensive asshole. What they are alleged to have done is beyond the pale, and you know this.

Maybe I just have a really high offensive threshold.

Maybe you are just a sophist.

JonJoeDali

I personally have no problem if someone wants to wear a swastica. After all, our very own Prince Harry has been known to sport one from time to time.

aas

andrew wrote: »

Really? Physically repulsive? A real life decomposing dead body; that's physically repulsive. Rape and murder perhaps, they're repulsive. If you find people not really giving a crap about what some dickheads did on holiday physically repulsive, then your 'physically repulsive' threshold is very low.

Masturbating in the presence of another person is an overtly sexual act and they did not have her consent.

andrew

aas wrote: »

Masturbating in the presence of another person is an overtly sexual act and they did not have her consent.

The poster said that they were repulsed by people's reaction to the events, not to the events themselves. Obviously, having someone wank in front of you is horrible, and you'll notice i didn't disagree with the last part of their post, which referred to that incident.

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Do you live under a rock or something? I'm afraid it very much is still the case.

Anti Semitism is in no way alive and well in Europe. There hasn't even been a pogrom in aaaaaages.

Sefirah

andrew wrote: »

Anti Semitism is in no way alive and well in Europe. There hasn't even been a pogrom in aaaaaages.

Since when are pogroms the only displays of anti-Semitism? Trust me, it's very much alive and well in Europe. Particularly in areas where there are large Muslim communities such as France http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article5693693.ece and Sweden http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/7278532/Jews-leave-Swedish-city-after-sharp-rise-in-anti-Semitic-hate-crimes.html and http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/10/17/anti-semitism-in-sweden-grows-with-muslim-immigration/ ---- this is merely a small sample of what's out there.

andrew

Sefirah wrote: »

Since when are pogroms the only displays of anti-Semitism? Trust me, it's very much alive and well in Europe. Particularly in areas where there are large Muslim communities such as France http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article5693693.ece and Sweden http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/7278532/Jews-leave-Swedish-city-after-sharp-rise-in-anti-Semitic-hate-crimes.html and http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/10/17/anti-semitism-in-sweden-grows-with-muslim-immigration/ ---- this is merely a small sample of what's out there.

So a minority of a minority are anti semetic, and this somehow means that anti semitism is alive and well in Europe?

marienbad

andrew wrote: »

So a minority of a minority are anti semetic, and this somehow means that anti semitism is alive and well in Europe?

You really do need to get out more if you don't believe anti-semitism is alive and well in Europe.

andrew

marienbad wrote: »

You really do need to get out more if you don't believe anti-semitism is alive and well in Europe.

What does 'you need to get out more' even mean anyway? I've been to Austria, Holland, Spain, France and the UK, more than once each. Does that constitute 'getting out'? If so, does the fact that I didn't perceive anti semitism there at all prove you wrong?

Sefirah

andrew wrote: »

So a minority of a minority are anti semetic, and this somehow means that anti semitism is alive and well in Europe?

It isn't just a number of Muslims who are being anti-Semitic, there are MUCH more cases:
Ireland: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thugs-target-couple-in-antisemitic-attack-1375627.html
Britain: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/police-patrols-antisemitism-jewish-community
Turkey: http://judaism.about.com/library/2_antisemitism/bl_bomb_synagogues_turkey.htm
France: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/138985
Sweden: http://www.forward.com/articles/129233/
Norway: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1203
Russia: http://www.adl.org/russia/russian_political_antisemitism_3.asp
Poland: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4890_13.htm
Germany: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=381&PID=470&IID=1612
Holland: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=185195
Belgium: http://www.fighthatred.com/recent-events/national-political-hate/815-as-anti-semitism-rises-more-of-belgiums-jews-immigrate-to-israel
Switzerland: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/06/world/anti-semitism-rising-in-switzerland-study-finds.html
Spain: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3278919,00.html
Italy: http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-21/world/italy.antisemitism_1_anti-semitism-semitism-amos-luzzatto?_s=PM:europe
Greece: http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/antisemitism_on_upswing_in_greece_20021206/
Bulgaria: http://sofiaecho.com/2010/03/25/878937_jewish-school-in-sofia-daubed-with-anti-semitic-graffiti
Romania: http://www.ejpress.org/article/45438
Hungary: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/proud-hungarians-must-prepare-for-war-against-the-jews-1.277076
Czech Republic: http://www.antisemitism.org.il/article/27214/czech-republic-%E2%80%93-rabbi-attacked-skinheads-prague
Croatia: http://www.haaretz.com/news/neo-nazis-attack-croatia-chief-rabbi-outside-zagreb-synagogue-1.189525
Lithuania: http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/incidents-and-controversies/view/article/vilnius-lithuania-attack-on-jewish-community-center-1/
Latvia: http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/8022/synagogue-bombing-stuns-latvian-leaders-and-jews/

Isolated incident? Not by the looks of it...

andrew

Sefirah wrote: »

It isn't just a number of Muslims who are being anti-Semitic, there are MUCH more cases:
Ireland: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/thugs-target-couple-in-antisemitic-attack-1375627.html
Britain: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/police-patrols-antisemitism-jewish-community
Turkey: http://judaism.about.com/library/2_antisemitism/bl_bomb_synagogues_turkey.htm
France: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/138985
Sweden: http://www.forward.com/articles/129233/
Norway: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1203
Russia: http://www.adl.org/russia/russian_political_antisemitism_3.asp
Poland: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4890_13.htm
Germany: http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=381&PID=470&IID=1612
Holland: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=185195
Belgium: http://www.fighthatred.com/recent-events/national-political-hate/815-as-anti-semitism-rises-more-of-belgiums-jews-immigrate-to-israel
Switzerland: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/06/world/anti-semitism-rising-in-switzerland-study-finds.html
Spain: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3278919,00.html
Italy: http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-21/world/italy.antisemitism_1_anti-semitism-semitism-amos-luzzatto?_s=PM:europe
Greece: http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/antisemitism_on_upswing_in_greece_20021206/
Bulgaria: http://sofiaecho.com/2010/03/25/878937_jewish-school-in-sofia-daubed-with-anti-semitic-graffiti
Romania: http://www.ejpress.org/article/45438
Hungary: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/proud-hungarians-must-prepare-for-war-against-the-jews-1.277076
Czech Republic: http://www.antisemitism.org.il/article/27214/czech-republic-%E2%80%93-rabbi-attacked-skinheads-prague
Croatia: http://www.haaretz.com/news/neo-nazis-attack-croatia-chief-rabbi-outside-zagreb-synagogue-1.189525
Lithuania: http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/incidents-and-controversies/view/article/vilnius-lithuania-attack-on-jewish-community-center-1/
Latvia: http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/8022/synagogue-bombing-stuns-latvian-leaders-and-jews/

Isolated incident? Not by the looks of it...

Selection bias much? By that logic, murder is rife in Ireland, because every murder that does happen gets reported. I could pull up loads of articles about crime in Ireland, but Ireland's been getting safer over time. Just because at least one incident has happened and been in the media in each EU country over the time period for which the internet has a record does not mean that anti-semitism is rife in Europe.

Sefirah

andrew wrote: »

Selection bias much? By that logic, murder is rife in Ireland, because every murder that does happen gets reported. I could pull up loads of articles about crime in Ireland, but Ireland's been getting safer over time. Just because at least one incident has happened and been in the media in each EU country over the time period for which the internet has a record does not mean that anti-semitism is rife in Europe.

Selection bias? Just because Jews give a shít about what's happening to other Jews across Europe doesn't mean they're making it all up just to have something to moan about. Many of the articles (if you bothered to look at them at all) indicate to the substantial increase in anti-Semitic attacks in recent times.

To say that there is no longer anti-Semitism in Europe is the biggest load of BS I've heard in a very long time. Even for me as an Irish student, when I first started college, I frequently had people say really disgusting things to me such as 'dirty Jew' and comments about Jewish noses, being tight with money and MANY really bad holocaust jokes (and even one guy trying to tell me that 6 million Jews is an 'exaggeration') -- really sickening stuff.

Sefirah

andrew wrote: »

What does 'you need to get out more' even mean anyway? I've been to Austria, Holland, Spain, France and the UK, more than once each. Does that constitute 'getting out'? If so, does the fact that I didn't perceive anti semitism there at all prove you wrong?

Perceive anti-Semitism? What did you need? Flags with swastikas billowing in the air and Jews getting beaten up at your feet? How would you, as a non-Jewish visitor, be able to 'perceive' anything of the sort?

ardmacha

Particularly in areas where there are large Muslim communities such as France

A large proportion of Muslims are semites, and while their being anti-semitic is not impossible (look at the number of anti-Irish posters on Boards), it is unlikely.

Perhaps they are just opposed to Isreali foreign policy.

JonJoeDali

.

Jonathan

Enough of the Swastika debate, this is getting too off-topic for even this forum.

Back on the skigate topic.

Sefirah

ardmacha wrote: »

A large proportion of Muslims are semites, and while their being anti-semitic is not impossible (look at the number of anti-Irish posters on Boards), it is unlikely.

Perhaps they are just opposed to Isreali foreign policy.

Yes, Arabs are technically 'semites', however, the modern use of the term 'anti-semitic' overwhelmingly means 'anti-Jewish' (which would be a more appropriate term). Muslims can indeed be anti-semitic/Jewish. It is no coincidence that in areas of very high Muslim populations, such as Malmo in Sweden http://www.forward.com/articles/129233/, there are proportionately higher levels of anti-semitic attacks. Also, an antipathy towards Israeli foreign policy is NOT an excuse to desecrate synagogues and holocaust memorial sites and attack the Jewish population. During Cast Lead, the synagogue in Cork was desecrated on numerous occasions, and at one stage a Muslim woman put fake blood all over the steps and tied baby shoes to the gate. Just because I disagree with how Muslims treat women doesn't mean I'm going to start splashing blood all over the Mosques of Dublin. Using 'I hate Israel' to perpetrate attacks on the Jewish community as a whole is in no shape or form acceptable.

TrollHammaren

I still think the swastika episode at the ski trip is perfectly worth discussing, so I don't think it's a far shot off the main topic to continue the swastika debate, as long as it remains relevant.

As much as I don't think there was any anti-semetic intent behind drawing swastikas on the walls, I definitely think it should be taken very, very seriously, and not chalked off to harmless fun. Do you think it would be much different if they wrote "blacks out", or drew a bunch of stick men with white faces surrounding a stick man with a black face and its head in a noose? And don't give me any of that "peaceful Hindu symbol" bóllocks; those lads were acutely aware of the connotations.

Andrew, I think it's an absolute disgrace that you can so casually disregard the level of anti-semetism in Europe. You clearly have a very sheltered view, naive view.

Regardless of how you feel about the situation, you can't deny that almost any Jewish people staying in a hotel would be quite upset to walk out and see a swastika on the wall, not only because of the emotions it evokes, but because it would give them reason to question their safety.

People chalking this off to harmless fun need to pull their head out of their arses.

EuropeanSon

Doug Cartel wrote: »

It's not much of a jump to infer that the person who painted the swastika does not want you or your kind around. If we as a society allow that swastika to remain, and don't take action against the people that painted them, it implies that we share their views.

Now that is, frankly, ridiculous. Have you heard of the concept of free speech at all?

Let's take a few examples of that taken to it's logical conclusion:

1) If we as a society allow those crescents and stars to remain (ie., any public display of a crescent moon and stars in Ireland), and don't take action against the people who put them up, it implies that we are all Muslims.

2) If we as a society allow those crosses (ie., any on public display) to remain, and don't take action against those who put them up, it implies that we are all Christians.

3) If we as a society allow those Sinn Féin/ Labour/ Fianna Fáil/ Fine Gael/ etc. election posters (which we'll see in the coming weeks) to remain, and don't take action against those who put them up, it implies that we all support Sinn Féin/ Labour/ Fianna Fáil/ Fine Gael.

Might be mildly confusing, if it were true.

Sefirah

Free speech and hate speech are two very different things. I can't even understand how anyone could compare such benign symbols as crosses and political party logos with that of the Nazi regime.

EuropeanSon

Sefirah wrote: »

Free speech and hate speech are two very different things. I can't even understand how anyone could compare such benign symbols as crosses and political party logos with that of the Nazi regime.

I didn't say we should all accept them and that they are great or anything like that. I merely pointed out the stupidity of the claim that just because we may tolerate something being said or portrayed, doesn't mean automatically (as the poster I quoted contended) that we support it.

Jonathan

TrollHammaren wrote: »

I still think the swastika episode at the ski trip is perfectly worth discussing, so I don't think it's a far shot off the main topic to continue the swastika debate, as long as it remains relevant.

I disagree.

This has turned into a discussion on "the meaning of the Swastika in modern society".

Doug Cartel

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I merely pointed out the stupidity of the claim that just because we may tolerate something being said or portrayed, doesn't mean automatically (as the poster I quoted contended) that we support it.

So you think blatant hate speak is a tolerable thing. You're a real prince.

TrollHammaren

Jonathan wrote: »

I disagree.

This has turned into a discussion on "the meaning of the Swastika in modern society".

"the meaning of the Swastika in modern society", and "anti-semitism does/doesn't occur in modern society" are off topic, I agree. Discussing whether or not it was just harmless fun for the students to draw swastikas, I reckon, is reasonable.

But yeah, I agree, "the meaning of the Swastika in modern society" is off topic.

EuropeanSon

Jonathan wrote: »

I disagree.

This has turned into a discussion on "the meaning of the Swastika in modern society".

Is it permissible to discuss whether potentially offensive acts should be permitted to safeguard free speech? It's very much central to the topic.

Doug Cartel

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Is it permissible to discuss whether potentially offensive acts should be permitted to safeguard free speech?

Anti-Semitic vandalism, committed by a drunken lout hardly falls under the banner of free speech.

EuropeanSon

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Anti-Semitic vandalism, committed by a drunken lout hardly falls under the banner of free speech.

What is it with people appearing not to be able to read on these forums?

Doug Cartel

Actually, how about this. I get boozed up beyond all reason and I take a piss on your rug. The nasty yellow stain that is left is an expression of my great love of getting bollixed.

What would your attitude be? Would you deplore of my artistic expression, while defending to the death my right to express it? Or would call me an asshole?

EuropeanSon

Doug Cartel wrote: »

So you think blatant hate speak is a tolerable thing. You're a real prince.

I never said I think it should be allowed, if you'd take the time to peruse my posts you'd notice this.
So, just to clear this up once and for all, do you think that if we allow these symbols to be portrayed we all automatically are anti-Jewish? That includes me, you, your grandmother, the local newsagent, everybody, because that is what was stated.

Jonathan

TrollHammaren wrote: »

Discussing whether or not it was just harmless fun for the students to draw swastikas, I reckon, is reasonable.

I would agree.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Is it permissible to discuss whether potentially offensive acts should be permitted to safeguard free speech? It's very much central to the topic.

Free speech? I don't see how vandalism is ever an acceptable method of delivering a message.



Thread lock is imminent...

EuropeanSon

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Actually, how about this. I get boozed up beyond all reason and I take a piss on your rug. The nasty yellow stain that is left is an expression of my great love of getting bollixed.

What would your attitude be? Would you deplore of my artistic expression, while defending to the death my right to express it? Or would call me an asshole?

Pleas read what I wrote before spouting any more such tripe.

Doug Cartel

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I never said I think it should be allowed, if you'd take the time to peruse my posts you'd notice this.
So, just to clear this up once and for all, do you think that if we allow these symbols to be portrayed we all automatically are anti-Jewish? That includes me, you, your grandmother, the local newsagent, everybody, because that is what was stated.

If we sit there and allow somebody to paint symbols of hate, when it is in our power to stop them, then to a degree we are culpable.

EuropeanSon

Jonathan wrote: »

I would agree.


Free speech? I don't see how vandalism is ever an acceptable method of delivering a message.



Thread lock is imminent...

Ok. I'm ONLY opposing the contention that we all must be considered racists if racism isn't punished. NOT that what they did should be allowed. Is it clear yet?

TrollHammaren

So yeah, those students; rascals, eh?

EuropeanSon

Doug Cartel wrote: »

If we sit there and allow somebody to paint symbols of hate, when it is in our power to stop them, then to a degree we are culpable.

Culpable for whatever harm may come from it, if any, possibly, but that is a separate argument. What you said is that we share their views. Very, very different.

Jonathan

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Ok. I'm ONLY opposing the contention that we all must be considered racists if racism isn't punished. NOT that what they did should be allowed. Is it clear yet?

Very clear. Humanities would be the forum for a debate like that.

Unregistered.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I never said I think it should be allowed, if you'd take the time to peruse my posts you'd notice this.

You were asking the question of weather it should be tolerated. Obviously, according to the University Times article and people who were on the ski trip, the ski resort and the French police found the behaviour of a few individuals intolerable.

Sure, they weren't expecting for it to be picked up by a *whatever you think about Alison O'Riordan* journalist and published in a National newspaper. But it has since been confirmed by some posters on here, so should you, I, or any Trinity student tolerate this sort of behaviour? Have College associated with these irresponsible asshats? Whether or not those directly involved were Trinity students?

marienbad

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Now that is, frankly, ridiculous. Have you heard of the concept of free speech at all?

Let's take a few examples of that taken to it's logical conclusion:

1) If we as a society allow those crescents and stars to remain (ie., any public display of a crescent moon and stars in Ireland), and don't take action against the people who put them up, it implies that we are all Muslims.

2) If we as a society allow those crosses (ie., any on public display) to remain, and don't take action against those who put them up, it implies that we are all Christians.

3) If we as a society allow those Sinn Féin/ Labour/ Fianna Fáil/ Fine Gael/ etc. election posters (which we'll see in the coming weeks) to remain, and don't take action against those who put them up, it implies that we all support Sinn Féin/ Labour/ Fianna Fáil/ Fine Gael.

Might be mildly confusing, if it were true.

Comparing all of the above to the swastika is just ridiculous. We all believe in the concept of free speech and the limitations of free speech. Painting a swastika on the wall in most European countries is deemed beyond the limits of free speech. And is so stated in law. If you and the students on this jolly are as well travelled as you say ,you should know this.

EuropeanSon

Unregistered. wrote: »

You were asking the question of weather it should be tolerated. Obviously, according to the University Times article and people who were on the ski trip, that the ski resort and the French police found the behaviour of a few individuals intolerable.

Sure, they weren't expecting for it to be picked up by a *whatever you thing about Alison O'Riordan * journalist and published in a National newspaper. But it has since been confirm by some posters on here, so should you, I or any Trinity student tolerate this sort of behaviour? Have our College associated with these irresponsible asshats? Whether or not those directly involved were Trinity students or not?

No, I wasn't. I was asking one question, and ONE QUESTION ONLY. That question was the one highlighted by Jonathan in his post.

I expected that Trinity students would have passable reading comprehension skills. Evidently not.

Unregistered.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

No, I wasn't. I was asking one question, and ONE QUESTION ONLY. That question was the one highlighted by Jonathan in his post.

I expected that Trinity students would have passable reading comprehension skills. Evidently not.

Excuse me:

EuropeanSon wrote: »

...whether potentially offensive acts should be permitted to safeguard free speech?

Sounds like you were asking if this "potentially offensive act" should be tolerated.

You may send me a PM if you wish to discuss my comprehension skills further.

Mark200

andrew wrote: »

I've heard some interesting rumours about who the author of the swastika was too...

From the way you said that, I think we may have heard the same thing...

I heard the rumour before this thread was even started

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I expected that Trinity students would have passable reading comprehension skills. Evidently not.

Well someone's getting a bit moody....

EuropeanSon

Unregistered. wrote: »

Excuse me:

Sounds like you were asking if this "potentially offensive act" should be tolerated.

You may send me a PM if you wish to discuss my comprehension skills further.

Where is the supposed "this"?

Unregistered.

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Where is the supposed "this"?

Swastikas.

andrew

Mark200 wrote: »

From the way you said that, I think we may have heard the same thing...

I heard the rumour before this thread was even started

And not a single newspaper mention...well, so far; there are 3 news rags in college.

Unregistered. wrote: »

THE ****ING THREAD TITLE YOU MORON.

Also, I believe EuropeanSon's point was a refutation of the point made that 'if this is tolerated, then it implies everyone still dislikes jews,' that is, the point he bolded in his original post. His point was that (i think) taken to it's logical conclusion, this would mean that anything said in a society in which free speech exists would imply support by that society of what was said, which is not true, as evidence by his examples.

Also, IBTL

gearoidof

ibtl!

Doug Cartel

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Culpable for whatever harm may come from it, if any, possibly, but that is a separate argument. What you said is that we share their views. Very, very different.

Well I cannot read a person's mind. I cannot know what their true views are, I can only guess them from their actions or inactions.

If a person performs an action that causes a certain group to feel unwelcome, and everyone else turns a blind eye, then by their actions I would have to guess that they also do not want that group to feel welcome.