Backlash Coming

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Pretty sure neither of you are using the term narcissist remotely correctly.

/insert inago montoya pic here

[lawdog77]

You're a narcissist. And you're hilariously painting lots of people you don't have a clue about with a broad brush.

But I'll tell you what, Smuggles ... I will apologize bigly right now if you really haven't supported the 91-felony criminal defendant or the party he now owns. Because if a person hasn't actually supported the criminal defendant, I can't think of a worse insult than saying that person has. So again, if you haven't, a million apologies.

My goodness, is there an unwritten by-law in the Scoop archives that 1 out of every 3 posts from you must reference Trump. And I dislike that guy immeasurably.

[4everwarriors]

Y'all are gonna soil ur Haggars if he iz elected da next POTUS, aina?

[tower912]

#Project 2025
# Red Caesar

I would miss democracy and mourn the end of the American experiment.

[Uncle Rico]

Y'all are gonna soil ur Hangars if he iz elected da next POTUS, aina?

I mean, you think democrats are the biggest threat to America, you might want to s(h)it this one out unless you want to do an underwear sharing program with MU82

[jesmu84]

Heisy with real Vivek/Russell Brand energy here

[Galway Eagle]

Y'all are gonna soil ur Hangars if he iz elected da next POTUS, aina?

I'd be happy to move out of the country again. Would prefer to stay in the states but I wouldn't mind a next to free MBA this time. 

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

Heisy with real Vivek/Russell Brand energy here

The question now is what damaging news dump is this is leading up to

[Jockey]

My goodness, is there an unwritten by-law in the Scoop archives that 1 out of every 3 posts from you must reference Trump. And I dislike that guy immeasurably.

I think a lot of 82's comments like that are in threads started by Heisy - where he is looking to attack "libs" by proxy.

Meaning: ESPN, Cities, Warren Buffet, Hollywood, Disney, Burning Man, the Wahington Post, Black athletes making money, plaudits for Tucker Carlson, Cable is dying (another anti-Disney thread), etc., etc.

So why are you offended by 82's posts that obviously reference politics, but have no problem with Heisy's, which do the same? It seems you are only offended when trump is insulted.

[Hards Alumni]

No, what he is saying is it is borderline obnoxious bringing up Trump and Putin in every thread.  The same way 4elder and rocket bring up "the buffoon".

Both can be exhausting to read over and over again.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

No, what he is saying is it is borderline obnoxious bringing up Trump and Putin in every thread.  The same way 4elder and rocket bring up "the buffoon".

Both can be exhausting to read over and over again.

Yep.

[Not A Serious Person]

Hey Sultan, did this law firm break the law?

N.Y.U. Law Student Sends Anti-Israel Message and Loses a Job Offer
The controversy is the latest sign of the deep divide on campuses over the Hamas attack that killed more than 1,000 people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/us/nyu-law-harvard-hamas-israel.html

[Not A Serious Person]

More law-breaking Sultan

Twelve Influential CEOs Support Bill Ackman’s Stance Against Hiring Anti-Israel Harvard Students
https://vigourtimes.com/powerful-support-twelve-influential-ceos-support-bill-ackmans-stance-against-hiring-anti-israel-harvard-students/

[Not A Serious Person]

In Dual Open Letters, Thousands of Harvard Students, Alumni, and Faculty Blast Student Groups’ Israel Statement
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/10/11/dual-statements-criticize-psc/

Thousands of Harvard affiliates signed a joint statement published Tuesday condemning the deadly attack on Israel by militant group Hamas and calling for the retraction of student group signatures on a statement that held Israel “entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.”

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Hey Sultan, did this law firm break the law?

N.Y.U. Law Student Sends Anti-Israel Message and Loses a Job Offer
The controversy is the latest sign of the deep divide on campuses over the Hamas attack that killed more than 1,000 people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/us/nyu-law-harvard-hamas-israel.html

Obviously not. But that's not exactly what I was talking about.  I suggested that it was *possibly* against the law to refuse to hire members of a certain student group solely based on their membership in that group.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

(See how easy that is?)

[Not A Serious Person]

Obviously not. But that's not exactly what I was talking about.  I suggested that it was *possibly* against the law to refuse to hire members of a certain student group solely based on their membership in that group.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

(See how easy that is?)

Let's go to the next (and harder) step.

First, let's remind everyone what you said about potential employers not wanting to hire those who are not willing to condemn the slaughter of women and children by those who committed the slaughter.

That seems like a complete overreaction and possibly illegal.

Do you still think the potential employers are committing a "complete" overreaction?" And if so, what do you think is the appropriate reaction to those who will not condemn the beheading of 40 children?

Should any Jew be subjected to working with someone who will not condemn this? If so, are you ok with minorities being subject to someone who sympathizes with the KKK?

[WhiteTrash]

You all are lending way to credibility to a small group of rich hate mongers.

They deserve to be ignored like white supremacist. Their moral compass points the same, just different target of hate.

[Not A Serious Person]

Well no, too often you post opinions that aren't inherently a logos thought process they're rooted in a pathos argument. If you remove any emotional component of what they said and put it into a truth table then it becomes:

Did Israel establish an apartheid state? Yes

Did Israel commit human rights abuses? Yes

Is it a right of someone to want to fight back from human rights abuses? Yes

Now comes what you did which was post it on the belief that the fight back went too far (I 100% agree with this) but that's not a logical argument it's a pathos one. Heck one could argue that depending which ethical philosophy one is adhering to that it's not even an ethos argument. So it's well within those groups rights to post that statement as it stands up as true. It's also true but not logical that everyone else had a visceral emotional reaction to it because of the vile attacks that were carried out.

TLDR; what you call a logos argument is often a pathos argument.

I'll be charitable and assume you are a confused and ignorant person and not a Jew-hating blood-thirsty anti-semite. Because what you wrote is the latter.

Hamas is not asking for a two-state solution. Hamas has made it abundantly clear that only want one thing ... the death of every Jew. They celebrate it. They put out the horrific videos for the world to see. At least Hitler tried to hide it with his Final Solution. Hamas wants the world to see the Jews they killed only because they are Jews.

And, keep this in mind, this past weekend was the biggest attack and loss of life against Jews, because they were Jews, since the Holocaust. (bigger than the 1967 and 1973 wars).

So, I ask again, are you in agreement that Hamas only wants to kill every Jew on the Planet, not find a compromise with Israel? Or are you going to bastardized what Hamas has said to conform to some ignorant worldview you hold?

I'll stop here and see if you want to take the noose off your neck or kick the chair out from under your feet.

[Pakuni]

You all are lending way to credibility to a small group of rich hate mongers.

This is an unfair stereotype of hedge fund managers.

[jesmu84]

Hamas =/= Palestine/Palestinians

[WhiteTrash]

This is an unfair stereotype of hedge fund managers.

Lol.

[Galway Eagle]

I'll be charitable and assume you are a confused and ignorant person and not a Jew-hating blood-thirsty anti-semite. Because what you wrote is the latter.

Hamas is not asking for a two-state solution. Hamas has made it abundantly clear that only want one thing ... the death of every Jew. They celebrate it. They put out the horrific videos for the world to see. At least Hitler tried to hide it with his Final Solution. Hamas wants the world to see the Jews they killed only because they are Jews.

And, keep this in mind, this past weekend was the biggest attack and loss of life against Jews, because they were Jews, since the Holocaust. (bigger than the 1967 and 1973 wars).

So, I ask again, are you in agreement that Hamas only wants to kill every Jew on the Planet, not find a compromise with Israel? Or are you going to bastardized what Hamas has said to conform to some ignorant worldview you hold?

I'll stop here and see if you want to take the noose off your neck or kick the chair out from under your feet.

more emotion, not logic. Nowhere did I ever hate on Jewish people. Nowhere did I bring religion into this. Nowhere did I call for war. See this is why people say "you failed logic."

I agree, didn't I say these were horrendous action? A logical person wouldve read "the fight back went too far (I 100% agree with this)" and thought "oh he must think it was wrong what hamas did." Again you failed logic because you're caught in emotion.

Yes it was horrific, I said in an earlier post that their statement missed the mark entirely.

What ignorant world view is that? Could you please tell me? Because you haven't put together a logical formulation critiquing any bit of what was said only a bunch of emotional crap and thinly veiled insults.

I absolutely disdain what hamas did and their message, which seems to be mainly against Israel the state though there are some anti Jewish sentiments that I suppose given the information I can agree they want to exterminate the Jewish religion. That does not invalidate a single thing that I listed as true in our logic exercise.

[WhiteTrash]

Hamas =/= Palestine/Palestinians

Great, now we have to do math.

[MUBurrow]

Doesn't the argument for this being potentially illegal go something like - nearly all of the groups that signed onto this letter are racial in nature, and so automatically stating that you would not hire anyone from those groups is racial discrimination?

In a vaccuum saying that "We wont hire anyone from the Harvard Islamic Society or the Harvard Kennedy School South Asia Caucus" is obviously no bueno.  I'm not an employment lawyer, so I'm not going to pretend to know the next step in that analysis, or whether objection to the letter is sufficient to meet a legal standard to make that permissible.

[Pakuni]

Doesn't the argument for this being potentially illegal go something like - nearly all of the groups that signed onto this letter are racial in nature, and so automatically stating that you would not hire anyone from those groups is racial discrimination?

In a vaccuum saying that "We wont hire anyone from the Harvard Islamic Society or the Harvard Kennedy School South Asia Caucus" is obviously no bueno.  I'm not an employment lawyer, so I'm not going to pretend to know the next step in that analysis, or whether objection to the letter is sufficient to meet a legal standard to make that permissible.

Not an expert on labor law, but I believe the discrimination has to be based on the protected class (i.e. because someone is Muslim or Palestinian). You can still refuse to hire someone who belongs to a protected class for reasons unrelated to that.