You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-20 points

The threat…

Morehouse College might halt graduation ‘on the spot’ if there are disruptions when President Biden speaks

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/16/us/morehouse-college-graduation-biden-commencement/index.html

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

I know that if I was a Palestine protestor, and President Biden was going to speak, and the college said that they would immediately just end the ceremony if things got too out of hand, I would immediately think “Well that definitely wouldn’t be a good outcome. I better quiet down; I was going to have this big protest, but if it’ll end the commencement ceremony entirely, then I won’t, because that would attract some attention to the cause I’m trying to promote. It might make the news or something. I’m scared of that outcome and wouldn’t want it to happen; that threat is effective.”

Your conclusion makes perfect sense that the crowd was mostly filled with people who were seething with contempt for Joe Biden, but cowed into obedient sitting-facing-towards-him by the threat that if they made too much ruckus, it would successfully disrupt the event.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

How many Palestinian graduates were there at the HBCU today, genius?

Also, half the staff didn’t want Biden there…

In a split vote, Morehouse faculty votes to award Biden an honorary doctorate.

A procedural oversight turned the faculty vote into a way for staff members to voice their opposition to Biden’s visit. The vote was 50-38, with roughly a dozen people abstaining.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/morehouse-college-vote-award-biden-honorary-doctorate-degree-rcna151990

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

I notice that this conversation has a very particular type of flow – Innuendo Studios talked about this in Never Play Defense.

Actually, I went back and looked at it’s significantly worse than the example the video constructs. The video’s example was dishonest, but the exchange was actually pretty coherent. I think this message is a particularly strong example of the flow you’ve been doing – where I say the protestors are right and I’m glad that Biden is letting them speak and hope he will take their message on board because what he’s doing right now is wrong, and then you get all hostile while lecturing me that not everyone who disagrees with Biden is a Republican. The Republicans in the video are never bad-faith to that comical a level, although the overall flow of “wild new assertion / coherent response / repeat” is pretty similar.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

This doesn’t at all say they had to do this “or else,” it only talks about disruptions, not protests, and no one was compelled to be there. You literally started this thread with an article about some students who protested without causing a disruption, dufus

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

If you’re expecting coherence (or truth) out of ozma’s unhinged complaints, you’re expecting waaaaay too much.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 387K

    Comments