Harvard orders professors to remove Black Lives Matter sign from office window

[ll74]

If people want to put that slogan on homes they own, that is up to them. The professors who put the sign up do not own Harvard.

So your support their ability to put signs in their windows supporting their own positions, even those which you disagree with

Thanks for confirming

 

[JohnEngelman]

So your support their ability to put signs in their windows supporting their own positions, even those which you disagree with

Thanks for confirming

I only support the right of people to post political signs on what they own. Even then, they should not be allowed to incite violence.

 

[HisArpy]

Well, at least it's better than your toothless mumbling. How often do you have to go out at night now?

<-- is not an owl. Does like fish, just not fishwives who screech like fingernails on a chalkboard.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Omg- wow you really come informed with facts bahahhahahahaha. You admit you live in an isolated county, didn't know Trump doesn’t take a salary for being POTUS, and reference a nuclear agreement you admit you know nothing about. Stick with criticizing your own President, Prime Minister, or island tribal chief- you know nothing about America, American politics, Trump’s accomplishments, or how things work here. I’m sure your 1000 year old country’s residents have their finger on the pulse of American/International politics. Change your VCR tapes, Jimmy Carter is no longer President.

Show me where Trump isn't taking a Salary. IT really doesn't matter because he's making more money from his grift than he would have made in all 8 years s president. I know about the nuclear agreement which is why I brought it up. I know a great deal about America. My country depending on when you want to date from is roughly 250 years old but that's a bit dishonest as a claim.

 

[NewEnglandGuy7575]

Well, that raises the question of how people will look back on the reign of ‘President’ Trump in twenty years' time. It will probably depend a lot on who you ask.

The North American Western Union, which includes the remnants of the Pacific coastal states minus Alaska, will probably be quite happy about what an incompetent douchebag he will have been. They are finally independent.

The Texans who are part of Greater Mexico won't be so happy, since he's such a loser, as they slowly get used to the idea of being Mexican. What has reconciled them is that Texan English is a recognised minority language in Greater Mexico.

The North American Union, primarily Canada, Alaska and most of the landlocked states of the former USA will be very pleased. They are finally Canadian. A well-organised country with good health care and friends all over the world. Since the Canadians are so friendly, they don't call the entire country Canada to make it easy for the former Americans to integrate. After the hunger riots and the terrible diseases before the collapse of the USA, the survivors need that too.

The former EU, to which the entire east coast belongs and which has rebuilt the continent in close cooperation with Greater Mexico, the North American Western Union and, of course, the North American Union, naturally recognises the great effort it has cost the Europeans. This is also the reason why Canada did not simply integrate the former USA completely. It would simply have cost too much. China had offered to participate, but the others didn't want to.

To summarise, everyone agrees that it was the last nail in the coffin of the USA.

Yawwwwwnnnnnn. You are living in a fantasy world. The last time I heard something so far-fetched was that crackhead Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation” or better yet “Biden is spry, totally competent, never better and his only problem is he stutters.

America has never been stronger than right now. However, there will be hollow-headed people like you who literally oppose locking up criminals and are “anti” National Guard and ICE. Tell me in what world does it make sense for a city like Chicago to be against bringing in the National Guard to help stop the violence. There were 58 shootings last weekend. Libs KNOW that Trump isnt sending the NG there for a “federal takeover” of the city- it is to quell the violence and save lives.
The issue is when it works the dems will have to make something else up to cry about. They can’t blame the crime on the usual people they blame it on.
Just like your story is beyond fantasy, so are the anti- crime, anti-police, pro-illegals and criminals, pro- pronouns and anti family nutjobs who think men can have babies and think doing the OPPOSITE of all that is good and wholesome in this world is what the future will look like. News flash- You who disparage the US and DJT have already
lost.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Yawwwwwnnnnnn. You are living in a fantasy world. The last time I heard something so far-fetched was that crackhead Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation” or better yet “Biden is spry, totally competent, never better and his only problem is he stutters.

America has never been stronger than right now. However, there will be hollow-headed people like you who literally oppose locking up criminals and are “anti” National Guard and ICE. Tell me in what world does it make sense for a city like Chicago to be against bringing in the National Guard to help stop the violence. There were 58 shootings last weekend. Libs KNOW that Trump isnt sending the NG there for a “federal takeover” of the city- it is to quell the violence and save lives.
The issue is when it works the dems will have to make something else up to cry about. They can’t blame the crime on the usual people they blame it on.
Just like your story is beyond fantasy, so are the anti- crime, anti-police, pro-illegals and criminals, pro- pronouns and anti family nutjobs who think men can have babies and think doing the OPPOSITE of all that is good and wholesome in this world is what the future will look like. News flash- You who disparage the US and DJT have already
lost.

Well then, let's assume your post wasn't dumpspeak right-wing nationalist and clueless gibberish. Let's assume you were a civilised person asking kindly why deploying troops against (yes, against) the own population is not a good idea.

There are several compelling reasons why deploying soldiers against one's own population is widely considered a bad practice. This action undermines fundamental democratic principles, legal frameworks, and human rights.
The core purpose of a military is to defend a nation from external threats, while the police are tasked with maintaining domestic order. When a government uses soldiers against its own citizens, it blurs this crucial distinction. This act is a severe breach of the social contract, suggesting that the state views its people as a hostile force rather than as citizens it is meant to protect. This can lead to a breakdown of trust and the potential for greater conflict.
Soldiers are trained to neutralise enemies and use lethal force in combat situations. Their tactics, mindset, and equipment are not designed for crowd control, de-escalation, or community policing. Deploying them in a civil setting dramatically increases the risk of unnecessary violence and casualties. In contrast, police are trained in de-escalation techniques and are equipped with non-lethal options to manage protests and civil unrest with minimal harm.
The use of military force against a population is often accompanied by serious human rights abuses. This can include arbitrary arrests, torture, extrajudicial killings, and the suppression of fundamental freedoms like the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. International human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International, consistently condemn such actions as violations of international law. A government that resorts to this measure signals a disregard for the rights and dignity of its own people.
A healthy democracy relies on the principle of civilian control of the military. Using the armed forces to enforce domestic policy or quell dissent can lead to the militarisation of the state and the erosion of democratic institutions. It sets a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the door to authoritarian rule or military coups. In a functional democracy, political and social disputes are resolved through dialogue, law, and peaceful protest, not through the barrel of a gun.

I know there are many words you don't understand, like human rights or dignity. Try Wikipedia for an explanation. In case you have problems with the longer ones, feel free to ask.

 

[HisArpy]

Well then, let's assume your post wasn't dumpspeak right-wing nationalist and clueless gibberish. Let's assume you were a civilised person asking kindly why deploying troops against (yes, against) the own population is not a good idea.

There are several compelling reasons why deploying soldiers against one's own population is widely considered a bad practice. This action undermines fundamental democratic principles, legal frameworks, and human rights.
The core purpose of a military is to defend a nation from external threats, while the police are tasked with maintaining domestic order. When a government uses soldiers against its own citizens, it blurs this crucial distinction. This act is a severe breach of the social contract, suggesting that the state views its people as a hostile force rather than as citizens it is meant to protect. This can lead to a breakdown of trust and the potential for greater conflict.
Soldiers are trained to neutralise enemies and use lethal force in combat situations. Their tactics, mindset, and equipment are not designed for crowd control, de-escalation, or community policing. Deploying them in a civil setting dramatically increases the risk of unnecessary violence and casualties. In contrast, police are trained in de-escalation techniques and are equipped with non-lethal options to manage protests and civil unrest with minimal harm.
The use of military force against a population is often accompanied by serious human rights abuses. This can include arbitrary arrests, torture, extrajudicial killings, and the suppression of fundamental freedoms like the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech. International human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International, consistently condemn such actions as violations of international law. A government that resorts to this measure signals a disregard for the rights and dignity of its own people.
A healthy democracy relies on the principle of civilian control of the military. Using the armed forces to enforce domestic policy or quell dissent can lead to the militarisation of the state and the erosion of democratic institutions. It sets a dangerous precedent, potentially opening the door to authoritarian rule or military coups. In a functional democracy, political and social disputes are resolved through dialogue, law, and peaceful protest, not through the barrel of a gun.

I know there are many words you don't understand, like human rights or dignity. Try Wikipedia for an explanation. In case you have problems with the longer ones, feel free to ask.

While on the surface this appears to be rational it omits certain key fundamentals. One being that certain criminals are violent and cannot easily be brought before the law. In order to do that, your treatise also omits the second factor in that the police are a militarized force which carries weapons and is also authorized to use them against members of society as required.

In essence there is no real difference between a militarized police force and the military except in the issue of who is in command. They carry the same weaponry and have the same tactical training and operations as well as mutual aid support agreements should any specific force need additional assistance.

Mutual aid agreements which are encapsulated in the Constitutional ability of the President to mobilize the National Guard should it be necessary to protect the public and enforce order.

Thus, your only real argument isn't that the NG can't be used, or that the police are "different" from military forces, it's that TRUMP is the one using them to restore order.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

While on the surface this appears to be rational it omits certain key fundamentals. One being that certain criminals are violent and cannot easily be brought before the law. In order to do that, your treatise also omits the second factor in that the police are a militarized force which carries weapons and is also authorized to use them against members of society as required.

In essence there is no real difference between a militarized police force and the military except in the issue of who is in command. They carry the same weaponry and have the same tactical training and operations as well as mutual aid support agreements should any specific force need additional assistance.

Mutual aid agreements which are encapsulated in the Constitutional ability of the President to mobilize the National Guard should it be necessary to protect the public and enforce order.

Thus, your only real argument isn't that the NG can't be used, or that the police are "different" from military forces, it's that TRUMP is the one using them to restore order.

It was clear that you needed help with the longer words.

A military unit is fundamentally unsuited for police duties due to its inherent nature, training, and legal framework, all of which are oriented towards warfare, not civilian law enforcement.

The primary objective of a military force is to defeat a hostile enemy, typically through lethal force and the application of maximum violence. This is a warfighting mindset focused on achieving strategic victory and neutralizing threats. Military training instills this mentality, teaching soldiers to use overwhelming force and to view any opposition as an existential threat to be eliminated.
In contrast, the objective of a police force is to maintain public order and enforce the law with the minimum necessary force. The police operate on a civilian law enforcement mindset, where their primary duty is to protect citizens, de-escalate conflicts, and apprehend suspects for judicial processing, not to kill or destroy. This fundamental difference in purpose makes the military's approach to conflict resolution a direct mismatch for the complexities of domestic policing.

The legal basis for military operations is governed by the laws of armed conflict, such as the Geneva Conventions, which are designed for combat between states. These laws permit actions—like lethal force against non-combatants in certain circumstances, or the detention of enemy combatants without trial—that are entirely illegal and unconstitutional in a civilian context.
Conversely, police action is strictly constrained by domestic criminal law, constitutional rights, and rules of evidence. Police officers must adhere to principles like proportionality of force, the presumption of innocence, and due process. This legal framework requires a nuanced approach to individual rights and liberties that is foreign to military doctrine.

Military training is highly specialised for combat operations, focusing on lethal marksmanship, large-scale manoeuvres, and the use of heavy weaponry. The equipment—assault rifles, armoured vehicles, and explosives—is designed for maximum destructive potential.
Police training, conversely, emphasises de-escalation, conflict resolution, and community engagement. Police officers are trained in verbal judo, non-lethal apprehension techniques, and the use of equipment like batons and tasers, which are intended to incapacitate without causing fatal harm. Deploying a military unit with its combat-oriented training and weaponry to a civilian policing situation introduces an extreme risk of escalation and disproportionate force, turning a civil disturbance into a deadly confrontation.

 

[Bn2f]

While on the surface this appears to be rational it omits certain key fundamentals.

It was clear that you needed help with the longer words.

This member didn’t even argue from the perspective of an American and STILL handed you your ass. HisA woke up this morning thinking a shot of vodka and Red Bull gives you wings. F’in fascist boot licking twatnozzle.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

This member didn’t even argue from the perspective of an American and STILL handed you your ass. HisA woke up this morning thinking a shot of vodka and Red Bull gives you wings. F’in fascist boot licking twatnozzle.

Thank you kind sir.

 

[Bn2f]

Thank you kind sir.

This member has a long history of misogyny displayed in him going out of his way to attack other members that he perceives as being gendered as female for the most vanilla of political posts. It’s sickening to see. You have already, no doubt and unfortunately, discovered that. You’re an adult with cogent, well informed opinions and handled yourself quite well. Welcome new member to the “I ALSO KICKED HISa IN HIS PROVERBIAL NUTS AND HAVE A T-SHIRT TO PROVE IT” club.

 

[HisArpy]

It was clear that you needed help with the longer words.

A military unit is fundamentally unsuited for police duties due to its inherent nature, training, and legal framework, all of which are oriented towards warfare, not civilian law enforcement.

The primary objective of a military force is to defeat a hostile enemy, typically through lethal force and the application of maximum violence. This is a warfighting mindset focused on achieving strategic victory and neutralizing threats. Military training instills this mentality, teaching soldiers to use overwhelming force and to view any opposition as an existential threat to be eliminated.
In contrast, the objective of a police force is to maintain public order and enforce the law with the minimum necessary force. The police operate on a civilian law enforcement mindset, where their primary duty is to protect citizens, de-escalate conflicts, and apprehend suspects for judicial processing, not to kill or destroy. This fundamental difference in purpose makes the military's approach to conflict resolution a direct mismatch for the complexities of domestic policing.

The legal basis for military operations is governed by the laws of armed conflict, such as the Geneva Conventions, which are designed for combat between states. These laws permit actions—like lethal force against non-combatants in certain circumstances, or the detention of enemy combatants without trial—that are entirely illegal and unconstitutional in a civilian context.
Conversely, police action is strictly constrained by domestic criminal law, constitutional rights, and rules of evidence. Police officers must adhere to principles like proportionality of force, the presumption of innocence, and due process. This legal framework requires a nuanced approach to individual rights and liberties that is foreign to military doctrine.

Military training is highly specialised for combat operations, focusing on lethal marksmanship, large-scale manoeuvres, and the use of heavy weaponry. The equipment—assault rifles, armoured vehicles, and explosives—is designed for maximum destructive potential.
Police training, conversely, emphasises de-escalation, conflict resolution, and community engagement. Police officers are trained in verbal judo, non-lethal apprehension techniques, and the use of equipment like batons and tasers, which are intended to incapacitate without causing fatal harm. Deploying a military unit with its combat-oriented training and weaponry to a civilian policing situation introduces an extreme risk of escalation and disproportionate force, turning a civil disturbance into a deadly confrontation.

Fundamentally you're wrong on the objectives of the military and its use of force.

The military's basic task is to subdue an opposing force. To do this they are AUTHORIZED to use maximum force. That doesn't mean that they HAVE to use that force, only that they're authorized to use it.

If there's no opposition, there's no use of force. This is historically the norm as one can see that "liberated" territories as well as sympathetic lands do not see force used against them.

Further, the military is indeed capable of administering areas under their control. Once again we can turn to history to see many examples of military generals who are also adjunct governors. Under military administration those lands did equally as well as lands under civilian administration.

And of course we have situations where Martial Law has been declared in which the military rules absolutely and without equivocation. And again, historically those situations have led to stability in the society under Martial Law until civilian government can once again be placed in control.

In the end your argument isn't that the military isn't suited, it's that TRUMP is the one in control of said military. This is obvious not only by the tone/tenor of your snide commentary but also by the omission of key factors which negate your entire argument. I'm not sure if this is intentional, based on your tone/tenor, or if it's because you're stupid and ignorant of history and the real world.

Not that it matters since the overall outcome is that you're powerless to do much more than screech the same tired old song that has no traction among the people directly affected. People who are tired of being preyed upon by the criminals the civilian government does nothing to stop and in fact encourages to commit further lawlessness against society.

Which, on second thought, appears to be your goal as well. Leading me to wonder if you're not one of those who prey instead of pray.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Fundamentally you're wrong on the objectives of the military and its use of force.

The military's basic task is to subdue an opposing force. To do this they are AUTHORIZED to use maximum force. That doesn't mean that they HAVE to use that force, only that they're authorized to use it.

If there's no opposition, there's no use of force. This is historically the norm as one can see that "liberated" territories as well as sympathetic lands do not see force used against them.

Further, the military is indeed capable of administering areas under their control. Once again we can turn to history to see many examples of military generals who are also adjunct governors. Under military administration those lands did equally as well as lands under civilian administration.

And of course we have situations where Martial Law has been declared in which the military rules absolutely and without equivocation. And again, historically those situations have led to stability in the society under Martial Law until civilian government can once again be placed in control.

In the end your argument isn't that the military isn't suited, it's that TRUMP is the one in control of said military. This is obvious not only by the tone/tenor of your snide commentary but also by the omission of key factors which negate your entire argument. I'm not sure if this is intentional, based on your tone/tenor, or if it's because you're stupid and ignorant of history and the real world.

Not that it matters since the overall outcome is that you're powerless to do much more than screech the same tired old song that has no traction among the people directly affected. People who are tired of being preyed upon by the criminals the civilian government does nothing to stop and in fact encourages to commit further lawlessness against society.

Which, on second thought, appears to be your goal as well. Leading me to wonder if you're not one of those who prey instead of pray.

Your distrust of the police is as pathetic as your trust in Trump is ridiculous. The ‘man’ can't even control his own business without going bankrupt and you think he can control the military?
How does he do that? Does he threaten them with tariffs?

Concentrating all state power in one person like the Trump groups and shysters try to achieve, including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, is undemocratic because it eliminates the system of checks and balances that is fundamental to a democratic state.
Why a Concentration of Power is Undemocratic
A single person holding all three powers (executive, legislative, and judicial) creates a situation where there is no oversight or accountability. This is contrary to the core principles of democracy, which include the separation of powers and the rule of law.

When one person controls all three, they can enact any law they wish, enforce it without challenge, and be the final arbiter of any disputes, including those involving their own actions. This structure is prone to tyranny and the suppression of individual rights, as the leader is not subject to any legal or political restraint.
In a democratic system, each branch acts as a check on the others to prevent the abuse of power. For example, the legislature can impeach a president (executive), the judiciary can declare a law passed by the legislature unconstitutional, and the executive can veto laws passed by the legislature. This mutual oversight ensures that no single entity becomes too powerful. Without this separation, the state would not be able to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

And again, soldiers are trained to shoot and not not to shoot.

 

[HisArpy]

Your distrust of the police is as pathetic as your trust in Trump is ridiculous. The ‘man’ can't even control his own business without going bankrupt and you think he can control the military?
How does he do that? Does he threaten them with tariffs?

Concentrating all state power in one person like the Trump groups and shysters try to achieve, including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, is undemocratic because it eliminates the system of checks and balances that is fundamental to a democratic state.
Why a Concentration of Power is Undemocratic
A single person holding all three powers (executive, legislative, and judicial) creates a situation where there is no oversight or accountability. This is contrary to the core principles of democracy, which include the separation of powers and the rule of law.

When one person controls all three, they can enact any law they wish, enforce it without challenge, and be the final arbiter of any disputes, including those involving their own actions. This structure is prone to tyranny and the suppression of individual rights, as the leader is not subject to any legal or political restraint.
In a democratic system, each branch acts as a check on the others to prevent the abuse of power. For example, the legislature can impeach a president (executive), the judiciary can declare a law passed by the legislature unconstitutional, and the executive can veto laws passed by the legislature. This mutual oversight ensures that no single entity becomes too powerful. Without this separation, the state would not be able to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

And again, soldiers are trained to shoot and not not to shoot.

But, but, Trump!!! isn't an argument. It does, however, highlight that your thinking is deficient and your emotional control non-existent.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

But, but, Trump!!! isn't an argument. It does, however, highlight that your thinking is deficient and your emotional control non-existent.

You brought the this excuse for a man to the discussion, neo me.

 

[HisArpy]

You brought the this excuse for a man to the discussion, neo me.

No, you did. You just didn't type the name and instead decided to slink around the edges and denigrate what Trump is doing without actually standing up and facing the slings and arrows you knew would be coming your way.

Or, to put it baldly, you acted like a coward and now want to cry about being caught at it.

Fuck off with your childish ideas and act.

 

[Rebel5soul]

While on the surface this appears to be rational it omits certain key fundamentals. One being that certain criminals are violent and cannot easily be brought before the law. In order to do that, your treatise also omits the second factor in that the police are a militarized force which carries weapons and is also authorized to use them against members of society as required.

In essence there is no real difference between a militarized police force and the military except in the issue of who is in command. They carry the same weaponry and have the same tactical training and operations as well as mutual aid support agreements should any specific force need additional assistance.

Mutual aid agreements which are encapsulated in the Constitutional ability of the President to mobilize the National Guard should it be necessary to protect the public and enforce order.

Thus, your only real argument isn't that the NG can't be used, or that the police are "different" from military forces, it's that TRUMP is the one using them to restore order.

You might also point out that the military has ALWAYS been called out in times of disaster or civil disturbance. It is a transient deployment. Whereas the bloviating harridan's premise is built around the notion of a permanent deployment.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

No, you did. You just didn't type the name and instead decided to slink around the edges and denigrate what Trump is doing without actually standing up and facing the slings and arrows you knew would be coming your way.

Or, to put it baldly, you acted like a coward and now want to cry about being caught at it.

Fuck off with your childish ideas and act.

You are pathetic.
I've taken the time to show you where you're wrong, and there's a lot to show, and you're calling me names?
You're not just pathetic, you're weak. You owe the amused audience of your self-revelation just as much as a single, reasonable argument as to how I am a coward.

 

[HisArpy]

You might also point out that the military has ALWAYS been called out in times of disaster or civil disturbance. It is a transient deployment. Whereas the bloviating harridan's premise is built around the notion of a permanent deployment.

It's possible that the aforementioned account is Orfeo returned. It has that preliminary testing of the waters feel that all of his other accounts have processed through until the ban hammering. Very logical if simplistic and supremely biased toward one overall theme.

 

[HisArpy]

You are pathetic.
I've taken the time to show you where you're wrong, and there's a lot to show, and you're calling me names?
You're not just pathetic, you're weak. You owe the amused audience of your self-revelation just as much as a single, reasonable argument as to how I am a coward.

Your arguments are childish and without any real logical premise or foundation. They are the talking points of a simpleton who isn't here to debate/discuss, they're pronouncements of an alternate reality which fails to encompass all of the facts and factors.

Your response is also telling in how childish you are in your thinking and actions.

 

[Meekly_Anna]

Your arguments are childish and without any real logical premise or foundation. They are the talking points of a simpleton who isn't here to debate/discuss, they're pronouncements of an alternate reality which fails to encompass all of the facts and factors.

Your response is also telling in how childish you are in your thinking and actions.

I'm bored.
You are repeating yourself. Get a life and stay there.

 

[HisArpy]

I'm bored.
You are repeating yourself. Get a life and stay there.

It's obvious you're bored, otherwise you wouldn't come here and think disrupting the board is "fun."

We can also tell that the reason you're bored is because you're boring. something you should work on instead of being bored and disrupting the board with your nonsense.