Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are so many lies being made about Malia Bouattia? watch

    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Omen96)
    Haha you people are desperate to protect her image. Unfortunately for you, there is no protecting her from the countless pro terrorism, pro extremism, anti-White, anti-male and pro Islam statements/views
    What are you talking about? SERIOUSLY WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

    I DON'T EVEN LIKE HER, I SAID SHE CALLS HERSELF BLACK WHEN SHE ISN'T. ARE YOU BLIND, ILLITERATE OR BOTH?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dinasaurus)
    What are you talking about? SERIOUSLY WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

    I DON'T EVEN LIKE HER, I SAID SHE CALLS HERSELF BLACK WHEN SHE ISN'T. ARE YOU BLIND, ILLITERATE OR BOTH?
    It was not directed to you
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oilfreak1)
    top 10 by which rankings? some of the universities that are in the domestic top 10 for example are among the least influential and pretty crap, with literally just a guardian ranking to shout about. Why would a postgrad/post doc student want these inferior universities representing them?

    Some of the universities with the greatest research profiles and largest global influence are middling in domestic tables, why would a 6th former accept a middling university to represent the NUS?

    Maybe we could go by "top 10" entry standards, that is at the very least consistent year in year out. Just writing this comment to point out how retarded going by top 10 is.

    There are literally only 2 universities in the UK that can be considered elite. And then we have 2 highly specialized universities and a multi-faculty. These universities, while great when compared to other universities will forever be in the shadows of the 2 elites. The NUS should be run by 2 universities, 4 if being generous, 5 just to be inclusive.

    Imperial / LSE aren't considered elite? Damn your standards are high.

    No. The point is some Universities are generally and securely better than others (I actually agree on your point about using entry standards)

    That's already 4. And I can think of another 6.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JezWeCan!)
    Yes.

    The NUS are a bunch of teenage Trots and pencil case Pol Pots.

    They should restrict their activities to campaigning on issues of import to students.

    When they get onto complicated, grown up subjects like the Israel/Palestine problem they just make themselves look like the bunch of childish idiots they are.

    And don't get me started on No Platforming...
    As much as I agree with everything else in your post, I don't think that means the President shouldn't be able to express their political views
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    That is precisely the point I'm trying to make. She, as many others, may want to better understand the concept before making conclusive statements about Zionism.
    I don't think I'm explaining myself very well here because that isn't really what I'm saying. I don't think we can infer what she knows about Zionism from the quotes we're discussing. What I'm saying is that Zionism is defined very differently by different organisations and people, and so we shouldn't be drawing hasty conclusions about what she must mean when she talks about Zionism. We don't know what she means when she says Zionism because we don't know how she's defining it. For example, we don't know whether or not she agrees with Israel's 'right to exist'.

    If we're just saying it was unwise of her to use language that could have been interpreted differently to how she intended, then yes indeed. But I don't have the context to hand and I can't recall whether that did make the meaning explicit.

    I think we should also be careful when talking about Israel's right to exist. It's not a straw man, but it's very appeal-to-the-stone-esque. It's very easy to say 'oh, you aren't a Zionist? Then you don't believe Israel has a right to exist? That's horrendous!'. It glosses over a lot of the important subtleties and ambiguities. For example, it's not as clear cut as such arguments seem to make out that Israel does have a right to exist. It didn't exist until 70 years ago, and it's establishment was (and still is) controversial. I'm not saying it doesn't have the right to exist because I'm not nearly familiar enough with the details to be able to draw a sensible conclusion, but it is controversial.

    And what do we even mean by a 'right to exist', anyway? One might argue that Israel shouldn't have been established but, given that it was, that it should continue to exist. Would such a person be considered to support Israel's right to exist? Would they be considered a supporter of Zionism? If a country has a right to exist, are we saying it has right to exist as it currently is, that it has a right to sovereingty over the lands it currently controls, or just that it has a right to exist in some form or another in some place? Or something different? Ambiguity is abundant.


    Again, it's her full right to criticise Israel's policies and its state of affairs. But when one fails to fully understand the intricacies of Zionism, it's reckless, especially for someone in her position, to make comments on it.
    Okay. I don't really know how much she understands about Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


    In my previous posts, I stated that a large number of Jews (90% of British Jews, for example) "support its right to exist" (https://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets...port-FINAL.PDF). Accordingly, this concept is at the heart of Zionism. I was drawing on the similarities between the two; not concluding on whether Jews support or disagree with Zionism. I do think that the support for Zionism amongst Jews is beyond the scope of this discussion.
    I don't see how you can draw that inference. Could you elaborate?



    But we do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyniSax85HQ - 1:12: "With mainstream Zionist-led media outlets".
    I know she said that, no denying it. What I'm questioning is how you can reasonably infer that she is referencing an anti-Semitic conspiracy and not simply advocating the view that most mainstream media outlets have historically supported Zionism.


    I feel that no matter what evidence I place in front of you, you are going to simply come back with the statement that: 'we can't be certain what she mean't'. I have provided sufficient links and evidence to suggest otherwise. Whether you accept that or not is your call. But I have made my case clear.
    I don't think you have placed any evidence in front of me though. It seems to me that you are taking what she said and using speculation to infer meanings that may or may not be there and not providing anything particularly conclusive to support this.

    I wouldn't find it terribly surprising if she were anti-Semitic at some level, I just think it takes a huge leap of faith to claim that she definitely is based on the quotes discussed here.


    Absolutely, but making unnecessary statements about an ideology she clearly has little knowledge about is unnecessary. There is a clear distinction between finding a middle ground and being ignorant.
    I don't know how much she knows about this or whether she's ignorant. And I'm not sure whether her statements being 'unnecessary' matters all that much!


    Re-read my previous posts as I have already answered this.
    At your request I've done so, but this seems to be the crux of the issue. As far as I can see you have not justified very convincingly why an attack on an ideology should be construed as an attack on a people, even if many of them are associated with that ideology.


    You're right about your analogy not being representative. You're comparing an ideology that stems from imposing Islamic values on every aspect of life to one that believes in the right for Israel to exist. These are two very different core characteristics.
    But that difference isn't relevant to the analogy. The point is that criticising an ideology is very different to being hostile or prejudiced towards people who support that ideology, whatever that ideology may be. And in this case we're not even talking about people who explicitly support it (i.e. you aren't saying that criticism Zionism equates to prejudice/hostility towards Zionists); we're talking about people who are 'associated' with it. That's an even weaker inference.


    Nevertheless, I appreciate the point you are trying to make but the backlash against her election is not on her criticising Israel's policies; it's principally against her using stereotypes, which have been used historically to mock Jews.
    As I've said a few times, I'm not convinced she has used such stereotypes. At least not in the speeches and quotes I've seen.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    I don't think I'm explaining myself very well here because that isn't really what I'm saying. I don't think we can infer what she knows about Zionism from the quotes we're discussing. What I'm saying is that Zionism is defined very differently by different organisations and people, and so we shouldn't be drawing hasty conclusions about what she must mean when she talks about Zionism. We don't know what she means when she says Zionism because we don't know how she's defining it. For example, we don't know whether or not she agrees with Israel's 'right to exist'.
    I don't think this is true, Implication. I grant that Zionism may have stemmed from a variety of 'branches', but the core principles of Zionism are indeed straightforward. To assume otherwise would be false.

    (Original post by Implication)
    If we're just saying it was unwise of her to use language that could have been interpreted differently to how she intended, then yes indeed. But I don't have the context to hand and I can't recall whether that did make the meaning explicit.
    That was my intention. I don't deny that she should not have the right to have an opinion; instead, if she chooses to voice it, be fully aware of what you are saying. She may be young but she is also the leader of a one of the leading student organisations in the world.

    (Original post by Implication)
    I think we should also be careful when talking about Israel's right to exist. It's not a straw man, but it's very appeal-to-the-stone-esque. It's very easy to say 'oh, you aren't a Zionist? Then you don't believe Israel has a right to exist? That's horrendous!'. It glosses over a lot of the important subtleties and ambiguities. For example, it's not as clear cut as such arguments seem to make out that Israel does have a right to exist. It didn't exist until 70 years ago, and it's establishment was (and still is) controversial. I'm not saying it doesn't have the right to exist because I'm not nearly familiar enough with the details to be able to draw a sensible conclusion, but it is controversial.
    I agree with it being a controversial topic. There are a number of issues that still pertain to Israel's creation and its foreign policy. The issue is not whether or not someone is a Zionist. It's when they have issues with it and then use historical stereotypes to criticise it. In my opinion, this is what Malia has done and she deserves the attention she's getting. I am a strong believer in people having any opinion they want; but in that case our desire to question it should not be classed as a 'right-wing conspiracy'. I agree that many tabloid newspapers will jump on to such cases, but there has been very genuine concern amongst independent commentators and journalists on this topic. Many are able to distinguish between genuine inquiry and outright bigotry.

    (Original post by Implication)
    And what do we even mean by a 'right to exist', anyway? One might argue that Israel shouldn't have been established but, given that it was, that it should continue to exist. Would such a person be considered to support Israel's right to exist? Would they be considered a supporter of Zionism? If a country has a right to exist, are we saying it has right to exist as it currently is, that it has a right to sovereingty over the lands it currently controls, or just that it has a right to exist in some form or another in some place? Or something different? Ambiguity is abundant.
    This is an area that has undergone significant debate over the years. I would argue, however, that we stick with Herzl's own definition of the idea: "Zionism demands a publicly recognized and legally secured homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. This platform is unchangeable."

    (Original post by Implication)
    I don't see how you can draw that inference. Could you elaborate?
    Herzl discussed this issue in great length in "The State of Israel" as well as a number of public speeches and discussions. But I feel this quote is especially potent in summarising the point: "Zionism demands a publicly recognized and legally secured homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. This platform is unchangeable."

    (Original post by Implication)
    I know she said that, no denying it. What I'm questioning is how you can reasonably infer that she is referencing an anti-Semitic conspiracy and not simply advocating the view that most mainstream media outlets have historically supported Zionism.
    But what evidence do we have that concludes this without any doubt?

    (Original post by Implication)
    I don't think you have placed any evidence in front of me though. It seems to me that you are taking what she said and using speculation to infer meanings that may or may not be there and not providing anything particularly conclusive to support this.
    Perhaps it is the case. But she has nevertheless made these statements without any evidence to suggest it being fact.

    (Original post by Implication)
    I wouldn't find it terribly surprising if she were anti-Semitic at some level, I just think it takes a huge leap of faith to claim that she definitely is based on the quotes discussed here.
    I would agree with you on this. I would argue that to a certain extent a large percentage of the population is to some extent antisemitic (based purely on observation rather empirical evidence) and a big reason for this is unfounded historical stereotypes (e.g. 'they control all the banks and run the world and therefore it must be a Zionist conspiracy'. Incidentally, these have yet to be proven (Or at least I haven't seen the evidence for it). But does that mean she can execute the responsibilities of her position fairly? This is a question we should all be asking.


    (Original post by Implication)
    I don't know how much she knows about this or whether she's ignorant. And I'm not sure whether her statements being 'unnecessary' matters all that much!
    I just find it ironic that for someone who claims to be "a campaigner against racism and fascism" she does not understand the sensitivity of her comments. As President of the NUS, it's her job to and this is why everything she says will be monitored.


    (Original post by Implication)
    At your request I've done so, but this seems to be the crux of the issue. As far as I can see you have not justified very convincingly why an attack on an ideology should be construed as an attack on a people, even if many of them are associated with that ideology.
    Thank you for doing so. It's fair enough if I am unable to convince you but it's important that we do not assume this is necessarily a 'right-wing conspiracy'. There is genuine concern about her opinions and this is something that should be looked into.


    (Original post by Implication)
    But that difference isn't relevant to the analogy. The point is that criticising an ideology is very different to being hostile or prejudiced towards people who support that ideology, whatever that ideology may be. And in this case we're not even talking about people who explicitly support it (i.e. you aren't saying that criticism Zionism equates to prejudice/hostility towards Zionists); we're talking about people who are 'associated' with it. That's an even weaker inference.
    But the comparison is useless if they have very different characteristics. Regardless, criticism of the ideology is normal but using baseless stereotypes to make a point is bigotry.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carnes)
    Imperial / LSE aren't considered elite? Damn your standards are high.

    No. The point is some Universities are generally and securely better than others (I actually agree on your point about using entry standards)

    That's already 4. And I can think of another 6.
    No as someone who will be attending Imperial next year I don't consider the university elite but it is one of the best in the UK.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    As much as I agree with everything else in your post, I don't think that means the President shouldn't be able to express their political views
    It seems we agree that the NUS would be better as an apolitical organisation that works to further the interests of students qua students then?

    As for your point with regards freedom of speech, I agree, obviously. I am sick and tired of the left using "isms" to close down legitimate debate.

    Is it inconsistent to employ exactly THEIR tactics against them? Yes it is. But it is just too delicious to hoist them with their own petard.

    Joyless humourless fascists (in the true meaning of the word) like Bouattia don't appreciate the irony obviously. But we wouldn't be human if the rest of us didn't enjoy rubbing their noses in all their victim searching, moral relativist boiiocks.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone else not care if they're lies?

    Disaffiliate NOW!
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 28, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.