The ICJ, also known as the World Court, did not deal with South Africa's main allegation on whether Israel is committing genocide, though it said Friday it would not throw out the case, as Israel requested.

It started out as a simple rebuttal of your false claim. I was expecting a plain ‘oops’, maybe with an edit correction of your claim. Now it’s about how you accuse others of maintaining a selective reality when in fact it’s you who decided to selectively craft your own reality of what the court said.

So you’re acknowledging that reality doesn’t matter to you, campism does? Well fucking done, you are the literal embodiment of the meme you posted.

Lol, the audacity to post objectively and verifiably false information, then when you’re informed that it’s false not acknowledge that fact and deflect to some completely meaningless point about the holocaust, then when you’re informed that that point makes no sense you deflect to a random meme and attach the opinion of some other guy.

You don’t actually care about ‘reality’ like your meme implies. If you did you’d care to actually look at the judgement (like I did before commenting, took me five seconds to find and two minutes to speed parse) before deciding what you wanted the judgement to say to selectively suit your own emotional reality.

(A) You do know the ICJ didn’t exist during the Holocaust, right? They can’t rule on the actions of states that aren’t party to the ICJ, which by the fundamental nature of how time works includes Nazi Germany.

(B) The fact that the ICJ didn’t declare it a genocide was simply a rebuttal to your unfounded fictitious assertion that they did. How you interpreted that as a statement that genocide doesn’t exist without the ICJ is beyond me.

Point out to me a single line in the judgement where they condemned Israel for genocidal actions, or even directly stated that Israel was pursuing genocidal actions. It’s not there.

Also- so you say copying a definition (even when not word for word and completely indistinguishable from your own writing) isn’t plagiarism and copying an explanation of a graph isn’t plagiarism. That’s a bit of weird opinion but you do you. I just have a few more questions to prove your definition of plagiarism.

Would you also say that copying an analysis of a text isn’t plagiarism?

Gilliam:

This paper explores two models-symbolic politics and governing coalitions-that focus on how minority office-holding affects people's political orientations. In other words, after an extended period of minority empowerment, what is the distribution of political attitudes between and within racial and ethnic groups? Which groups and subgroups positively evaluate the results of governmental action and which groups will hold more negative views? What are the important demographic and political correlates of how citizens respond to minority empowerment?

Gay:

The central question of this chapter is "How does black representation impact attitudes?" More explicitly, what is the distribution of political attitudes between and within racial groups in black-represented districts? How do groups evaluate the presence of black incumbents? What are the important demographic and political correlates of how citizens respond to minority political leadership?

Would you also say that copying an explanation of a law isn’t plagiarism?

Canon:

The central parts of the VRA are Section 2 and Section 5. The former prohibits any state or political subdivision from imposing a voting practice that will "deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." The latter was imposed only on "covered" jurisdictions with a history of past discrimination, which must submit changes in any electoral process or mechanism to the federal government for approval.^3

Gay:

The central parts of the measure are Section 2 and Section 5. Section 2 reiterates the guarantees of the 15th amendment, prohibiting any state or political subdivision from adopting voting practices that "deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." Section 5, imposed only on "covered" jurisdictions with a history of past discrimination, requires Justice Department preclearance of changes in any electoral process or mechanism.

How far are you willing to stretch the definition of plagiarism?

Yes, I’m going to ignore what some of the people she didn’t cite think, for two reasons. First because it doesn’t matter as to her intent at the time- they didn’t know her, she didn’t know them, they didn’t give her prior permission. Second because she’s the direct boss and controller of funding for many of them so there’s an inbuilt power dynamic there.

Have you read the papers at hand? They absolutely seem indistinguishable from her own writing. You’d never notice that it wasn’t- in fact it wasn’t noticed for years. She incorporates them directly into arguments and explanations as well.

I don’t recall any former president of Harvard needing to have an academic dishonesty tribunal review their work because they all cited their sources properly (it’s not that hard to do!). I’m quite confident that if they had they done that they would’ve been evaluated in the exact same way- other professors at Harvard in similar situations have gone through similar processes and been punished in the past.

So if your definition of a quotation is something written word for word, whether it is cited or even at all distinguishable from her own work (read them yourself, they very clearly aren't distinguishable at all), what do you call something where she very clearly doesn't copy the original text word for word but instead rewrites it to better fit in with her own prose without ever citing it? Maybe something like changing:

“...the statistical correspondence of the demographic characteristics and more “substantive representation,” the correspondence between representatives’ goals and those of their constituents.”

to

"...the statistical correspondence of demographic characteristics) and substantive representation (the correspondence of legislative goals and priorities...”

It's not a conspiracy theory to suggest that the review board might've treated her differently from any random undergraduate because of her status within academia. That's just human nature, it doesn't even require intent to do so.

The same third party board that said she didn't commit plagiarism while also forcing her to add dozens of missing citations to her work where she directly copied sentences from other articles... Which makes absolutely no sense.

It's absolutely not flimsy- she's only written a dozen articles and there's been concrete examples of plagiarism in at least of a quarter of them. Here is one of 40+ examples of the plagiarism found:

Swain in her article:

“the statistical correspondence of the demographic characteristics and more “substantive representation,” the correspondence between representatives’ goals and those of their constituents.”

Gay in her article:

"the statistical correspondence of demographic characteristics) and substantive representation (the correspondence of legislative goals and priorities.”

Swain in her article:

“Since the 1950s the reelection rate for House members has rarely dipped below 90 percent”

Gay in her article:

"Since the 1950s, the reelection rate for incumbent House members has rarely dipped below 90%”

She never cited Swain in any way until she was forced to do so this year by the review board. If I pulled this in college in more then 25% of my essays I'd most certainly be in front of my department head in a very serious conversation, looking at suspension at least.

Edit: Lol, late breaking news! As of today plagiarism allegations now cover 50%! Half! of her papers as even more examples have come out literally a few hours ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/02/us/harvard-claudine-gay-plagiarism.html