politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Many students, specifically PhD students, also work for the university. I didn't say "work under", I said "work with", as in, work at the same faculty, i.e. they are coworkers.
She called him out publicly for volunteering for a foreign military currently enacting a genocide. It's a big stretch to call that "outing" or "public harassment".
And nowhere does the headline claim something different.
What a strange hill to die on.
No where in the article does it say they work at the same faculty. You simply do not know this to be true.
Except the headline does not say this.
Any reasonable person reading the headline would think the university is forcing her to work with the IDF and suspended her for refusing.
But like you just made my point for me, she was suspended for the calling out part.
I don't agree she should have been suspended, but the headline is 100 percent false.
You are twisting words beyond recognition here, and for what? The guy was an IDF soldier. How is that not "working along IDF soldiers"? It's not saying "working for the IDF", which seems to be your criterion.
Next you're going to complain that it says soldiers, plural, I assume? That would at least be a valid criticism in your quest to... archive what, exactly?
My comment is that the title is blatantly false.
It's already a stretch to say volunteering medical services for the IDF makes you a soldier, and yes it's a lie to say she was forced to "work" with soldiers.
But, let's give you the benefit and say is just semantics and the first part is accurate (it's not)
The title is STILL blatantly false because the school did NOT suspend her for refusing to work with this professor. The (arguably unjustified) suspension is unrelated.
Your argument is to blatantly lie. The professor of medicine volunteered as a medic in the IDF.
We can read the article. You aren't fooling anyone.
A medic is a non combatant, but as I mentioned in the post you are replying to, I am willing to concede this professor as an IDF soldier.
I'm glad you can read, so please quote the article the following
Can't find these points in the article? Funny, me neither.
Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who organized trains to the deaths camps. People with desk jobs are non-combatants but that doesn't absolve them from actively contributing to a genocide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcdufLc3QSA
No.
The school continued to employee the professor to her medical school. Medical students work with professors and other students. Her objection is to be put in a situation where she could have to work with him or anyone else who was part of the IDF to meet requirements to get her degree.
In response to her interview, which was protected speech under school policy, the medical school backed up the professor and not her. So yes, she could end up working with IDF soldiers at her medical school, conducting research even, if she wants to finish her degree.
Your argument started off with an accusation that people didn't read the article, but it seems that your argument wasn't informed by a reading of the article.
Look, I'm not trying to attack you despite the fact that you want to keep insulting my reading ability.
I am saying, the title of this article is misleading at best, if not outright lying.
Your own reply is backing me up on this.
We are talking about this specific woman at this specific university who was suspended. Your quoted reply talks about other universities. There is no proof in this article that anyone other than the professor worked with the IDF, that she would hypothetically be forced to work with.
So in short she was never forced to work with any IDF soldiers. She may at some hypothetical point run into such a situation.
You are purposely misreading my question. Was she threatened to work with the IDF soldier or face consequences? She was not.
Was she threatened at some point during the period the article talks about? Probably.
So no, she was not suspended for refusing to work with an IDF soldier because she never was in that situation.
I want to stop for a second and also point out, I am not attacking or even judging anyone for not reading the article. We can all agree people do not read every link in every thread. This is a very long article to boot.
But for those that do not want to read the entire thing and only looked at the headline, they would assume based on the way the headline is written that the university forced her to work with IDF in some capacity, she refused, and they suspended her. This is how any objective person would interpret the headline.
You can say well technically the professor counts as a soldier, there are soldiers on other campuses, the title didn't say she got suspended for refusing, only that she got suspended, etc etc... but these are all not how most people would interpret it and you know it.
You are upset about Isreal as many people, including a vocal portion of Lemmy are and that is fine. But that doesn't mean you can't criticize poorly written clickbait titles meant to enrage instead of inform. This is The Guardian, a supposedly upstanding news source. What does it say about them or the contents of this story when the first 2 sentences you read are so misleading?
There are probably IDF soldiers at the school besides that one professor. Her objection was not limited to only the one professor, that is the one example she had. She objected to working with IDF soldiers and got suspended because of that objection.
She never worked with IDF soldiers, no one is claiming she did. She is objecting to having to work with IDF soldiers.
Read the title again.
No one is trying to mislead anyone. Not me, not this article, not the Guardian.
I've been trying to point this out subtly, but I think I need to be explicit.
You aren't understanding the title or the article because you aren't reading it properly. This has nothing to do with the topics being discussed. This is an issue with reading comprehension. Read the through the whole thing again, from start to finish.
This isn't a comment on you as a person. You have made a mistake. It is impacting your ability to discuss the topic and the quality of your argument. There's really no way to proceed in this discussion in good faith until you do.
Sorry if that comes off as harsh, but it's the truth. Hope that helps.
It seems we can agree that we are both reading the title and interpreting it differently. I don't think either of us will concede our interpretation at this point, so we can just leave it to others to look at this on their own.
Still, allow me to explain why I find your interpretation to be wrong.
"Probably". Meaning: you. don't. know. this.
You have to make up the hypothetical yourself to explain the title, because it's not there in the article. You're trying to explain how the title is accurate yet you have to create the story for them. This is not a fantasy novel that's left to the imagination, it's a news article.
Let's try an exercise. Pretend there was no article at all and you only have this title. And then you were asked to explain the title based on what you think it means. Here are two of the fairest interpretations I can create.
A Palestinian American was tasked to work with IDF soldiers but refused and was punished for it.
A Palestinian American said she will not work with IDF soldiers and was punished for it.
Your interpretation aligns with #2, correct?
Except #2 is deeply flawed because, again, she was never asked to work with IDF soldiers and she was not punished for objecting to work with IDF soldiers. She was punished for calling out a professor and potentially opening him up for harassment.
Think of it this way. She didn't say
"I refuse to work with Nazis."
Instead she said more along the lines of
"There's a Nazi in our faculty." And the university was like yea you can't call our staff Nazis. Now people are going to witch hunt. Suspended.
The suspension is still dubious, but can you at least see where I'm coming from?
The most generous reading of your interpretation requires accepting another generous interpretation of the reason for suspension (that the official reason for her suspension is not the real one)
There is no good faith discussion to be had about the subject matter when you are operating from an alternate reality based on misreading the title and the article. There is no alternate interpretation, you are reading it incorrectly. It does not say what you claim it says.
No, I pointed out there are probably additional IDF soldiers on that campus. If there are no additional IDF soldiers on that campus, she still objects to working with IDF soldiers plural. You are conflating her one example singular, with a perceived mistake, that is not there, in the title where it is uses a plural.
The use of a plural word is a non-issue. She objects to working with IDF soldiers broadly. Her objection was never intended to be limited to one professor, it was the only example she had. This is not a clever gotcha, you are misreading the title.
Speaking of fantasy, here's a fictional example. Where I object to eating rocks. I find one rock in my soup and I refuse to eat it. I say, "There is a rock in my soup!" You go, "Aha! There was only one rock in your soup. So you do not object to eating rocks do you?". While it's true I only found one rock, I still objected to eating rocks, plural. My objection is not limited to that one rock in particular.
This is not a different interpretation of the title. This is a different title. These words in this alternate title mean something different than what the title says. You have superimposed this onto the article.
Here is an example.
I objected to eating rocks.
I was told to eat rocks and I objected to eating those rocks.
These are not different interpretations of the same sentence. They are two different sentences. In the first I stated an objection without prompting. In the second I was prompted to a task and I objected to it. It is possible to object to an action no one has told a person to do. An objection does not imply a prompt.
No one is saying that she was. The point is that while attending medical school she could be put in a situation where she could have to work with IDF soldiers.
Her objection was in the Democracy Now! interview. Her objection was working with IDF soldiers. She was punished for giving this objection.
She didn't even name the professor. She was well within her rights as per campus regulations to do this.
But regardless, her objection in that interview, is what got her suspended. She objected to working with that professor because he is an IDF solider. Reframing the objection as a call out, regardless if the objection could potentially lead to harassment or not, does not change that fact it was an objection.
Except she didn't call the professor something that he is not. She said he volunteered in the IDF as a soldier. No one is claiming that is not the case.
She said a member of the IDF is in our faculty. The faculty said "You can't say that.", even though it is true and not being disputed by anyone. The truth could open the professor to harassment. Suspended.
The actual dispute seems to be:
This dispute is what we would be arguing about if we were both reading what the article actually said.
The suspension is incorrect even by the university's own standards. Yes, when you read the article you did not comprehend it properly. Reread the article.
This is again making a distinction where there is none. The official reason she was suspended is she made an objection in an interview with Democracy Now!. In that interview she objected to working with IDF soldiers. She brought up the professor who served in the IDF to make that objection. Regardless of how the school framed her objection she got suspended because of that objection.
In my example, I objected to eating rocks. What you are saying is, "You didn't object to eating rocks, you called out a specific rock for being a rock." In my example, I did call out the rock for being a rock. The statement, "There is a rock in my soup!" is an objection to having to eat rocks.
Here I thought you were going to be reasonable, but the fact is that you refuse to see any flaw in your argument or see how the title can be misleading even when explained to you how others can read it. Do you really believe a sentence, especially one written as poorly as this article's, can not be interpreted in more than one way?
A story that leads "A woman objects to working with IDF soldiers" usually means there is a reason for her to say this. It could mean that she was put in a situation where this was the case or that she is simply just saying it. But simply just saying it is not news. I'm sure many many people object to working with IDF and no one will report that.
So you say, well it is newsworthy because she was suspended for it. Except that was NOT WHY SHE WAS SUSPENDED.
The reason for her suspension was not the objection. You quoted opinions around the objection, but not the actually reason itself.
Read that please. She was suspended for singling out and disparaging an individual. Not wanting to work with IDF is not singling out or disparaging an individual, do you agree?
This finding was the basis of the school's punishment. It doesn't matter if you or I our the article don't agree with the finding. It was this and not the objection that is why she was suspended.
Except, in this case, we are in a restaurant and there is only one rock in sight.
It is not in your food. It's just on a table in the restaurant. No one told you to eat rocks. No one put rocks in your food. Sure, it could theoretically end you in your food, but it has not.
You loudly object that someone at the restaurant will put rocks in your food, even though they haven't. The chef complains because that this will make people think he is putting rocks in food. The restaurant asks you to leave.
The student objects to working with IDF soldiers when there is not even a hypothetical possibility of this to be true. Plus the fact that there is zero detail that she is even hypothetically working with the 1 "soldier". This all goes back to the fact that your interpretation of the title requires you to jump through these mental hoops just to make the title narrative work.
The more simple explanation is that the title is misinformation.
And that even if you disagree, more people would look at that title and think of my interpretation vs yours.
People look at that title and will naturally assume the poor woman was put in a situation where she had to work with IDF soldierss. Then if they read the article they will see they were misled when the 1 soldier identified is just a professor and there wasn't even a situation where she had to work with him AND her suspension was unrelated.
If my interpretation did not align with what others thought, it would not be the top comment in the post.
I have been more than reasonable. A good faith interpretation was that this internet discussion is not even an argument about the subject matter. I gave you a free lesson in language comprehension. You have exhausted what good faith is left to be had in this discussion.
You are now lying about the article. She objected because she was being put in a position where she could have to work with that professor in medical school. This objection is why she was suspended.
It is the school who is in the wrong. You are blatantly lying about their reframing.
Your initial argument was misleading as well.
Again no one asserted that but you. As it turned out, this was an intentional straw man on your part and not as I had hoped a misunderstanding. You intentionally mislead people who did not read the article. IDF soldiers can come and work in America. And if they work in your medical school, you could have to work with them.
You're even lying about a fictional example I gave you. In that example I found a rock in my soup. Plain and simple. There's a bowl on the table full of soup and in that soup I have identified a rock. If I attempt to eat that soup as is there is a chance I will eat a rock. The food inspector is shutting that place down. No one is taking you seriously.
The goal of that example was to illustrate how objections are commonly phrased.
It's bizarre to watch a person go to bat for genocide. You've gone to such great lengths to twist common language to in turn twist actual events to serve your narrative of an alternate reality.
This is the title. This is what happened. You've made your lies so obvious anyone who happens to read this far will spot them. I highly recommend you stop working to forward a genocide through this campaign of twisting words to legitimize silencing people. A person who in this case is both speaking out against and part of the minority targeted by that genocide.
There's no way to have a good faith discussion with a person like yourself that is forwarding such an agenda. What you're doing is effectively advocating for violence against Palestinians. Your goal is to silence this woman so the genocide is not derailed by her speech.
The nature of these internet discussions is that they are long, take time to read, and can in the short term be ambiguous as to what a person's actual position is. But by discussing topics at length it becomes obvious what a person's real position is.
I believe anyone who reads this far will see through what you are doing and object to it. Supporting genocide is wrong even if it is done in one of the most obtuse ways possible.
By the way, I went ahead and looked up the interview on YouTube. It is on Democracy Now's channel and is from 11 months ago with the title Atlanta Police Violently Arrest Emory Students. Her interview starts at the 8:50 mark.
All she did was point out the hypocrisy of how pro-Palestine student/faculty vs how pro-Israel half were treated.
SHE NEVER ONCE MENTIONS WORKING WITH OR OBJECTING TO WORKING WITH IDF SOLDIERS
Are you finally ready to accept what I have been saying all along? that the title to your article is BS, intentionally deceptive, and clickbait?
This is her objection.
This is mine.
Fuck off fascist.
Faced with facts you just go straight to the name calling.
She's not objecting to him working or even hypothetically working with him. She objects to the unequal treatment of pro-Palestine supports vs pro-Israel supporters. It's clear in the interview.
Well thanks for your time. I'm sorry and I hope your life goes better.
Look how this fascist pretends the facts aren't there. I led with the facts.
Just because you're pretending you can't read doesn't mean other people can't. No one is falling for the act.
https://psychcentral.com/health/signs-pathological-liar#signs-of-a-pathological-liar
My gut instinct was that pathological liars must be miserable. But after looking it up I was wrong.
You must be having a great time. Go figure.
No it's not. That is what the article says, yes. That is not what the source interview (which i pointed you to, twice) says.
She did not mention anything about working with IDF soldiers in the entire interview. Let me repeat that to you for the 1000th time. She just plains never talks about this.
That quote you keep using is not her objection to working with IDF soldiers. It is her complaint that pro-Palestine supporters are being punished for their beliefs, but a professor can work with the IDF for 6 months, and come back to work without any consequences. She is saying the treatment is unequal. Once again, she is not objecting to working with this professor if she had to. She is objecting to the unequal treatment of pro-Palestinian vs pro-Israel supporters.
My claim at the very top of this post is that the title is wrong. Turns out I was right in every possible way. Not only was the title wrong, but so is the article.
I didn't attack the student. I didn't give an opinion on her. I am attacking the author and The Guardian for being misleading.
I'd ask you to reflect and ask yourself, what would it take to change your mind, how much proof you would need before you accept valid criticism of the author...
but we both know won't.
You lied again in this comment too, multiple times. You went after the woman in your argument and now you're lying about that as well.
You spent the whole day getting off to lying to me because you're a pathological liar. I'm glad you got your fix.
I found a resource for you so you can get help. You shouldn't have to lie to people on the internet to get your fix. People could get hurt. Maybe this will help you ditch your fascism. I know they have all the best lies, but that doesn't make it okay.
http://www.liarsanonymous.org/
You are not being reasonable or arguing in good faith if you have to lie about the subject to prove your point. I don't need a language lesson from someone who does not have the capability to even entertain that their reading is wrong or to try to see the point the other side is making
I am lying about the article by.. directly quoting the reason for the suspension written in the article. The objection is not why she was suspended. The singling out of a professor is why. I quoted the specific reason she was suspended.
You quoted the part of the article where the author deliberately muddles the reason so that it can be viewed like the school suspended her for her objection.
I think the school IS wrong, but again you are accusing me of lying when I quoted the exact part of the article that states why she was suspended.
I stand by this even if you add the word "objected" to it. Because thats not why she was suspended. No matter how many times you try to assert this.
I explain how I read the title, how many people would read that title. If you state that you object to being forced to work with IDF soldiers in the title, one would assume the story involves some detail of a situation where you were forced to work with IDF soldiers. When it turns out this was just a made up hypothetical, it is not a lie to point that out and call it BS.
If you need to invent this narrative to make your point, your point fails to stand on its own.
The rock in this example is "being forced to work with IDF soldiers". There is no rock in the soup, just something that resembles one in the restaurant. There is not even a second visible rock. No one has forced you to eat rocks.
This is what it sounds like when you have a situation where the medical student objects to working with IDF soldiers when we have no proof she is being put in that position.
And by the way, I have not watched the interview and I guess you have not either. We don't actually know if it is true that she has stated that "objects to working with IDF soldiers".
It's possible that it could just be the author's words summarizing the above as "objecting to working with IDF soldiers"
I'm ignoring the rest of your rant as it's just attacking me because I'm not pro-Palestinian enough for you. Apparently agreeing that the school is in the wrong is somehow still pro-genocide. Maybe if you can accept the fact that blindly accepting every content just because it paints Palestinians in a good light or Israel in a bad light is not a mindset, we can finally have a real conversation.
Let me put it to you this way. See if you can answer these questions.
The end result is the author trying to make you believe that a university suspended a student for objecting to a hypothetical nonexistant situation that is not currently happening. When in reality, the stated reason for her suspension is also in the article and different from what the title is suggesting. That's misinformation. It's misinformation regardless of whether it is pro-Israel or pro-Palestine.
I pointed this out and people agree with me. If this view was pro-genocide, you think the people in Lemmy would vote it to the top?
You're not pro-Palestinian. You're a fascist. You managed to fool a number of unsuspecting people and you thought I would be an easy mark too.
Now you've tried to walk it back. You say you're against the university while still going after the student as if this is some neutral objective viewpoint from nowhere. You bullshit in your argument and ignore what's inconvenient in my argument. But you can't bring yourself to stop lying.
This is the truth that is supported by the article:
The professor is the IDF solider. She objects to working with IDF soldiers. I object to pretending you are arguing in good faith.
Fuck off fascist!
Here's your moment of zen.
Is Timothy Pratt pro-Palestinian? Let's look at how he chose to end his article.
Yes. And that's part of how he wrote an article that is true. He has a viewpoint from somewhere.