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
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.