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
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.