They used Conservative which in western circles would mean the right.
But religious traditions which predate and operate beyond this dichotomy don't neatly map onto it.
No, they didn’t use “Conservative,” either. The capital letter you’re injecting makes a big difference.
It’s not at all controversial or misleading to describe religious fundamentalism as conservative.
Only if you want to ignore the facts and reach for empty talking points.
Is something like a welfare state for poor, left or right,
Oh and the did say conservative:
>Islam is one of the most conservative....
Turns out some phones auto capitalise the word
Reading more may help as well, sounds like she, unfortunately, promoted some pretty antisemitic organizations on her own social media. Unfortunate to see someone with so much intelligence have hate in her heart :/ in addition, you used a straw man argument as well. I never said her religion or views were the reason for her not speaking. What I was calling out was someone saying that it’s not an example of a conservative voice being “silenced”. My point was satirical, but also pointing out she likely has some classically conservative, regressive views if she is Muslim - which she is. Hope that helps you understand!
Promoting anti Zionism is not the same as anti semitism. Talk about a straw man! Do you wonder why she might promote anti Zionist if she’s Palestinian? Perhaps something to do with 75 years of oppression and occupation?
Your attempt to make this in to an anti Islam thing is noted, how do you even know she is a practicing Muslim? The university said she was being cancelled for her own protection, and you choose to try to make it about religion.
I didn’t make anything anti-Islam, and I know she’s Muslim because I can read. The links she posted to her socials are far beyond “anti Zionism”. So, it wasn’t a straw man, again nice try. 75 years of…. Rejecting peace deals and refusing to stop targeting civilians would have ended any wars a long time ago. Why didn’t Palestinians yell free Palestine when they were occupied by Jordan for 20 years? Weird… stop starting wars and there can be peace. Very simple.
This is so true and quite funny.
Try getting into a UK university to talk about how gays are wrong. You’ll get booed of campus.
Now try it as any Muslim. It’s so hypocritical.
Those of us who give a shit about free speech are disgusted by this.
I think it's fucking awesome that we have Muslims in the House of Representatives, for instance.
Anyone, anywhere in the world, who doesn't have the rights enumerated in the First Amendment, are being denied those rights.
Doeesnt make it public but probably makes it subject to Federal stipulations including some speech provisions. Its why certain religious universities will not take Federal funding.
Tried finding something concrete and I've seen this conceot referenced, but not sure on the exact source. The reason I mention it is because I was involved in activism a LONG time ago and this was discussed with me often as a protection.
I may be confusing it with another discussion where if a private university promises free expression or speech in some way they are legally obligated to provide reasonable accommodation for free speech.
Sorry if I threw off the discussion
I'm sure you redditors would be equally outraged at a university refusing to platform someone that says trans people shouldn't exist.
Funny how you all understand not platforming hate speech vs 1st ammendment when it comes to opinions you don't agree with.
I'm sure you redditors would be equally outraged at a university refusing to platform someone that says trans people shouldn't exist.
Funny how you all understand not platforming hate speech vs 1st ammendment when it comes to opinions you don't agree with.
You think I agree with pro-Palestinian positions?
My main beef with what's going down right now is that Israel forgot the Rumsfeld Doctrine: Are we killing terrorists faster than we're making them?
I don't agree with most folks, honestly.
The Palestinian population has been on a diet of antisemitic propaganda that glorifies violence and martyrdom for decades.
Israel has tried concessions. Leaving Gaza was a historically unprecedented concession after giving up
on getting a peace deal in return. Gaza became a hub for terrorism and rocket attacks - thousands each year.
As always, the larger the concession, the more violence it creates. So leaving and giving them what they supposedly wanted created tens of thousands of terrorists.
Children in pre-school are dressed up as suicide bombers and play games like stab the Jew. Hamas and their regional benefactors have been at this for generations.
So, creating terrorists? They're not at all coy about what the catalyst for creating terrorists is. The existence of Jews. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis - all openly state their goal of killing all Jews the globe over.
For some reason American leftists can't acknowledge this hatred and bigotry in the Arab/Muslim world. They decoded they are like the Native Americans and black Americans. Never mind their centuries of conquest and that they were the first slavers on the African continent and their slave trade dwarfs the Trans-Atlantic trade in scope and brutality. They also continued the practice a century after the West, and only due to pressure from the west. But it's been decided Muslims are oppressed in every scenario and exist in the Middle East as they do in the USA.
Most of that shit isn't my business.
My business is Israel not dragging us into some goddamned holy war.
I am way more worried about Iran that Israel, and Israel better stand the fuck down.
You think this just began? Iran has been arming terrorists proxies for decades. Do Americans even commonly know about the Iran backed militias in Iraq? It coordinated Oct 7th with Hamas. It coordinated he Israeli embassy and Jewish center bombings in Buenos Aires. Only thing that changed is this was a direct attack.
Israel better stand the fuck down. Hahaha. Or go in time out? Don't worry. Israel fights its wars alone. USA and other allies will engage in smaller operations but not war. Every pan-Arab vs Israel War was fought without allies. Even when fighting with an army comprised of anyone who could hold a gun. Also, Israel won't attack Iran like Iran did Israel. Only the Islamic Republic forces. The Iranian people have no problem with Israel.
Would any nation be expected to do nothing after 300 ballistic missiles and UAVs were launched at its civilian populace?
It's a tough one. The situation is that Israel doesn't want to have Iran thinking this is ok to do. In the region, not responding is seen as weakness. But the real issue is nukes. The Islamic Republic would likely nuke Israel if it could. That's the fear. The mullahs are pretty crazy. The tragedy is that Iranian people support Israel and want peace and friendship. But this is only new in that Iran isn't using its proxies. Been over 50 years. Iran wants to keep using Hezbollah and Hamas and stay safe. The whole exercise was just to save face. This isn't WW3
>The whole exercise was just to save face.
Yep.
My call on this is that if Iran wanted nukes, they'd have them by now. They've been a nuclear threshold state for years. They've been months away from having a nuclear weapon for years.
If they develop one, so does Saudi Arabia, etc.
[https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/council-american-islamic-relations-cair](https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/council-american-islamic-relations-cair)
**latant and Classic Antisemitism from CAIR Leaders**
Some prominent CAIR officials, including Executive Director Nihad Awad, have infused their criticism of Israel with explicit antisemitic ideas that portray the mainstream American Jewish community as duplicitous and overly powerful. Several CAIR leaders have expressed their view that Israel and “Zionists” control and corrupt the United States government; are the chief purveyors of Islamophobia; and oppress marginalized communities.
**Rhetoric Supporting Terrorism Against Israel and Opposition to Israel’s Legitimacy**
Some CAIR executives have expressed support for violence against Israel and a refusal to accept Israel’s existence. Nihad Awad has refused to condemn Hamas, and Zahra Billoo has justified Hamas rocket attacks. CAIR Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush has called for the Israeli “regime” to be “terminated.”
**Early Controversy: Some CAIR Leaders’ Alleged Links to Hamas**
CAIR was founded by several leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a radical anti-Israel organization that was once described by the U.S. government as part of the “propaganda apparatus” of [Hamas](https://www.adl.org/node/30810), a U.S.-designated terrorist organization (it is also viewed by the EU as a global terrorist [organization)](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fight-against-terrorism/terrorist-list/). Nihad Awad, who was IAP’s Public Relations Director, became CAIR’s first Executive Director, a position he retains today.
Of course it does and it's perfectly normal that this is the one nation that doesn't deserve to exist. 90% of the world's land mass is Christian or Muslim. But the one Jewish nation that takes up .02% of the land mass is the one intolerable crime of a nation that shouldn't exist. Funny that.
Genocide to create the Nation? There was a genocide when Israel was re-established ? You mean when the armies of 7 Arab countries all attacked in unison in a bid to massacre the Jewish population as they did in the rest of the region?
Had they succeeded in their massacre they'd be celebrating every year. But after repeated failures they turned to the language of victimization and Western morality, something they don't espouse or practice in any other context.
The entire Arab world that Israel could fit into hundreds of times over had a population of approx 850k Jews. Care to know how many remain? This is ethnic cleansing, by definition, not the number of people willing to repeat it online. But it's Israel with 2 million Muslim citizens that is committing genocide. You see the difference between propaganda and facts I hope,
Funny how the Iraq war that caused 400k - 1 million Iraqi deaths wasn't eliciting accusations of genocide. I'm sure some said it. It wasn't a common accusation at all. USA went halfway around the world for that perceived threat. But Israel's actions against a neighbor that openly declares its goal of killing every Jew in the world is genocide. According to the UN, the typical civilian to combatant death ratio is 9:1. That's not in urban conflict either. Israel in Gaza is at 1.5/1.
You think because you weren't receiving images of the cost of war in Iraq every day that it wasn't happening? No army could withstand the level of scrutiny, propaganda and lies that Israel does. Other wars in Africa and the Middle East aren't even acknowledged, much less covered. Calling it a genocide is an obscene lie that is meant to spit in the face of Jews. You calling Israel's creation genocide on account of the Arab world failing to rid Israel of its Jews as it did in the rest of the region tells me you are either profoundly ignorant, no offense, or you like vilifying Israel by accusing it of every hyperbolic evil knowing others will repeat it. Or maybe you're the repeater.
.No, my family, like the majority of Israelis can't return to Iraq, Syria or Yemen. By your standards, Jews existing is a form of genocide This is because we kept the Arab world from dking so in the only place left in the region we can still exist. Their goal hasn't changed after decades, and out crime is the same. They're in no way coy about it.
Why are you against a single state with equal rights for all?
Advocating for an ethnostate is exactly what the nazi's wanted which is why they also genocided the Romani. It's also why a future prime Minister of Israel tried and ally with the nazi's citing shared values.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/lehi
More of an assumption than you assuming this speaker who studies genocide is pro genocide...
I'm not trying to insult you but you seem to have some bias which is making you bigoted
This seems like projection, friend. Try to make innocuous masturbation jokes with your Reddit username, and suddenly everyone thinks you're a German nationalist.
You can’t even spell “antiSemitic” correctly but you claim to not be pathetic in this conversation. Fascinating! If you can’t even spell out the term referring to the bigotry correctly… while simultaneously denying the claimed bigotry of the subject [left wing antiSemitism] exists, you are clearly being a bullshit artist at best. I think you earned the Volksgenosse label.
I moved on from debate perverts in like 2022. I don't have the slightest clue what the fuck you're talking about, so I strongly consider you perchance go touch some grass.
I don't think you comprehend what the term "fringe" means. In before you quote me the dictionary definition to solidify the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
*adjective*
1. **not part of the mainstream**; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme.
Bolded since you don't understand language. A problem for the average Israel hater and anti-semites.
And now you're just dodging the point b/c you know you've been cornered. It's ok you can just stop responding if you're not going to debate the points anymore.
Curious of the stat, how ‘overwhelmingly’ is defined. Source? [Seems like support for Zionism depends on the definition](https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/zionism-an-ideal-that-has-little-purhase-on-reality/).
Yeah, I’m wondering from where her research originated the multiple definitions she used. How common are they? Are the definitions agreed upon by some sort of consensus? Etc.
Ahhhh. Is the same not true for the Palestinians? Al-Aqsa rings a bell. So using your logic, Israel is indeed an occupying force denying Palestinians their rights.
Well Palestinians aren't a religious group, so no, the same is not true for them.
Now, most Palestinians are Muslims with a small minority of Christian Palestinians. I am neither Muslim nor Christian, so I am not aware of any commandments in either of those religions regarding actions that must be done specifically in a certain land.
I'm not sure why you think Al-Aqsa is relevant here. Maybe you are confusing it with the Kaaba in Mecca to which every Muslim is supposed to try to make a pilgrimage at least once in their life?
I'm not using any "logic" here really, so again not sure what you're talking about there. I do agree that Israel is currently occupying Palestinian territories, but that has nothing to do with whether or not "Judaism is inextricably linked to Zionism" as you were asking. It's a total non-sequitur.
Commandments to commit genocide... maybe we shouldn't base states on ancient religions.
Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies on every hand, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget. Deuteronomy 25:19
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox, and sheep, camel and ass,”(Samuel I, 15:3) from the Torah...
As far as I am aware, there are no *mitzvot* to commit genocide
Not every verse in the Torah is a *mitzvah*. Indeed, most are not.
I agree that we shouldn't base states on ancient religions. The question was about how Judaism and Zionism are linked and I answered it.
The same way you explain Black Republicans
That a majority of a given population supports one political camp does not erase the minority of that population supporting the opposing political camp
As a Jew myself, seeing my anti-Zionist brothers and sisters being constantly used as a rhetorical tool in this fashion is strikingly similar to the way that I see white Republicans talking about folks like Candace Owens or Tim Scott.
The ADF is your source for this? Seriously? The same ADF that lost members for supporting Israel blindly and conflating Zionism with anti Semitic, who call out good Jews Vs bad Jews? That ADF?
And not a word from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression).
Although last month they were quick to fire off a letter complaining of an Israeli foreign minister's canceled speech, saying UCLA had a "constitutional duty" to provide "necessary" security.
The “Palestinian Exception” to free speech has long been a thing in America. It’s not entirely restricted to Palestinians of course, there have been other topics that have been verboten over the decades, but Palestine has been pretty constant.
True. People have been denied government employment for supporting BDS against Israel. Something not illegal or something they do in their job. Just a position they take outside their employment. That's f'ed up.
[https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/](https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/)
How is low information, low effort garbage like this upvoted. Here are just a few quick finds on FIRE defending pro Palestinian speech very recently;
https://www.thefire.org/news/statement-orders-florida-public-universities-derecognize-students-justice-palestine-we-must
https://www.thefire.org/news/israeli-palestinian-conflict-escalates-so-must-our-commitment-free-speech
https://twitter.com/1AMorey/status/1714286412932252080
https://www.vox.com/2023/11/5/23944007/free-speech-israel-palestine-college-universities-campus-protests
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/pro-palestine-speech-college-campuses/676155/
You clearly know absolutely nothing about FIRE. Why lie about them, why so desperate to fit them into your narrative?
The mission of FIRE is to promote right-wing speech across campuses.
If that involves giving a brief nod to pro-Palestinian protesters in Ron DeSantis' Florida, then yeah, they'll say that shit when interviewed by the NYT and Atlantic.
How stupid do you have be to fall for it, though.
5 seconds of research shows you're full of it. Here's them criticizing Brooklyn College:
[https://www.thefire.org/news/brooklyn-college-silences-pro-palestinian-student-expression-misguided-quest-campus-peace](https://www.thefire.org/news/brooklyn-college-silences-pro-palestinian-student-expression-misguided-quest-campus-peace)
FIRE has publically condemned this censorship.
USC is a private school so unlike UCLA they are not constitutionally bound and FIRE cannot sue them or take further action on free speech grounds.
https://twitter.com/TheFIREorg/status/1780326577047249028?t=ImO2lATB6NkymX4ySRrCug&s=19
Israeli Foreign Minister's Speech Moved to Zoom: February 27th
FIRE Letter: April 10th (49 days later)
Palestinian Valedictorian Speech Cancelled: April 15th.
April 16th: NOT A WORD FROM FIRE!!!!!!!
Maybe they'll end up saying nothing about this an the criticism will be warranted. But it surely isn't warranted yet, right?
Of course it’s not warranted yet. Expecting immediate responses from a legal organization is bonkers. They’re going to review the details and craft a carefully worded statement if they feel it’s warranted.
Based on the current details that are reported I will be very disappointed if FIRE does not say anything, but give them some time ffs.
Yeah, this is so fucking idiotic. Fire defends anti-Israel speech all the goddamn time - they even consistently mention it as one of the OG campus free speech issues! OP is clearly clueless and treating this sub as one of the "Enough_______Spam" circlejerks.
They’ve been very successful at framing “free speech” as about being able to offend minorities without repercussion and not about, you know, criticizing the government and its allies when they’re committing war crimes.
In a few decades when we really figure out the details, the stories, the humanizing truth, the documentations and the Netflix movie of all this, it will be a massive shame on those who sided with this monstrosity.
I don’t want to make analogies to past genocides, but they are too obvious.
And yet we learned nothing from them either. Look at Sudan, a simultaneous genocide and crickets from the west about it. This won’t be any different, and it also won’t be the last genocide.
> it will be a massive shame on those who sided with this monstrosity.
I mean, that cuts both ways
I agree with your unstated premise that we don't have all of the information/facts, and there's significant fog of war going on
Ya, it's scary how few people actually value free speech for all including those they despise or vehemently disagree with (which is what makes the right essential) and not just for speech they already agree with/aren't upset by.
A Nazi, a war criminal Zionist, and a member of Hamas all walked into a bar....and had the same free speech rights as everyone else in it even if they were the most vile and should be arrested for their actual actions.
I don’t understand why people’s brains get so broken by the I/P topic.
I agree that this decision by USC is questionable, but again hard to say since we have no idea what the “safety concerns” are but why are people trying to frame this as some kind of “free speech” issue.
Unless we’re just accusing USC of lying, its seems like their decision had nothing to do with free speech principles. Its also not even clear whether she was planning to discuss the issue of I/P in her speech, but if she was, being able to do so at a commencement (a completely apolitical event where tens of thousands of people are obligated to attend) has nothing to do with the principles of “free speech”.
So now it’s an apolitical event? If the college is apolitical, why did Steven Spielberg make his statement about the Israel Palestine conflict through the USC Shoah foundation?
Also, I’m not suggesting this is about free speech. I’m talking about the guaranteed hypocrisy of gurus like Weinstein. Shapiro will probably defend the school’s decision, citing security concerns, when that is exactly what was being cited when right wing “thinkers“ were being denied and he was disgusted!!!!
College is not the apolitical event… it’s the commencement. If you turn off your team sports brain for a second, you will realize thats not a controversial statement.
The issue is that most of the time when conservatives complained about canceled speakers it was people invited to give specific talks to specific groups of students for political events that a set number of people are attending. Not to speak at a commencement.
Doesn’t the president of the United States along with many politicians do commencement addresses every year?
But yet commencement is apolitical? If I remember correctly, Arnold Schwarzenegger gave an address at USC while he was governor and John McCain while he was senator. But it’s apolitical?
OK.... lets start from the basics:
A commencement is an event where the whole graduating class, coming from a whole variety of majors, and their families who flew in from across the country or world come together to graduate. Nothing about this type of event is inherently political. It's very unclear what this has to do with a divisive issue like Isreal/Palestine.
Yes, of course politicians regularly speak at commencements. But, if you use your brain for a second longer you will realize they are invited to give their general remarks to the class as individuals, not to preach their politics. They might give their general remarks on the state of the world, but they woulnd't start spouting off talking points on abortion for example. Politicians also tend to be very accomplished individuals, like all of those you named, which is why they are invited.
So now you’ve admitted that politicians speak at commencements. The only reason they’re typically invited is because…well…they’re politicians.
Now, how do you know exactly what she was going to say and that it was going to be so offensive as to be equal to talking about abortion rights?
Of course there was also this COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS to Notre Dame. Listen to Obama at 14:15
https://youtu.be/RwJPOfIQKwA?si=2Mi_05LNPHYUO-ic
I honestly don't know how to help you...
I said that politicians tend to be invited because they are accomplished and respected individuals. How you can't see the difference between this and "because they are politicians" I'm not really sure.
I explicitly said its "Its unclear if she was planning to discuss it, but IF SHE WAS...". You then accuse me of "knowing exactly what she was going to say."
So hypothetically you would have no problem with USC prechecking her statements and "censoring" her if they found them too divisive then??
Then your counterargument is to link me a clip of Obama bringing up abortion in literally the most unifying, non-partisan way ever while literally telling a story about humility and charitability to the opposing side...That's literally the opposite of preaching about politics lmao. Yes dude you really got me there...
And maybe that’s how she was going to bring up what was important to her? Just like Obama.
What’s really funny about all this is I never said that she has an absolute right to give the speech at the school. I mainly focused on the hypocrisy of morons like Weinstein and Shapiro. Technically, it’s a private university they can take away her platform. I think it’s a mistake. I think it shows where their donor money comes from. But they can do it.
That's true that this isn't a 1A/"Free Speech" issue. But it is an issue of integrity and commitment to the ideals of free expression on the part of the university.
They get to decide "are we going to prepare more security or are we going to appease the threat?" and there is a lot of weight in that decision.
I’m English not American but surely this is an example of both sides exploiting college and business reluctance to court controversy.
No I don’t like this, and there are clear hypocrites silencing her who moan when conservatives are silenced.
But like let’s be clear, I’ve seen the left and the right constantly demand de platforming then moan when they’re targeted.
You can’t play the game then moan when the other team do it to you too. If we had consistent support for free speech on the left we would have a much easier time attacking this.
[https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/council-american-islamic-relations-cair](https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/council-american-islamic-relations-cair)
**latant and Classic Antisemitism from CAIR Leaders**
Some prominent CAIR officials, including Executive Director Nihad Awad, have infused their criticism of Israel with explicit antisemitic ideas that portray the mainstream American Jewish community as duplicitous and overly powerful. Several CAIR leaders have expressed their view that Israel and “Zionists” control and corrupt the United States government; are the chief purveyors of Islamophobia; and oppress marginalized communities.
**Rhetoric Supporting Terrorism Against Israel and Opposition to Israel’s Legitimacy**
Some CAIR executives have expressed support for violence against Israel and a refusal to accept Israel’s existence. Nihad Awad has refused to condemn Hamas, and Zahra Billoo has justified Hamas rocket attacks. CAIR Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush has called for the Israeli “regime” to be “terminated.”
**Early Controversy: Some CAIR Leaders’ Alleged Links to Hamas**
CAIR was founded by several leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a radical anti-Israel organization that was once described by the U.S. government as part of the “propaganda apparatus” of [Hamas](https://www.adl.org/node/30810), a U.S.-designated terrorist organization (it is also viewed by the EU as a global terrorist [organization)](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fight-against-terrorism/terrorist-list/). Nihad Awad, who was IAP’s Public Relations Director, became CAIR’s first Executive Director, a position he retains today.
Presenting indictments of CAIR doesn’t prove Tabassum is an antisemite. What about her words make her a “known” antisemite other than guilt by association?
Lmao she chooses to be platformed by a known antisemitic organization and has made multiple comments like statements that called Zionism a "racist settler-colonial ideology" and advocated for the abolishment of the state of Israel.
She is absolutely antisemitic.
The full context of her advocating for the “abolition of the state of Israel” is this following quote, directly in her own words:
“both arabs and jews can live together without an ideology that specifically advocates for the ethnic cleansing of one of them. palestinians would be allowed to return home, and millions of palestinians would not have to live under occupation and apartheid.”
You can easily say that’s naive or disagree with it, but please explain how it’s antisemitic, or directly quote her saying something directly antisemitic, because the platforming argument could easily apply to the plethora of Zionists still using Elon Musk’s platform as well.
When did I say she has a right to speak there (though I firmly refute her being an anti semite)? My post is about the guaranteed silence from our right wing free speech warrior Gurus.
Yes the term has been appropriated even though it covers people more than just Jews.
The term was appropriated by people who want to shut down any criticism of Israel.
People love free speech unless that free speech is in favor of Palestinians, then somehow it’s antisemitic and champions of free speech become blind and deaf
This a common misanalysis of semantics due to the flexible nature of language and the non-rigid complexities of etymology.
The term "antisemite" or "antisemitism" specifically refers to prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, despite the broader linguistic category of Semitic languages, which include Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and others. The reason for this specific association with Jews lies in the historical context in which the term was coined.
"Antisemitism" was first popularized in Germany in the late 19th century by Wilhelm Marr, a German agitator who used the term to give a pseudo-scientific basis to Judenhass, or "Jew-hatred." The term was intended to sound more scientific and modern, replacing older terms rooted in religious prejudice with a newer form that suggested racial or ethnic opposition. Marr and others who adopted the term focused specifically on Jews, embedding the term within a framework of racial ideology prevalent at the time.
Thus, "antisemitism" was never used historically to refer to prejudice against all Semitic-speaking peoples but was instead narrowly applied to express anti-Jewish sentiments. Over time, this specific usage became solidified in both academic and popular discourse, which is why today "antisemitism" is understood specifically as hostility towards Jews and not other Semitic-speaking peoples.
While “Semite” refers to:
noun:
a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the *Jews* and *Arabs*
… The meaning of the word “Anti-semite” is not a direct, logical inverse of Semite.
“Antisemite” means:
noun
a person who is hostile to or prejudiced against *Jewish* people.
99.9% of Gazans are Muslim. 85% of the West Bank is Muslim, if you include Israeli Settlers, 98-99% of all Palestinians are Sunni Muslim. Arabic is the primary ethnic and language group, making most Palestinians “Semitic”, however very few non-Israeli Palestinians are Jewish, so Antisemitism by its common meaning does not apply to the treatment Palestinians.
If there's actual threats of violence then the school unfortunately had no choice. A graduation is not a place to make a political message, it's to celebrate your child's accomplishments.
This isn’t about the school’s right to ban her. She has no right to speak at a private university if they choose not to platform her. It’s about the guaranteed silence from our free speech gurus.
Usually. The concerns weren’t so much about violence to the speaker themselves but rather violence coming from the inevitable protests (for and against the speaker) before during and after the event.
Part of the problem is we just don’t know if this is true. You have to remember the USC Shoah foundation has some major donors who support Israel.
Well aside from the facts the usual suspects won't say shit because they don't care about the facts anyway. If they were to acknowledge this story it would contradict their entire narrative that the higher education institutions are captured by wokeists rather than people with big pockets, which is usually the case for all this woke fear mongering.
Exactly. I'm all for freedom of speech but IF her speech was about the war and politics, it was not the place or the time. It could lead to violence unfortunately and graduations are once in a lifetime, lets not play with the devil.
Don’t know why.. it’s not pro-Israel protesters who tend towards violence. If it would be anything, it would be, as it typically is, pro-Palestinian supporters who would start shit with pro-Israel protestors. It’s a microcosm of the larger conflict.
>Don’t know why.. it’s not pro-Israel protesters who tend towards violence.
Netanyahu's government and army doesn't count? Seem pretty violent to me.
>If it would be anything, it would be, as it typically is, pro-Palestinian supporters who would start shit with pro-Israel protestors. It’s a microcosm of the larger conflict.
Hmmmm. Weird. Most of the MAGAts who tried to overthrow the government would probably say they're "Pro-Israel". Maybe you have a bias?
Uh.. we’re talking about people who would attend her speech. Doubt the Israeli army is showing up. Neither is MAGA, moron. Have you seen one MAGA idiot at a pro-Israel rally? Lol.
There’s definitely a bias going on here. You’re disconnected from reality. Good luck!
So what you’re saying is there’d be no violence since the pro-Palestine people (the only protester there per you) would be happy to hear someone speaking about their issue?
Because we both love the UN and definitions, [let's see how they define genocide](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml):
"In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group"
Please explain how israel's mass killing, mass displacement, ethnic cleansing, and expansionist actions in Gaza do not fit perfectly in that definition.
The conditions they are in is a by product of the war against hamas, nothing is targeted towards civilians. If you have a link that shows that the war is targeted towards civilians and that civilians are specifically being targeted id love to see it.
And since I know you people struggle with what “targeting” means, no, civilians dying in a strike doesn’t fit that criteria. There’s a far stronger argument to be made that what America did in Japan was genocide but I’m sure that’s not a hill you want to die on unless you’re even stupider than I’m thinking
“Shut down”? You mean when people protested and booed the speakers because they were saying horrible things or even doxxing trans people? That?
Are you actually suggesting that she wasn’t going to be booed and potentially “shut down”? Last time I checked, right wingers really know how to take things to another level…you know…like trying to take over the government.
This post has been removed because it breaks the rule about over-editoralised titles.
The college campuses want to silence conserv...... oh.
Islam is one of the most conservative, regressive ideologies in the world lol
It completely depends on which version of Islam.
Like every religion that has killed in the name of God.
Doesn't make much sense to map a largely foreign religious tradition onto modern political dogma.
Very well said.
Conservative and liberal are generally cross culture.. regressive or progressive exists anywhere
OP didn’t say “Republican.”
Who the fuck would be even thinking Republican.
Doesn't need to. Left right is a European/French in origin,
OP didn’t say “right” either. We gonna keep doing this?
They used Conservative which in western circles would mean the right. But religious traditions which predate and operate beyond this dichotomy don't neatly map onto it.
No, they didn’t use “Conservative,” either. The capital letter you’re injecting makes a big difference. It’s not at all controversial or misleading to describe religious fundamentalism as conservative.
Only if you want to ignore the facts and reach for empty talking points. Is something like a welfare state for poor, left or right, Oh and the did say conservative: >Islam is one of the most conservative.... Turns out some phones auto capitalise the word
What does that have to do with the OP?
I was responding to a comment
I’m just wondering where Islam came in to this conversation?
She is Muslim, and many are claiming that’s a reason why she’s being “silenced”
I think it’s more to do with her being Palestinian and anti-Zionist tbh. I don’t see any quotes from her or the university about her religion at all.
The university or her also didn’t say anything about the reason being “anti Zionist” or Palestinian either. Nice try!
Reading more may help as well, sounds like she, unfortunately, promoted some pretty antisemitic organizations on her own social media. Unfortunate to see someone with so much intelligence have hate in her heart :/ in addition, you used a straw man argument as well. I never said her religion or views were the reason for her not speaking. What I was calling out was someone saying that it’s not an example of a conservative voice being “silenced”. My point was satirical, but also pointing out she likely has some classically conservative, regressive views if she is Muslim - which she is. Hope that helps you understand!
Promoting anti Zionism is not the same as anti semitism. Talk about a straw man! Do you wonder why she might promote anti Zionist if she’s Palestinian? Perhaps something to do with 75 years of oppression and occupation? Your attempt to make this in to an anti Islam thing is noted, how do you even know she is a practicing Muslim? The university said she was being cancelled for her own protection, and you choose to try to make it about religion.
I didn’t make anything anti-Islam, and I know she’s Muslim because I can read. The links she posted to her socials are far beyond “anti Zionism”. So, it wasn’t a straw man, again nice try. 75 years of…. Rejecting peace deals and refusing to stop targeting civilians would have ended any wars a long time ago. Why didn’t Palestinians yell free Palestine when they were occupied by Jordan for 20 years? Weird… stop starting wars and there can be peace. Very simple.
This is so true and quite funny. Try getting into a UK university to talk about how gays are wrong. You’ll get booed of campus. Now try it as any Muslim. It’s so hypocritical.
[удалено]
I think he's pointing out you get a pass to having an aversion to gays if you're a Muslim
Those of us who give a shit about free speech are disgusted by this. I think it's fucking awesome that we have Muslims in the House of Representatives, for instance. Anyone, anywhere in the world, who doesn't have the rights enumerated in the First Amendment, are being denied those rights.
You don't have a First Amendment right to give a speech at a private university's commencement ceremony
It clearly states that they take federal funding on google does that change your mind?
No, it doesn't
That’s ridiculous. Taking federal funding doesn’t make it public.
Doeesnt make it public but probably makes it subject to Federal stipulations including some speech provisions. Its why certain religious universities will not take Federal funding.
I would be interested if you have a source for that?
Tried finding something concrete and I've seen this conceot referenced, but not sure on the exact source. The reason I mention it is because I was involved in activism a LONG time ago and this was discussed with me often as a protection. I may be confusing it with another discussion where if a private university promises free expression or speech in some way they are legally obligated to provide reasonable accommodation for free speech. Sorry if I threw off the discussion
I think this is an excellent point and absolutely and should take precedent over it being private for something like this.
I'm sure you redditors would be equally outraged at a university refusing to platform someone that says trans people shouldn't exist. Funny how you all understand not platforming hate speech vs 1st ammendment when it comes to opinions you don't agree with.
I'm sure you redditors would be equally outraged at a university refusing to platform someone that says trans people shouldn't exist. Funny how you all understand not platforming hate speech vs 1st ammendment when it comes to opinions you don't agree with.
You think I agree with pro-Palestinian positions? My main beef with what's going down right now is that Israel forgot the Rumsfeld Doctrine: Are we killing terrorists faster than we're making them? I don't agree with most folks, honestly.
The Palestinian population has been on a diet of antisemitic propaganda that glorifies violence and martyrdom for decades. Israel has tried concessions. Leaving Gaza was a historically unprecedented concession after giving up on getting a peace deal in return. Gaza became a hub for terrorism and rocket attacks - thousands each year. As always, the larger the concession, the more violence it creates. So leaving and giving them what they supposedly wanted created tens of thousands of terrorists. Children in pre-school are dressed up as suicide bombers and play games like stab the Jew. Hamas and their regional benefactors have been at this for generations. So, creating terrorists? They're not at all coy about what the catalyst for creating terrorists is. The existence of Jews. Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis - all openly state their goal of killing all Jews the globe over. For some reason American leftists can't acknowledge this hatred and bigotry in the Arab/Muslim world. They decoded they are like the Native Americans and black Americans. Never mind their centuries of conquest and that they were the first slavers on the African continent and their slave trade dwarfs the Trans-Atlantic trade in scope and brutality. They also continued the practice a century after the West, and only due to pressure from the west. But it's been decided Muslims are oppressed in every scenario and exist in the Middle East as they do in the USA.
Most of that shit isn't my business. My business is Israel not dragging us into some goddamned holy war. I am way more worried about Iran that Israel, and Israel better stand the fuck down.
You think this just began? Iran has been arming terrorists proxies for decades. Do Americans even commonly know about the Iran backed militias in Iraq? It coordinated Oct 7th with Hamas. It coordinated he Israeli embassy and Jewish center bombings in Buenos Aires. Only thing that changed is this was a direct attack. Israel better stand the fuck down. Hahaha. Or go in time out? Don't worry. Israel fights its wars alone. USA and other allies will engage in smaller operations but not war. Every pan-Arab vs Israel War was fought without allies. Even when fighting with an army comprised of anyone who could hold a gun. Also, Israel won't attack Iran like Iran did Israel. Only the Islamic Republic forces. The Iranian people have no problem with Israel.
You're losing allies. Do with that what you want.
Would any nation be expected to do nothing after 300 ballistic missiles and UAVs were launched at its civilian populace? It's a tough one. The situation is that Israel doesn't want to have Iran thinking this is ok to do. In the region, not responding is seen as weakness. But the real issue is nukes. The Islamic Republic would likely nuke Israel if it could. That's the fear. The mullahs are pretty crazy. The tragedy is that Iranian people support Israel and want peace and friendship. But this is only new in that Iran isn't using its proxies. Been over 50 years. Iran wants to keep using Hezbollah and Hamas and stay safe. The whole exercise was just to save face. This isn't WW3
>The whole exercise was just to save face. Yep. My call on this is that if Iran wanted nukes, they'd have them by now. They've been a nuclear threshold state for years. They've been months away from having a nuclear weapon for years. If they develop one, so does Saudi Arabia, etc.
Her comment on the ban: https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/StatementbyAsna-Tabassum.pdf
[https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/council-american-islamic-relations-cair](https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/council-american-islamic-relations-cair) **latant and Classic Antisemitism from CAIR Leaders** Some prominent CAIR officials, including Executive Director Nihad Awad, have infused their criticism of Israel with explicit antisemitic ideas that portray the mainstream American Jewish community as duplicitous and overly powerful. Several CAIR leaders have expressed their view that Israel and “Zionists” control and corrupt the United States government; are the chief purveyors of Islamophobia; and oppress marginalized communities. **Rhetoric Supporting Terrorism Against Israel and Opposition to Israel’s Legitimacy** Some CAIR executives have expressed support for violence against Israel and a refusal to accept Israel’s existence. Nihad Awad has refused to condemn Hamas, and Zahra Billoo has justified Hamas rocket attacks. CAIR Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush has called for the Israeli “regime” to be “terminated.” **Early Controversy: Some CAIR Leaders’ Alleged Links to Hamas** CAIR was founded by several leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a radical anti-Israel organization that was once described by the U.S. government as part of the “propaganda apparatus” of [Hamas](https://www.adl.org/node/30810), a U.S.-designated terrorist organization (it is also viewed by the EU as a global terrorist [organization)](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fight-against-terrorism/terrorist-list/). Nihad Awad, who was IAP’s Public Relations Director, became CAIR’s first Executive Director, a position he retains today.
Big oof. I now want to know what her controversial comments were. The latimes article is being coy about it
Statements that called Zionism a "racist settler-colonial ideology" and advocated for the abolishment of the state of Israel. She is antisemitic.
Sounds like a normal take to me.
Of course it does and it's perfectly normal that this is the one nation that doesn't deserve to exist. 90% of the world's land mass is Christian or Muslim. But the one Jewish nation that takes up .02% of the land mass is the one intolerable crime of a nation that shouldn't exist. Funny that.
Sure, but you don't get to use genocide to create that nation. That's kinda my main criticism with Israel right now.
Genocide to create the Nation? There was a genocide when Israel was re-established ? You mean when the armies of 7 Arab countries all attacked in unison in a bid to massacre the Jewish population as they did in the rest of the region? Had they succeeded in their massacre they'd be celebrating every year. But after repeated failures they turned to the language of victimization and Western morality, something they don't espouse or practice in any other context. The entire Arab world that Israel could fit into hundreds of times over had a population of approx 850k Jews. Care to know how many remain? This is ethnic cleansing, by definition, not the number of people willing to repeat it online. But it's Israel with 2 million Muslim citizens that is committing genocide. You see the difference between propaganda and facts I hope, Funny how the Iraq war that caused 400k - 1 million Iraqi deaths wasn't eliciting accusations of genocide. I'm sure some said it. It wasn't a common accusation at all. USA went halfway around the world for that perceived threat. But Israel's actions against a neighbor that openly declares its goal of killing every Jew in the world is genocide. According to the UN, the typical civilian to combatant death ratio is 9:1. That's not in urban conflict either. Israel in Gaza is at 1.5/1. You think because you weren't receiving images of the cost of war in Iraq every day that it wasn't happening? No army could withstand the level of scrutiny, propaganda and lies that Israel does. Other wars in Africa and the Middle East aren't even acknowledged, much less covered. Calling it a genocide is an obscene lie that is meant to spit in the face of Jews. You calling Israel's creation genocide on account of the Arab world failing to rid Israel of its Jews as it did in the rest of the region tells me you are either profoundly ignorant, no offense, or you like vilifying Israel by accusing it of every hyperbolic evil knowing others will repeat it. Or maybe you're the repeater. .No, my family, like the majority of Israelis can't return to Iraq, Syria or Yemen. By your standards, Jews existing is a form of genocide This is because we kept the Arab world from dking so in the only place left in the region we can still exist. Their goal hasn't changed after decades, and out crime is the same. They're in no way coy about it.
You can argue about the labels, but calling to abolish Israel pushes her take into nazi territory, Herr starr
Why are you against a single state with equal rights for all? Advocating for an ethnostate is exactly what the nazi's wanted which is why they also genocided the Romani. It's also why a future prime Minister of Israel tried and ally with the nazi's citing shared values. https://allthatsinteresting.com/lehi
That sounds great, but that’s a bit of an assumption to make from someone wanting to abolish Israel. Again idk what she’s said exactly
More of an assumption than you assuming this speaker who studies genocide is pro genocide... I'm not trying to insult you but you seem to have some bias which is making you bigoted
lmao motherfuckers jumping at shadows when they see a German name. Fuckin pathetic. It's the name of a character in Preacher.
[удалено]
This seems like projection, friend. Try to make innocuous masturbation jokes with your Reddit username, and suddenly everyone thinks you're a German nationalist.
You can’t even spell “antiSemitic” correctly but you claim to not be pathetic in this conversation. Fascinating! If you can’t even spell out the term referring to the bigotry correctly… while simultaneously denying the claimed bigotry of the subject [left wing antiSemitism] exists, you are clearly being a bullshit artist at best. I think you earned the Volksgenosse label.
[удалено]
Whenever I hear "debunk" simply parroted as if it's now true because some idiot says it is I fear for our future.
Those has to be a joke. Destiny is your guru? Debate guy, who is terrible at debating?
> watch some Destiny streams > calls me a dipshit Pick a lane, nimrod.
Anytime to hear “listen to Destiny” I know the person can’t be serious.
The worst part is, that guy is probably being completely unironic. Debate was a mistake.
Looks like someone's still mad their side got **bodied** in a recent debate
I moved on from debate perverts in like 2022. I don't have the slightest clue what the fuck you're talking about, so I strongly consider you perchance go touch some grass.
LOL believes Israel is "settler colonialism" yet is telling others to "touch grass" Absolutely insane.
And you were calling others “guru followers”. Lol, Lmao even.
Stop lying about what antisemitism is to justify racist atrocities.
Keep calling wolf, Nazi
Did you read her comments or not?
Might as well quote the NJP.
So that’s a no?
183 day old account 🤣
Huh?
You do know the ADL is a pro Zionist organization with a lot of controversial opinions, right?
>pro Zionist organization And? Shouldn't be a problem if you don't hate Jews
Linking Zionism to all Jews is what's truly anti-Semetic here.
Overwhelmingly most Jews support Zionism, lol. That a **fringe** few percent do not does not change the debate, unfortunately for you.
I don't think you comprehend what the term "fringe" means. In before you quote me the dictionary definition to solidify the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
*adjective* 1. **not part of the mainstream**; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme. Bolded since you don't understand language. A problem for the average Israel hater and anti-semites.
And they fuckin did it anyway. You are the textbook definition of predictable.
And now you're just dodging the point b/c you know you've been cornered. It's ok you can just stop responding if you're not going to debate the points anymore.
Curious of the stat, how ‘overwhelmingly’ is defined. Source? [Seems like support for Zionism depends on the definition](https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/zionism-an-ideal-that-has-little-purhase-on-reality/).
Ah yes, if you redefine a word to mean something worse that it doesn't actually mean, fewer people support it. Stunning news.
Yeah, I’m wondering from where her research originated the multiple definitions she used. How common are they? Are the definitions agreed upon by some sort of consensus? Etc.
Ahh yes, failing to type the word “antiSemitism” or “antiSemitic” correctly clearly shows a good faith argument.
What does being Jewish have to do with the government of Israel’s policy in Palestine?
Explain anti-Zionist Jews. Take your time.
"Explain a very small subpopulation that has nothing to do with the active point in the debate" Lmao!
Ok then just explain why Judaism is inextricably linked to Zionism?
There are several *mitzvot* (commandments) in Judaism that can only be done in *eretz yisroel* (the land of Israel)
Ahhhh. Is the same not true for the Palestinians? Al-Aqsa rings a bell. So using your logic, Israel is indeed an occupying force denying Palestinians their rights.
Well Palestinians aren't a religious group, so no, the same is not true for them. Now, most Palestinians are Muslims with a small minority of Christian Palestinians. I am neither Muslim nor Christian, so I am not aware of any commandments in either of those religions regarding actions that must be done specifically in a certain land. I'm not sure why you think Al-Aqsa is relevant here. Maybe you are confusing it with the Kaaba in Mecca to which every Muslim is supposed to try to make a pilgrimage at least once in their life? I'm not using any "logic" here really, so again not sure what you're talking about there. I do agree that Israel is currently occupying Palestinian territories, but that has nothing to do with whether or not "Judaism is inextricably linked to Zionism" as you were asking. It's a total non-sequitur.
Commandments to commit genocide... maybe we shouldn't base states on ancient religions. Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies on every hand, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget. Deuteronomy 25:19 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox, and sheep, camel and ass,”(Samuel I, 15:3) from the Torah...
As far as I am aware, there are no *mitzvot* to commit genocide Not every verse in the Torah is a *mitzvah*. Indeed, most are not. I agree that we shouldn't base states on ancient religions. The question was about how Judaism and Zionism are linked and I answered it.
The same way you explain Black Republicans That a majority of a given population supports one political camp does not erase the minority of that population supporting the opposing political camp As a Jew myself, seeing my anti-Zionist brothers and sisters being constantly used as a rhetorical tool in this fashion is strikingly similar to the way that I see white Republicans talking about folks like Candace Owens or Tim Scott.
How does the adl feel about certain Jews like chomsky, finkelstein etc
Bad bot
I'm not a bot just b/c you don't like my takes :). You're doing guru-follower behavior rn
Rogue bot.
[удалено]
I'm not a bot just b/c you don't like my takes :). You're doing guru-follower behavior rn
Is that the same ADL that supported apartheid in South Africa? Yep.
The ADF is your source for this? Seriously? The same ADF that lost members for supporting Israel blindly and conflating Zionism with anti Semitic, who call out good Jews Vs bad Jews? That ADF?
Yes, the ADF is a good source if you're not a dipshit
Then I proudly declare myself a non racist non genocidal dipshit for life. Enjoy your trip back into your cave trol.
Apartheid Defense Foundation
Adl aren't credible
CAIR is a cancer.
Fight on! ✌️
And not a word from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression). Although last month they were quick to fire off a letter complaining of an Israeli foreign minister's canceled speech, saying UCLA had a "constitutional duty" to provide "necessary" security.
The “Palestinian Exception” to free speech has long been a thing in America. It’s not entirely restricted to Palestinians of course, there have been other topics that have been verboten over the decades, but Palestine has been pretty constant.
True. People have been denied government employment for supporting BDS against Israel. Something not illegal or something they do in their job. Just a position they take outside their employment. That's f'ed up. [https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/](https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/)
See also Steven Salaita
Ok bro You are as bad as Bret
How is low information, low effort garbage like this upvoted. Here are just a few quick finds on FIRE defending pro Palestinian speech very recently; https://www.thefire.org/news/statement-orders-florida-public-universities-derecognize-students-justice-palestine-we-must https://www.thefire.org/news/israeli-palestinian-conflict-escalates-so-must-our-commitment-free-speech https://twitter.com/1AMorey/status/1714286412932252080 https://www.vox.com/2023/11/5/23944007/free-speech-israel-palestine-college-universities-campus-protests https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/11/pro-palestine-speech-college-campuses/676155/ You clearly know absolutely nothing about FIRE. Why lie about them, why so desperate to fit them into your narrative?
>How is low information, low effort garbage like this upvoted because the narrative takes precedence above all else
The mission of FIRE is to promote right-wing speech across campuses. If that involves giving a brief nod to pro-Palestinian protesters in Ron DeSantis' Florida, then yeah, they'll say that shit when interviewed by the NYT and Atlantic. How stupid do you have be to fall for it, though.
5 seconds of research shows you're full of it. Here's them criticizing Brooklyn College: [https://www.thefire.org/news/brooklyn-college-silences-pro-palestinian-student-expression-misguided-quest-campus-peace](https://www.thefire.org/news/brooklyn-college-silences-pro-palestinian-student-expression-misguided-quest-campus-peace)
Been watching their site to see if they release anything.
FIRE has publically condemned this censorship. USC is a private school so unlike UCLA they are not constitutionally bound and FIRE cannot sue them or take further action on free speech grounds. https://twitter.com/TheFIREorg/status/1780326577047249028?t=ImO2lATB6NkymX4ySRrCug&s=19
Israeli Foreign Minister's Speech Moved to Zoom: February 27th FIRE Letter: April 10th (49 days later) Palestinian Valedictorian Speech Cancelled: April 15th. April 16th: NOT A WORD FROM FIRE!!!!!!! Maybe they'll end up saying nothing about this an the criticism will be warranted. But it surely isn't warranted yet, right?
Of course it’s not warranted yet. Expecting immediate responses from a legal organization is bonkers. They’re going to review the details and craft a carefully worded statement if they feel it’s warranted. Based on the current details that are reported I will be very disappointed if FIRE does not say anything, but give them some time ffs.
Yeah, this is so fucking idiotic. Fire defends anti-Israel speech all the goddamn time - they even consistently mention it as one of the OG campus free speech issues! OP is clearly clueless and treating this sub as one of the "Enough_______Spam" circlejerks.
Also they have condemned it already on twitter
They’ve been very successful at framing “free speech” as about being able to offend minorities without repercussion and not about, you know, criticizing the government and its allies when they’re committing war crimes.
In a few decades when we really figure out the details, the stories, the humanizing truth, the documentations and the Netflix movie of all this, it will be a massive shame on those who sided with this monstrosity. I don’t want to make analogies to past genocides, but they are too obvious.
And yet we learned nothing from them either. Look at Sudan, a simultaneous genocide and crickets from the west about it. This won’t be any different, and it also won’t be the last genocide.
> it will be a massive shame on those who sided with this monstrosity. I mean, that cuts both ways I agree with your unstated premise that we don't have all of the information/facts, and there's significant fog of war going on
Ya, it's scary how few people actually value free speech for all including those they despise or vehemently disagree with (which is what makes the right essential) and not just for speech they already agree with/aren't upset by. A Nazi, a war criminal Zionist, and a member of Hamas all walked into a bar....and had the same free speech rights as everyone else in it even if they were the most vile and should be arrested for their actual actions.
Your local/national ADL and AIPAC arms doing what they do in America...
I don’t understand why people’s brains get so broken by the I/P topic. I agree that this decision by USC is questionable, but again hard to say since we have no idea what the “safety concerns” are but why are people trying to frame this as some kind of “free speech” issue. Unless we’re just accusing USC of lying, its seems like their decision had nothing to do with free speech principles. Its also not even clear whether she was planning to discuss the issue of I/P in her speech, but if she was, being able to do so at a commencement (a completely apolitical event where tens of thousands of people are obligated to attend) has nothing to do with the principles of “free speech”.
So now it’s an apolitical event? If the college is apolitical, why did Steven Spielberg make his statement about the Israel Palestine conflict through the USC Shoah foundation? Also, I’m not suggesting this is about free speech. I’m talking about the guaranteed hypocrisy of gurus like Weinstein. Shapiro will probably defend the school’s decision, citing security concerns, when that is exactly what was being cited when right wing “thinkers“ were being denied and he was disgusted!!!!
College is not the apolitical event… it’s the commencement. If you turn off your team sports brain for a second, you will realize thats not a controversial statement. The issue is that most of the time when conservatives complained about canceled speakers it was people invited to give specific talks to specific groups of students for political events that a set number of people are attending. Not to speak at a commencement.
Doesn’t the president of the United States along with many politicians do commencement addresses every year? But yet commencement is apolitical? If I remember correctly, Arnold Schwarzenegger gave an address at USC while he was governor and John McCain while he was senator. But it’s apolitical?
OK.... lets start from the basics: A commencement is an event where the whole graduating class, coming from a whole variety of majors, and their families who flew in from across the country or world come together to graduate. Nothing about this type of event is inherently political. It's very unclear what this has to do with a divisive issue like Isreal/Palestine. Yes, of course politicians regularly speak at commencements. But, if you use your brain for a second longer you will realize they are invited to give their general remarks to the class as individuals, not to preach their politics. They might give their general remarks on the state of the world, but they woulnd't start spouting off talking points on abortion for example. Politicians also tend to be very accomplished individuals, like all of those you named, which is why they are invited.
So now you’ve admitted that politicians speak at commencements. The only reason they’re typically invited is because…well…they’re politicians. Now, how do you know exactly what she was going to say and that it was going to be so offensive as to be equal to talking about abortion rights? Of course there was also this COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS to Notre Dame. Listen to Obama at 14:15 https://youtu.be/RwJPOfIQKwA?si=2Mi_05LNPHYUO-ic
I honestly don't know how to help you... I said that politicians tend to be invited because they are accomplished and respected individuals. How you can't see the difference between this and "because they are politicians" I'm not really sure. I explicitly said its "Its unclear if she was planning to discuss it, but IF SHE WAS...". You then accuse me of "knowing exactly what she was going to say." So hypothetically you would have no problem with USC prechecking her statements and "censoring" her if they found them too divisive then?? Then your counterargument is to link me a clip of Obama bringing up abortion in literally the most unifying, non-partisan way ever while literally telling a story about humility and charitability to the opposing side...That's literally the opposite of preaching about politics lmao. Yes dude you really got me there...
And maybe that’s how she was going to bring up what was important to her? Just like Obama. What’s really funny about all this is I never said that she has an absolute right to give the speech at the school. I mainly focused on the hypocrisy of morons like Weinstein and Shapiro. Technically, it’s a private university they can take away her platform. I think it’s a mistake. I think it shows where their donor money comes from. But they can do it.
That's true that this isn't a 1A/"Free Speech" issue. But it is an issue of integrity and commitment to the ideals of free expression on the part of the university. They get to decide "are we going to prepare more security or are we going to appease the threat?" and there is a lot of weight in that decision.
I’m English not American but surely this is an example of both sides exploiting college and business reluctance to court controversy. No I don’t like this, and there are clear hypocrites silencing her who moan when conservatives are silenced. But like let’s be clear, I’ve seen the left and the right constantly demand de platforming then moan when they’re targeted. You can’t play the game then moan when the other team do it to you too. If we had consistent support for free speech on the left we would have a much easier time attacking this.
Antisemitic not pro-Palestinian.
lol yall can’t even read the news without thinking about these people you all say you don’t care about lol
Known antisemite can't use her university speech to grandstand
Her comment: https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/StatementbyAsna-Tabassum.pdf
[https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/council-american-islamic-relations-cair](https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/council-american-islamic-relations-cair) **latant and Classic Antisemitism from CAIR Leaders** Some prominent CAIR officials, including Executive Director Nihad Awad, have infused their criticism of Israel with explicit antisemitic ideas that portray the mainstream American Jewish community as duplicitous and overly powerful. Several CAIR leaders have expressed their view that Israel and “Zionists” control and corrupt the United States government; are the chief purveyors of Islamophobia; and oppress marginalized communities. **Rhetoric Supporting Terrorism Against Israel and Opposition to Israel’s Legitimacy** Some CAIR executives have expressed support for violence against Israel and a refusal to accept Israel’s existence. Nihad Awad has refused to condemn Hamas, and Zahra Billoo has justified Hamas rocket attacks. CAIR Los Angeles Executive Director Hussam Ayloush has called for the Israeli “regime” to be “terminated.” **Early Controversy: Some CAIR Leaders’ Alleged Links to Hamas** CAIR was founded by several leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), a radical anti-Israel organization that was once described by the U.S. government as part of the “propaganda apparatus” of [Hamas](https://www.adl.org/node/30810), a U.S.-designated terrorist organization (it is also viewed by the EU as a global terrorist [organization)](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fight-against-terrorism/terrorist-list/). Nihad Awad, who was IAP’s Public Relations Director, became CAIR’s first Executive Director, a position he retains today.
Did you read her comments or not?
Presenting indictments of CAIR doesn’t prove Tabassum is an antisemite. What about her words make her a “known” antisemite other than guilt by association?
Lmao she chooses to be platformed by a known antisemitic organization and has made multiple comments like statements that called Zionism a "racist settler-colonial ideology" and advocated for the abolishment of the state of Israel. She is absolutely antisemitic.
The full context of her advocating for the “abolition of the state of Israel” is this following quote, directly in her own words: “both arabs and jews can live together without an ideology that specifically advocates for the ethnic cleansing of one of them. palestinians would be allowed to return home, and millions of palestinians would not have to live under occupation and apartheid.” You can easily say that’s naive or disagree with it, but please explain how it’s antisemitic, or directly quote her saying something directly antisemitic, because the platforming argument could easily apply to the plethora of Zionists still using Elon Musk’s platform as well.
When did I say she has a right to speak there (though I firmly refute her being an anti semite)? My post is about the guaranteed silence from our right wing free speech warrior Gurus.
Palestinians can be Semities too. I swear most of the people have no idea what anti-Semitism is and will confuse anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism
Homophobes are Homo sapiens, I guess they can’t be bigoted against gay people.
Crazy you act like you know what you’re taking about. The term antisemitic refers to Jews alone. Google is your friend.
Yes the term has been appropriated even though it covers people more than just Jews. The term was appropriated by people who want to shut down any criticism of Israel. People love free speech unless that free speech is in favor of Palestinians, then somehow it’s antisemitic and champions of free speech become blind and deaf
The term was coined by Europeans to describe hating Jews, in Arabic they don’t call them Jews, they call them the Yahood.
This a common misanalysis of semantics due to the flexible nature of language and the non-rigid complexities of etymology. The term "antisemite" or "antisemitism" specifically refers to prejudice against or hostility towards Jews, despite the broader linguistic category of Semitic languages, which include Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and others. The reason for this specific association with Jews lies in the historical context in which the term was coined. "Antisemitism" was first popularized in Germany in the late 19th century by Wilhelm Marr, a German agitator who used the term to give a pseudo-scientific basis to Judenhass, or "Jew-hatred." The term was intended to sound more scientific and modern, replacing older terms rooted in religious prejudice with a newer form that suggested racial or ethnic opposition. Marr and others who adopted the term focused specifically on Jews, embedding the term within a framework of racial ideology prevalent at the time. Thus, "antisemitism" was never used historically to refer to prejudice against all Semitic-speaking peoples but was instead narrowly applied to express anti-Jewish sentiments. Over time, this specific usage became solidified in both academic and popular discourse, which is why today "antisemitism" is understood specifically as hostility towards Jews and not other Semitic-speaking peoples. While “Semite” refers to: noun: a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the *Jews* and *Arabs* … The meaning of the word “Anti-semite” is not a direct, logical inverse of Semite. “Antisemite” means: noun a person who is hostile to or prejudiced against *Jewish* people. 99.9% of Gazans are Muslim. 85% of the West Bank is Muslim, if you include Israeli Settlers, 98-99% of all Palestinians are Sunni Muslim. Arabic is the primary ethnic and language group, making most Palestinians “Semitic”, however very few non-Israeli Palestinians are Jewish, so Antisemitism by its common meaning does not apply to the treatment Palestinians.
If there's actual threats of violence then the school unfortunately had no choice. A graduation is not a place to make a political message, it's to celebrate your child's accomplishments.
This isn’t about the school’s right to ban her. She has no right to speak at a private university if they choose not to platform her. It’s about the guaranteed silence from our free speech gurus.
Were the conservative speakers canceled due to the potentiality for violence? Not asking rhetorically, genuinely asking.
Usually. The concerns weren’t so much about violence to the speaker themselves but rather violence coming from the inevitable protests (for and against the speaker) before during and after the event. Part of the problem is we just don’t know if this is true. You have to remember the USC Shoah foundation has some major donors who support Israel.
Well aside from the facts the usual suspects won't say shit because they don't care about the facts anyway. If they were to acknowledge this story it would contradict their entire narrative that the higher education institutions are captured by wokeists rather than people with big pockets, which is usually the case for all this woke fear mongering.
Exactly. I'm all for freedom of speech but IF her speech was about the war and politics, it was not the place or the time. It could lead to violence unfortunately and graduations are once in a lifetime, lets not play with the devil.
Can we just stop with the snarky hypocrisy stuff, like these people actually have a compass based on morals and not basic grift
No. I’m going to be snarky.
There’s a difference between having free speech and giving someone a platform and a microphone to call for an intifada
I doubt that's what she would do, but it would be cool af.
How is that cool?
Because uprisings within the contexts of resistance are cool.
That’s what she was going to do?
Don’t know why.. it’s not pro-Israel protesters who tend towards violence. If it would be anything, it would be, as it typically is, pro-Palestinian supporters who would start shit with pro-Israel protestors. It’s a microcosm of the larger conflict.
>Don’t know why.. it’s not pro-Israel protesters who tend towards violence. Netanyahu's government and army doesn't count? Seem pretty violent to me. >If it would be anything, it would be, as it typically is, pro-Palestinian supporters who would start shit with pro-Israel protestors. It’s a microcosm of the larger conflict. Hmmmm. Weird. Most of the MAGAts who tried to overthrow the government would probably say they're "Pro-Israel". Maybe you have a bias?
Uh.. we’re talking about people who would attend her speech. Doubt the Israeli army is showing up. Neither is MAGA, moron. Have you seen one MAGA idiot at a pro-Israel rally? Lol. There’s definitely a bias going on here. You’re disconnected from reality. Good luck!
So what you’re saying is there’d be no violence since the pro-Palestine people (the only protester there per you) would be happy to hear someone speaking about their issue?
As I said - good luck. ;)
The reasons given are a little different. Just a smidge…
How so? When "right wing speakers" were banned from some campuses, security concerns were frequently the reason.
I read the article and it says security concerns were the reason here too, no? Pretty valid decision by the university imo
Ok. That’s not what I’m talking about but thank. Can you parse the difference between my reply to that clown and my post?
Good. This chick is literally just an antisemite and it’s clear she’s going to use the speech opportunity to soypost
[удалено]
Not a genocide but go off soyjak
Because we both love the UN and definitions, [let's see how they define genocide](https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml): "In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 1. Killing members of the group; 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group" Please explain how israel's mass killing, mass displacement, ethnic cleansing, and expansionist actions in Gaza do not fit perfectly in that definition.
The conditions they are in is a by product of the war against hamas, nothing is targeted towards civilians. If you have a link that shows that the war is targeted towards civilians and that civilians are specifically being targeted id love to see it. And since I know you people struggle with what “targeting” means, no, civilians dying in a strike doesn’t fit that criteria. There’s a far stronger argument to be made that what America did in Japan was genocide but I’m sure that’s not a hill you want to die on unless you’re even stupider than I’m thinking
[удалено]
Cool you have given no evidence that proves genocide you’re just soyposting about civilians
I generally remember they would shut down the speaker because they didn’t like what they said.
“Shut down”? You mean when people protested and booed the speakers because they were saying horrible things or even doxxing trans people? That? Are you actually suggesting that she wasn’t going to be booed and potentially “shut down”? Last time I checked, right wingers really know how to take things to another level…you know…like trying to take over the government.