Curious how that would play out if other countries did the same. Oh no we didn’t declare war, it was this fat idiot Hirohito going rogue again, oopsie. Time for peace now, thank you for your attention to this matter.

I mean that’s what they are doing in the middle east all the time. They literally attack each other endlessly but aren’t technically at war most of the time.

OP is saying that there is a difference between actions that can be interpreted as an act of war and a formal declaration of war. It seems pedantic but I have to agree the difference is there. Iran has no interest declaring war on the US. Luckily there were enough adults making the decision that a retaliatory strike (with advance warning) was enough to call it a day.

Killing the public option and capitulating to republicans.

Yet we got the ACA, but i guess you prefer the old system where Americans can’t get insured if they have preexisting conditions.

He was sure able to sell weapons to netanyahu without any problem at all. Bipartisan support, even. But codifying Obergefell wasn’t a priority

Sure. Things are easier to pass with bipartisan support. Are you suggesting Obergefell would receive bipartisan support? Lol

Which is why Roe was never overturned.

Which is irrelevant to my point. Roe was a republican talking point for decades but they were never stupid enough to act on it. When they did there was immediate election fallout. We are still in the “finding out” stage and there can absolutely be more blowback from this down the road.

But they never will.

Which is why you should continue to support the Republicans. That’ll show them

You realize what you are saying doesn’t make things any better, right?

Republicans played on the fears and stupidity of the American people and promised to deliver something, anything.

Democrats are trying to explain to the American people than yes, there is a period of higher inflation and prices, but the Biden/Harris administration navigated us out of a pandemic and provided a wage increase that outdated prices from 2020 to Sept 2024. That provided all time high in wages in US history. And this was despite the typical republican obstruction from congress and the judicial. And if given another 4 to 8 years we can continue to improve on this.

And that the American people, faced with facts or feelings, chose to elect the ones that let that ruined our country by mismanaging the pandemic (which caused the economic issues)…again.

No i don’t think we should agree with this logic. I want Americans to make smarter and more rational decisions and not have selective amnesia after only 4 years. Just because everything was not fixed in 4 years does not mean we should choose the dumbest possible option just because they delivered a “feeling”

When Obama had the majority, what did Democrats spend their time and political capital on? I don’t know about you but healthcare seems pretty important and affects more people than gay marriage.

Biden used his to deal with a pandemic fallout and he was at least attempting to solve a educational loan bubble.

Keep in mind things like gay marriage and abortion were never in any immediate danger at any time. It has become socially acceptable and used as an empty threat by Republicans. That they were crazy enough to go through with it is just stupidity on their part.

Again, the democrats can be much much better, but you are absolutely ignoring the progress they made that would never have been made under Republican leadership.

Are we really going to pretend that if LGBT rights were pushed and promoted by the democrats in the 90s, the American populace was just going to accept it? The Republicans would likely have a supermajority and the presidency after Clinton’s 1st term.

Look what happened when we had 8 years with a black president.

I’m not saying the democrats did everything right, but the logic on incremental progress is correct vs tear it all down if it’s not a utopia already

You are viewing everything through the lens of now now now.

Inflation was at record lows from the housing crisis through the pandemic. It only spiked in 2021-2022. Before that, we had nearly 3 decades of sub 2% inflation. You are basing all your conclusions on 3 years worth of data instead of 30.

Look things suck financially right now. Everyone is hurting except the rich and it is absolutely stupid. But no it has not always been that way and social progress is not the reason we are where we are.

We are in financial trouble because we elected a far right party that is breaking everything. Because we would rather be cynical about the Democrats and blame them for the economic fallout of a pandemic instead of having realizing the fallout is due to abysmal mismanagement of said pandemic by the very administration we let back in power.

If you have been following politics from the Clinton era, then you wound have seen the progress and incremental change first hand especially regarding social rights.

Gay marriage didn’t exist. They were denied their existence in the military, and on TV.

We went from that to adding new letters to the ltgb alliance every few years. To pronouns and kinks like furries being accepted.

A black president was unimaginable. There were still people alive that experienced segregation.

Most of what you are listing are reactions to the progress. The bigots pushed back, and they won partly because they convinced us to be more cynical and divisive. To ignore and forget the progress that was made and spin as negatively as possible all the change we see.

Incremental change is moving forward 3 steps after falling back 2, not giving up because we couldn’t be at step 5 by now.

Someone has to be ambassador to China.

It’s probably going to be someone most on the left so not want.

So you choose the one that you can stomach while you have a vote.

Just to note, but even Republicans stonewalled every confirmation.

Much less ok to pretend both are the same

This is her objection.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

It is the school who is in the wrong. You are blatantly lying about their reframing.

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.

BUT she was not suspended because she refused to work with or for the IDF. That is a bs title.

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.

IDF soldiers can come and work in America. And if they work in your medical school, you could have to work with them.

If you need to invent this narrative to make your point, your point fails to stand on its own.

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 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”.

That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.

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.

• Do you believe this author to have a pro-israel or pro-palestine bias? I am not asking about her objectivity. You can have a bias but still be an objective journalist. I have no reason to believe she is not at least trying to maintain objectivity.
• If there existed other IDF soldiers at this university, do you think the author would have mentioned it in the article or left it out?
• If there was verifiable details that the student was put in a position to work with IDF soldiers, do you think the author would have mentioned it in the article or left it out?

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?

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.

. The professor told the medical school he didn’t feel safe, as Mohammad’s interview could expose him and his family to harassment. He asked medical school administrators to investigate her for violating the school’s code of conduct.

In July, an investigator released their initial findings: Mohammad had violated the medical school’s code of conduct with regards to “professionalism” and “mutual respect” by singling out and disparaging an individual during her Democracy Now! interview.

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.

Where I object to eating rocks. I find one rock in my soup and I refuse to eat it. I say, “There is a rock in my soup!” You go, “Aha! There was only one rock in your soup. So you do not object to eating rocks do you?”. While it’s true I only found one rock, I still objected to eating rocks, plural. My objection is not limited to that one rock in particular.

I objected to eating rocks.

I was told to eat rocks and I objected to eating those rocks.

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.

It seems we can agree that we are both reading the title and interpreting it differently. I don’t think either of us will concede our interpretation at this point, so we can just leave it to others to look at this on their own.

Still, allow me to explain why I find your interpretation to be wrong.

There are probably IDF soldiers at the school besides that one professor. Her objection was not limited to only the one professor, that is the one example she had. She objected to working with IDF soldiers and got suspended because of that objection.

“Probably”. Meaning: you. don’t. know. this.

You have to make up the hypothetical yourself to explain the title, because it’s not there in the article. You’re trying to explain how the title is accurate yet you have to create the story for them. This is not a fantasy novel that’s left to the imagination, it’s a news article.

She never worked with IDF soldiers, no one is claiming she did. She is objecting to having to work with IDF soldiers.

Read the title again.

A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her

Let’s try an exercise. Pretend there was no article at all and you only have this title. And then you were asked to explain the title based on what you think it means. Here are two of the fairest interpretations I can create.

1. A Palestinian American was tasked to work with IDF soldiers but refused and was punished for it.

2. A Palestinian American said she will not work with IDF soldiers and was punished for it.

Your interpretation aligns with #2, correct?

Except #2 is deeply flawed because, again, she was never asked to work with IDF soldiers and she was not punished for objecting to work with IDF soldiers. She was punished for calling out a professor and potentially opening him up for harassment.

Think of it this way. She didn’t say

“I refuse to work with Nazis.”

Instead she said more along the lines of

“There’s a Nazi in our faculty.” And the university was like yea you can’t call our staff Nazis. Now people are going to witch hunt. Suspended.

The suspension is still dubious, but can you at least see where I’m coming from?

The most generous reading of your interpretation requires accepting another generous interpretation of the reason for suspension (that the official reason for her suspension is not the real one)

Look, I’m not trying to attack you despite the fact that you want to keep insulting my reading ability.

I am saying, the title of this article is misleading at best, if not outright lying.

Your own reply is backing me up on this.

these other IDF soldiers that the woman was forced to work with

We are talking about this specific woman at this specific university who was suspended. Your quoted reply talks about other universities. There is no proof in this article that anyone other than the professor worked with the IDF, that she would hypothetically be forced to work with.

the details of how the university forced her to work with these soldiers. Was she forces to deploy with them?

No.

Did she have to do research with them?

The school continued to employee the professor to her medical school. Medical students work with professors and other students. Her objection is to be put in a situation where she could have to work with him or anyone else who was part of the IDF to meet requirements to get her degree.

So in short she was never forced to work with any IDF soldiers. She may at some hypothetical point run into such a situation.

Was she threatened somehow?

You are purposely misreading my question. Was she threatened to work with the IDF soldier or face consequences? She was not.

Was she threatened at some point during the period the article talks about? Probably.

how she got suspended for refusing the above

So no, she was not suspended for refusing to work with an IDF soldier because she never was in that situation.

I want to stop for a second and also point out, I am not attacking or even judging anyone for not reading the article. We can all agree people do not read every link in every thread. This is a very long article to boot.

But for those that do not want to read the entire thing and only looked at the headline, they would assume based on the way the headline is written that the university forced her to work with IDF in some capacity, she refused, and they suspended her. This is how any objective person would interpret the headline.

You can say well technically the professor counts as a soldier, there are soldiers on other campuses, the title didn’t say she got suspended for refusing, only that she got suspended, etc etc… but these are all not how most people would interpret it and you know it.

You are upset about Isreal as many people, including a vocal portion of Lemmy are and that is fine. But that doesn’t mean you can’t criticize poorly written clickbait titles meant to enrage instead of inform. This is The Guardian, a supposedly upstanding news source. What does it say about them or the contents of this story when the first 2 sentences you read are so misleading?

A medic is a non combatant, but as I mentioned in the post you are replying to, I am willing to concede this professor as an IDF soldier.

I’m glad you can read, so please quote the article the following

• these other IDF soldiers that the woman was forced to work with
• the details of how the university forced her to work with these soldiers. Was she forces to deploy with them? Did she have to do research with them? Was she threatened somehow?
• how she got suspended for refusing the above

Can’t find these points in the article? Funny, me neither.

My comment is that the title is blatantly false.

It’s already a stretch to say volunteering medical services for the IDF makes you a soldier, and yes it’s a lie to say she was forced to “work” with soldiers.

But, let’s give you the benefit and say is just semantics and the first part is accurate (it’s not)

The title is STILL blatantly false because the school did NOT suspend her for refusing to work with this professor. The (arguably unjustified) suspension is unrelated.

What a strange hill to die on.

No where in the article does it say they work at the same faculty. You simply do not know this to be true.

She called him out publicly for volunteering for a foreign military currently enacting a genocide. It’s a big stretch to call that “outing” or “public harassment”.

And nowhere does the headline claim something different.

Except the headline does not say this.

Any reasonable person reading the headline would think the university is forcing her to work with the IDF and suspended her for refusing.

But like you just made my point for me, she was suspended for the calling out part.

I don’t agree she should have been suspended, but the headline is 100 percent false.

He’s a Professor at her medical faculty. That means she has to work with him to get her degree.

Maybe this is an English issue, but generally students learn from, not work with their teachers. But again, the article does not actually mention he is her professor, only that they are at the same school. We don’t know that they have any interaction at this school.

She refused to do that.

The university suspended her.

Except that’s not why she was suspended. They suspended her for giving an interview where she calls out the professor for volunteering to provide medical services for the IDF. Since she was leading the campus protests, this was considered targeted harassment.

The title is wrong and misleading. A more accurate title would be “University student suspended for outing a pro-Israel professor in interview”, but i guess truth doesn’t get clicks.