"NEW: Governor DeSantis just ordered the University of Florida and the University of South Florida to deactivate their "Students for Justice in Palestine" groups for violating Florida's laws against antisemitism."
This is part of a larger trend of Palestinian groups and speakers being canceled both at private events and on campuses NYT
Nathan Thrall had planned to visit several cities this fall promoting his new book, “A Day in the Life of Abed Salama,” a reported look at Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. But after Hamas launched its deadly attacks on Israeli civilians, days after the book’s release this month, readings in London, New York, Los Angeles and Washington were postponed or canceled.
They are among a growing number of events highlighting Palestinian culture, society and politics that have been called off or put on hold since the war began. A concert of young Palestinian musicians was indefinitely postponed in London. The Boston Palestine Film Festival decided not to hold live screenings and went online. And in one of the most high-profile cancellations, a German literary organization called off an awards ceremony at the Frankfurt Book Fair to honor the Palestinian novelist Adania Shibli.
Citing safety concerns, University of Vermont cancels event with Palestinian writer
The university’s Division of Safety & Compliance told organizers that it could not “adequately provide safety and security” for a planned event with the poet and journalist Mohammed El-Kurd.
Still better than most of Europe is doing though the video of this British cop harassing someone for flying the Palestinian flag on their house is just hilarious in how... Little Britain the whole thing is.
This left-wing cancel culture is out of control. [/s]
But seriously, the amount of backlash against people making statements in support of a ceasefire and/or in support of Palestinian self-determination is truly on a scale not seen since... maybe those vocally opposed to the Iraq invasion of 2003?
Well looks like Canada is clamping down on Palestinians. Because it's a genocide they are protesting not mask mandates or the Canucks blowing it.
I just read an article saying this is also why they're censuring Rep. Rashida Tlaib
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The argument for "From the river to the sea" being hate speech seems pretty similar to many other things leftists call hate speech so to me this seems like the illiberal left's chickens coming home to roost.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
The argument for "From the river to the sea" being hate speech seems pretty similar to many other things leftists call hate speech so to me this seems like the illiberal left's chickens coming home to roost.
Go ahead and unpack that bullshit for us
Give us some specific examples of what you are referring to, and explain how they're equatable
The argument for "From the river to the sea" being hate speech seems pretty similar to many other things leftists call hate speech so to me this seems like the illiberal left's chickens coming home to roost.
Go ahead and unpack that bullshit for us
Give us some specific examples of what you are referring to, and explain how they're equatable
Get ready for youtube shorts of MRA owning the left or similar drivel.
Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
The defense of "from the river to the sea" as an anodyne desire for liberal democracy and civil rights cheerfully ignores the historical context, which is full of Arab leaders calling for the Jews to be driven into the sea from 48 onwards. It's an unsubtle dog whistle.
The argument for "From the river to the sea" being hate speech seems pretty similar to many other things leftists call hate speech so to me this seems like the illiberal left's chickens coming home to roost.
Go ahead and unpack that bullshit for us
Give us some specific examples of what you are referring to, and explain how they're equatable
The ADL has a blurb about it from October 2023. It's an allegation without a lot of detail.
I actually forget how the Anti-defamation League is perceived here, so I'm just providing this link for further context without judgment.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The argument for "From the river to the sea" being hate speech seems pretty similar to many other things leftists call hate speech so to me this seems like the illiberal left's chickens coming home to roost.
Go ahead and unpack that bullshit for us
Give us some specific examples of what you are referring to, and explain how they're equatable
The ADL has a blurb about it from October 2023. It's an allegation without a lot of detail.
I actually forget how the Anti-defamation League is perceived here, so I'm just providing this link for further context without judgment.
I think that link basically gets to the heart of it. It's a phrase that sounds extremely ominous. That's the gist of it.
If we flip the situation around and Israelis or people who support Israel were running around chanting "From the river to the sea" over and over again, I think most people would read some very serious implications into that.
It's not really hard to understand why it makes some people nervous.
The argument for "From the river to the sea" being hate speech seems pretty similar to many other things leftists call hate speech so to me this seems like the illiberal left's chickens coming home to roost.
Go ahead and unpack that bullshit for us
Give us some specific examples of what you are referring to, and explain how they're equatable
The ADL has a blurb about it from October 2023. It's an allegation without a lot of detail.
I actually forget how the Anti-defamation League is perceived here, so I'm just providing this link for further context without judgment.
I think that link basically gets to the heart of it. It's a phrase that sounds extremely ominous. That's the gist of it.
If we flip the situation around and Israelis or people who support Israel were running around chanting "From the river to the sea" over and over again, I think most people would read some very serious implications into that.
It's not really hard to understand why it makes some people nervous.
If I may devil's advocate for a bit, that posting is awfully recent, and if ADL is illegitimate, it may be a false dog whistle. I'd appreciate sources prior to October showing how that phrase has been used.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It rather exposes how flawed the entire structure of thought is. If you are arguing about what it actually means, you are inherently ignoring the opinion of a marginalized group (Jews). Punching up is okay, punching down is not, so now you need to determine which side is more marginalized and which side is privileged. After claiming that defining hate speech is not actually difficult and we all know what XYZ really means, suddenly you find a fault line where actually the ecochamber doesn't agree on what is hate speech, and agreeing to disagree is explicitly rejected.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
The argument for "From the river to the sea" being hate speech seems pretty similar to many other things leftists call hate speech so to me this seems like the illiberal left's chickens coming home to roost.
Go ahead and unpack that bullshit for us
Give us some specific examples of what you are referring to, and explain how they're equatable
The ADL has a blurb about it from October 2023. It's an allegation without a lot of detail.
I actually forget how the Anti-defamation League is perceived here, so I'm just providing this link for further context without judgment.
I think that link basically gets to the heart of it. It's a phrase that sounds extremely ominous. That's the gist of it.
If we flip the situation around and Israelis or people who support Israel were running around chanting "From the river to the sea" over and over again, I think most people would read some very serious implications into that.
It's not really hard to understand why it makes some people nervous.
If I may devil's advocate for a bit, that posting is awfully recent, and if ADL is illegitimate, it may be a false dog whistle. I'd appreciate sources prior to October showing how that phrase has been used.
The argument for "From the river to the sea" being hate speech seems pretty similar to many other things leftists call hate speech so to me this seems like the illiberal left's chickens coming home to roost.
Go ahead and unpack that bullshit for us
Give us some specific examples of what you are referring to, and explain how they're equatable
The ADL has a blurb about it from October 2023. It's an allegation without a lot of detail.
I actually forget how the Anti-defamation League is perceived here, so I'm just providing this link for further context without judgment.
I think that link basically gets to the heart of it. It's a phrase that sounds extremely ominous. That's the gist of it.
If we flip the situation around and Israelis or people who support Israel were running around chanting "From the river to the sea" over and over again, I think most people would read some very serious implications into that.
It's not really hard to understand why it makes some people nervous.
If I may devil's advocate for a bit, that posting is awfully recent, and if ADL is illegitimate, it may be a false dog whistle. I'd appreciate sources prior to October showing how that phrase has been used.
For context, here is the record of the site in September 2023. There have been substantial revisions since.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The ADL is not a reliable source for information on this, they are among the pro-Zionist groups that conflate anti-Semitism with opposition to the Israeli government's ongoing violations of international law. They are literally part of the campaign working to label all pro-Palestinian messaging as being anti-Jewish.
The argument for "From the river to the sea" being hate speech seems pretty similar to many other things leftists call hate speech so to me this seems like the illiberal left's chickens coming home to roost.
Go ahead and unpack that bullshit for us
Give us some specific examples of what you are referring to, and explain how they're equatable
The ADL has a blurb about it from October 2023. It's an allegation without a lot of detail.
I actually forget how the Anti-defamation League is perceived here, so I'm just providing this link for further context without judgment.
I think that link basically gets to the heart of it. It's a phrase that sounds extremely ominous. That's the gist of it.
If we flip the situation around and Israelis or people who support Israel were running around chanting "From the river to the sea" over and over again, I think most people would read some very serious implications into that.
It's not really hard to understand why it makes some people nervous.
If I may devil's advocate for a bit, that posting is awfully recent, and if ADL is illegitimate, it may be a false dog whistle. I'd appreciate sources prior to October showing how that phrase has been used.
For context, here is the record of the site in September 2023. There have been substantial revisions since.
None of which really change the parts that are relevant to the discussion though. Used by several different groups in different contexts, many of them not good.
I don't think "from the river to the sea" has to be about driving Israel into the sea, but the phrase "drive Israel into the sea" has definitely existed for as long as the state of Israel has existed, and it evokes phrasing from the Bible itself (albeit language about Egypt, in that context).
The defense of "from the river to the sea" as an anodyne desire for liberal democracy and civil rights cheerfully ignores the historical context, which is full of Arab leaders calling for the Jews to be driven into the sea from 48 onwards. It's an unsubtle dog whistle.
No it fucking isn't, it calls for the creation of a single state encompassing the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea that Palestinian people can call home. To say that this is a call for genocide is the unsubtle dog whistle here, insinuating that Palestinians are too bloodthirsty and bigoted to be able to coexist with Jewish people.
That's the fundamental problem with slogans and signs - as they don't directly state the full extent of their intent, they are readily co-opted by harmful actors, so that two people espousing the same slogan can intend to mean radically different things.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+14
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
The defense of "from the river to the sea" as an anodyne desire for liberal democracy and civil rights cheerfully ignores the historical context, which is full of Arab leaders calling for the Jews to be driven into the sea from 48 onwards. It's an unsubtle dog whistle.
No it fucking isn't, it calls for the creation of a single state encompassing the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea that Palestinian people can call home. To say that this is a call for genocide is the unsubtle dog whistle here, insinuating that Palestinians are too bloodthirsty and bigoted to be able to coexist with Jewish people.
That's the fundamental problem with slogans and signs - as they don't directly state the full extent of their intent, they are readily co-opted by harmful actors, so that two people espousing the same slogan can intend to mean radically different things.
Which, I would suspect,is why it was referred to as a dog whistle by Monwyn
When I talk to Jewish people who say they feel that slogan is antisemitic hate speech calling for their genocide, I'm inclined to believe them.
There is no co-opting or 'taking back' the meaning of hateful terminology like that even if it may be naively used by people who are ignorant of the history and context of the slogan. You can't retcon the hate and meaning out of the origins of that term.
It's no different than a slogan like 'All Lives Matter' which on its face seems like a fair and reasonable statement, and could even naively be explained as such. But in the real world it can't be divorced from its original context.
When I talk to Jewish people who say they feel that slogan is antisemitic hate speech calling for their genocide, I'm inclined to believe them.
Why them and not the Palestinian woman who says it isnt?
Because the Palestinian woman saying it is either ignorant of the context of the slogan at best, or lying at worst.
Lots of naive and ignorant people repeat dog whistle phrases earnestly. The people who are using them as dog whistles know exactly what they are saying and you can't dismiss the context of what was said, or the impact it has on the targeted communities because you think 'nah, its ok to say, i don't mean <bad thing the slogan means>'.
This is pretty basic...people using hate speech aren't the ones who get to define what is or isn't offensive.
When I talk to Jewish people who say they feel that slogan is antisemitic hate speech calling for their genocide, I'm inclined to believe them.
Why them and not the Palestinian woman who says it isnt?
Because the Palestinian woman saying it is either ignorant of the context of the slogan at best, or lying at worst.
Lots of naive and ignorant people repeat dog whistle phrases earnestly. The people who are using them as dog whistles know exactly what they are saying and you can't dismiss the context of what was said, or the impact it has on the targeted communities because you think 'nah, its ok to say, i don't mean <bad thing the slogan means>'.
This is pretty basic...people using hate speech aren't the ones who get to define what is or isn't offensive.
I bet Rashida Tlaib actually isnt ignorant or lying about her own people's history and the slogans history.
Anyway, an even cursory examination of history would see thats its often meant a call for a unified democratic multi ethnic state. The worst people who use a phrase dont get to claim ownership of it by virtue of sucking.
When I talk to Jewish people who say they feel that slogan is antisemitic hate speech calling for their genocide, I'm inclined to believe them.
Why them and not the Palestinian woman who says it isnt?
Because the Palestinian woman saying it is either ignorant of the context of the slogan at best, or lying at worst.
Lots of naive and ignorant people repeat dog whistle phrases earnestly. The people who are using them as dog whistles know exactly what they are saying and you can't dismiss the context of what was said, or the impact it has on the targeted communities because you think 'nah, its ok to say, i don't mean <bad thing the slogan means>'.
This is pretty basic...people using hate speech aren't the ones who get to define what is or isn't offensive.
I bet Rashida Tlaib actually isnt ignorant or lying about her own people's history and the slogans history.
Sure, she might just be earnestly calling for the dissolution of Israel.
When I talk to Jewish people who say they feel that slogan is antisemitic hate speech calling for their genocide, I'm inclined to believe them.
Why them and not the Palestinian woman who says it isnt?
Because the Palestinian woman saying it is either ignorant of the context of the slogan at best, or lying at worst.
Lots of naive and ignorant people repeat dog whistle phrases earnestly. The people who are using them as dog whistles know exactly what they are saying and you can't dismiss the context of what was said, or the impact it has on the targeted communities because you think 'nah, its ok to say, i don't mean <bad thing the slogan means>'.
This is pretty basic...people using hate speech aren't the ones who get to define what is or isn't offensive.
I bet Rashida Tlaib actually isnt ignorant or lying about her own people's history and the slogans history.
Sure, she might just be earnestly calling for the dissolution of Israel.
As an apartheid state, yes, but a call for a multi ethnic Israel/Palestine where muslims, christians, and jews can live together in equality is not anti semitic or a call for anyone's death.
I really don't think relitigating specific past examples is going to result in a constructive discussion. If we focus on this situation where everyone hasn't already made up their minds some people may, possibly, be reminded of why principled freedom of speech is important and why it is undermined by illiberal leftist ideas like
The opinion of the victims of hate speech must be given primacy
Punching up is not hate speech
Anyone you judge guilty of hate speech must be ostracized
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I really don't think relitigating specific past examples is going to result in a constructive discussion. If we focus on this situation where everyone hasn't already made up their minds some people may, possibly, be reminded of why principled freedom of speech is important and why it is undermined by illiberal leftist ideas like
The opinion of the victims of hate speech must be given primacy
Punching up is not hate speech
Anyone you judge guilty of hate speech must be ostracized
There's a concerted effort in western countries to make any expression of Palestinian identity or resistance verboten so this primacy relationship you describe is not particularly clear.
Painting the oppressed as an existential threat to the oppressor to justify continuing or further oppression has also been one of key rhetorical strategies of oppressors basically forever.
"Listen to how angry they are! We need to keep them under our control or else they will kill us all" is evergreen.
I really don't think relitigating specific past examples is going to result in a constructive discussion. If we focus on this situation where everyone hasn't already made up their minds some people may, possibly, be reminded of why principled freedom of speech is important and why it is undermined by illiberal leftist ideas like
The opinion of the victims of hate speech must be given primacy
Punching up is not hate speech
Anyone you judge guilty of hate speech must be ostracized
There's a concerted effort in western countries to make any expression of Palestinian identity or resistance verboten so this primacy relationship you describe is not particularly clear.
It's the position zagdrob and Goumindong stated above, Jews get to say what's hate speech against Jews.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
When I talk to Jewish people who say they feel that slogan is antisemitic hate speech calling for their genocide, I'm inclined to believe them.
Why them and not the Palestinian woman who says it isnt?
Because it doesn’t matter how much someone thinks it isn’t an issue.
It matters how it makes people feel.
You wouldn’t say “well why not the white woman who says it isn’t?” After they dropped a hard R. Because their opinion doesn’t matter
Yes, it matters how it makes people feel, but thats not the only thing that matters. Lots of people feel that "black lives matter" is a slogan that is hateful towards white people afterall. Palestinians are a people in the process of being slowly wiped out. That must be taken into consideration when someone calls for their freedom.
I really don't think relitigating specific past examples is going to result in a constructive discussion. If we focus on this situation where everyone hasn't already made up their minds some people may, possibly, be reminded of why principled freedom of speech is important and why it is undermined by illiberal leftist ideas like
The opinion of the victims of hate speech must be given primacy
Punching up is not hate speech
Anyone you judge guilty of hate speech must be ostracized
There's a concerted effort in western countries to make any expression of Palestinian identity or resistance verboten so this primacy relationship you describe is not particularly clear.
It's the position zagdrob and Goumindong stated above, Jews get to say what's hate speech against Jews.
You can find plenty of Jewish non zionist voices that dont think its anti semitic. Are we picking sides?
The rational aporoach is to examine what the person actually wants. Tlaib for instance, clearly seeks peaceful egalitarian multiculturalism and an end to apartheid. We arent helping anything by insisting she's lumped in with anti semites.
When I talk to Jewish people who say they feel that slogan is antisemitic hate speech calling for their genocide, I'm inclined to believe them.
Why them and not the Palestinian woman who says it isnt?
Because the Palestinian woman saying it is either ignorant of the context of the slogan at best, or lying at worst.
Lots of naive and ignorant people repeat dog whistle phrases earnestly. The people who are using them as dog whistles know exactly what they are saying and you can't dismiss the context of what was said, or the impact it has on the targeted communities because you think 'nah, its ok to say, i don't mean <bad thing the slogan means>'.
This is pretty basic...people using hate speech aren't the ones who get to define what is or isn't offensive.
I bet Rashida Tlaib actually isnt ignorant or lying about her own people's history and the slogans history.
Sure, she might just be earnestly calling for the dissolution of Israel.
Exactly, which isn't hate speech!
You have shown here exactly how "hate speech" is being used as cover to silence critics.
You walked us through the process step by step.
Or how about this.
Abed Ayoub is the National Executive Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Twitter link in spoilers. It has the screenshots of the page you can click through.
An Israeli diplomat tried to persuade a leading New York college to cancel a course about the growing debate over whether the Jewish state practices a form of apartheid in Palestine.
The Israeli consul for public diplomacy in New York, Yuval Donio-Gideon, took the highly unusual step of contacting Bard College earlier this year to object to the course, Apartheid in Israel-Palestine, on the grounds that it breached the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
The course was designed and taught by Nathan Thrall, a Jewish American writer and researcher who lives in Jerusalem.
The basis of the course was the growing evidence that Israel is in breach of international laws against apartheid, including reports by Israel’s leading human rights group, B’Tselem, and from a prominent legal organisation, Yesh Din, which concluded that “the crime against humanity of apartheid is being committed in the West Bank”.
In September, a former head of the Mossad intelligence agency, Tamir Pardo, joined a rising number of prominent Israelis in comparing the occupation of the West Bank to South Africa’s defunct system of racial oppression.
Thrall said there was no opposition to the course until shortly before it began when a tweet by a human rights group drew attention to it.
At that point, Donio-Gideon approached the college, initially through its rabbi. Thrall said the Israeli diplomat “said the course meets the IHRA definition” of antisemitism. Among IHRA’s examples of antisemitism is “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”.
Wow, imagine that, Israeli diplomats are in favor of a definition of anti-Semitism that allows them to brand people who are critical of the Israeli government as anti-Semites.
That reminds me, I did see a rolling stone article about how actual anti-semites are hiding in the wave of pro-Palestine content on twitter
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That reminds me, I did see a rolling stone article about how actual anti-semites are hiding in the wave of pro-Palestine content on twitter
That sort of thing is inevitable, I'm not sure I can even imagine a position that wouldn't have hateful lunatics offering a shitty version of it alongside the rest on Twitter or whatever.
Only a problem when people get so sectarian on a pet issue that they start defending their new 'allies' or showing an interest in their arguments instead of telling them to fuck off.
Posts
"NEW: Governor DeSantis just ordered the University of Florida and the University of South Florida to deactivate their "Students for Justice in Palestine" groups for violating Florida's laws against antisemitism."
This is part of a larger trend of Palestinian groups and speakers being canceled both at private events and on campuses NYT
https://vtdigger.org/2023/10/23/citing-safety-concerns-university-of-vermont-cancels-event-with-palestinian-writer/
Still better than most of Europe is doing though the video of this British cop harassing someone for flying the Palestinian flag on their house is just hilarious in how... Little Britain the whole thing is.
But seriously, the amount of backlash against people making statements in support of a ceasefire and/or in support of Palestinian self-determination is truly on a scale not seen since... maybe those vocally opposed to the Iraq invasion of 2003?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Sana Saedd is an AL Jazeera AJ+ host.
Well looks like Canada is clamping down on Palestinians. Because it's a genocide they are protesting not mask mandates or the Canucks blowing it.
I just read an article saying this is also why they're censuring Rep. Rashida Tlaib
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Go ahead and unpack that bullshit for us
Give us some specific examples of what you are referring to, and explain how they're equatable
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Get ready for youtube shorts of MRA owning the left or similar drivel.
The ADL has a blurb about it from October 2023. It's an allegation without a lot of detail.
I actually forget how the Anti-defamation League is perceived here, so I'm just providing this link for further context without judgment.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think that link basically gets to the heart of it. It's a phrase that sounds extremely ominous. That's the gist of it.
If we flip the situation around and Israelis or people who support Israel were running around chanting "From the river to the sea" over and over again, I think most people would read some very serious implications into that.
It's not really hard to understand why it makes some people nervous.
If I may devil's advocate for a bit, that posting is awfully recent, and if ADL is illegitimate, it may be a false dog whistle. I'd appreciate sources prior to October showing how that phrase has been used.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There's a wiki page if you like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
The information there suggests the phrase is worse then what the ADL claims. You can decide how accurate you think it is.
For context, here is the record of the site in September 2023. There have been substantial revisions since.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
HamHamJ, still waiting on your examples.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
None of which really change the parts that are relevant to the discussion though. Used by several different groups in different contexts, many of them not good.
No it fucking isn't, it calls for the creation of a single state encompassing the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea that Palestinian people can call home. To say that this is a call for genocide is the unsubtle dog whistle here, insinuating that Palestinians are too bloodthirsty and bigoted to be able to coexist with Jewish people.
Jewish Currents has a decent piece on this, as does Decolonize Palestine.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Lol k
I'm sure the similarity is totally coincidental and neither Islamic Jihad nor the PLO knew the reference
Which, I would suspect,is why it was referred to as a dog whistle by Monwyn
There is no co-opting or 'taking back' the meaning of hateful terminology like that even if it may be naively used by people who are ignorant of the history and context of the slogan. You can't retcon the hate and meaning out of the origins of that term.
It's no different than a slogan like 'All Lives Matter' which on its face seems like a fair and reasonable statement, and could even naively be explained as such. But in the real world it can't be divorced from its original context.
Why them and not the Palestinian woman who says it isnt?
Because the Palestinian woman saying it is either ignorant of the context of the slogan at best, or lying at worst.
Lots of naive and ignorant people repeat dog whistle phrases earnestly. The people who are using them as dog whistles know exactly what they are saying and you can't dismiss the context of what was said, or the impact it has on the targeted communities because you think 'nah, its ok to say, i don't mean <bad thing the slogan means>'.
This is pretty basic...people using hate speech aren't the ones who get to define what is or isn't offensive.
I bet Rashida Tlaib actually isnt ignorant or lying about her own people's history and the slogans history.
Anyway, an even cursory examination of history would see thats its often meant a call for a unified democratic multi ethnic state. The worst people who use a phrase dont get to claim ownership of it by virtue of sucking.
Sure, she might just be earnestly calling for the dissolution of Israel.
As an apartheid state, yes, but a call for a multi ethnic Israel/Palestine where muslims, christians, and jews can live together in equality is not anti semitic or a call for anyone's death.
I really don't think relitigating specific past examples is going to result in a constructive discussion. If we focus on this situation where everyone hasn't already made up their minds some people may, possibly, be reminded of why principled freedom of speech is important and why it is undermined by illiberal leftist ideas like
The opinion of the victims of hate speech must be given primacy
Punching up is not hate speech
Anyone you judge guilty of hate speech must be ostracized
There's a concerted effort in western countries to make any expression of Palestinian identity or resistance verboten so this primacy relationship you describe is not particularly clear.
"Listen to how angry they are! We need to keep them under our control or else they will kill us all" is evergreen.
Because it doesn’t matter how much someone thinks it isn’t an issue.
It matters how it makes people feel.
You wouldn’t say “well why not the white woman who says it isn’t?” After they dropped a hard R. Because their opinion doesn’t matter
It's the position zagdrob and Goumindong stated above, Jews get to say what's hate speech against Jews.
Yes, it matters how it makes people feel, but thats not the only thing that matters. Lots of people feel that "black lives matter" is a slogan that is hateful towards white people afterall. Palestinians are a people in the process of being slowly wiped out. That must be taken into consideration when someone calls for their freedom.
You can find plenty of Jewish non zionist voices that dont think its anti semitic. Are we picking sides?
Exactly, which isn't hate speech!
You have shown here exactly how "hate speech" is being used as cover to silence critics.
You walked us through the process step by step.
Or how about this.
Abed Ayoub is the National Executive Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
Twitter link in spoilers. It has the screenshots of the page you can click through.
It doesn't get more smoking gun JDAM shaped hole in a hospital roof than that.
e2
Lukid's original party platform. The cynicism around alleging hate crime around this is ridiculous.
Wow, imagine that, Israeli diplomats are in favor of a definition of anti-Semitism that allows them to brand people who are critical of the Israeli government as anti-Semites.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That sort of thing is inevitable, I'm not sure I can even imagine a position that wouldn't have hateful lunatics offering a shitty version of it alongside the rest on Twitter or whatever.
Only a problem when people get so sectarian on a pet issue that they start defending their new 'allies' or showing an interest in their arguments instead of telling them to fuck off.