|
My Imaginary GF posted:You read Salaita's statements and do not see antisemitism. I do. It is a perfectly reasonable approach, but that doesn't mean it produced a good result. What you essentially have, in the outcry, is a very wide review of the statements by a far more diverse group than the board. You have learned academics looking at it, the people the decision was presumably designed to protect, ordinary people on the street, just about everyone's had a go at it. And the resulting conclusion favors that it was not antisemitic. While a review by the university board is a good approach, as you can hardly put everything to the public and academia at large, when there is wide-ranging and diverse oppisition to your decision, as the university board, the correct response is to amend your decision and also examine why it was apparently incorrect to begin with. Also not trying to dodge FOIA requests and stuff, that's probably a good idea too. The university made a mistake, not procedural, but judgemental, and their response to that has been decidedly poor. That's a valid source of criticism against them.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
The thing is the situation, potentially, and what MIGF is calling for certainly, isn't even that the board mistakenly though Salaita's comments were antisemitic. It's that the board were concerned a number of students and donors were upset by his comments and thus they should terminate his hiring without notice or compensation. According to MIGF and I think here he might actually be accurately characterising events, the senior staff based their decision on the offence and upset felt by members of the faculty. That right there is the whole reason there are stringent measures in place regarding academic freedom. That's the reason for the boycott. Such actions are simply poison for actual academic research. Once you say that research positions or teaching posts are up for dismissal as soon as something controversial comes out of them you are licensing your research institution as either something which will bury unpopular news or an academic whore willing to find and publish results for whichever group has the most money. Considering (as others have highlighted) the reputation of academic research in China it's a wonder that there are people calling for similar standards to be applied in the US under the guise of the protection of minority groups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It is a perfectly reasonable approach, but that doesn't mean it produced a good result. The board did re-examine its decision, in a full vote, and stuck with its commitment for UIUC to be a campus where stakeholders could feel safe to learn. Everyone in Illinois dodges FOIA. That's loving nornal; Clinton, of all people, has the most disregard for FOIA, and look at where she may be in 2 years. MrNemo posted:The thing is the situation, potentially, and what MIGF is calling for certainly, isn't even that the board mistakenly though Salaita's comments were antisemitic. It's that the board were concerned a number of students and donors were upset by his comments and thus they should terminate his hiring without notice or compensation. According to MIGF and I think here he might actually be accurately characterising events, the senior staff based their decision on the offence and upset felt by members of the faculty. Salaita had the freedom to make all the antisemitic speech he wished after approval for hiring by the board. He couldn't bite his tongue for two weeks and then let his antisemitism out to the open. That's just stupid, and UIUC cannot abide stupid in its academics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:The thing is the situation, potentially, and what MIGF is calling for certainly, isn't even that the board mistakenly though Salaita's comments were antisemitic. It's that the board were concerned a number of students and donors were upset by his comments and thus they should terminate his hiring without notice or compensation. According to MIGF and I think here he might actually be accurately characterising events, the senior staff based their decision on the offence and upset felt by members of the faculty. The FOIA requests which basically revealed a ton of stuff indicate that Wise, in her efforts to try and push through a medical school at UIUC, was being pressured by donors and the groups responsible because they thought Salaita would bring attention to UIUC, and none of them wanted that for very unclear reasons. Wise and her colleagues in fact thought that Salaita was hired (and that it was final), based on their emails, and even defended his free speech rights before they began to look for a way to unhire him. http://academeblog.org/2015/05/16/why-salaita-was-un-hired-the-missing-facts-in-the-aaup-and-caft-reports/ A few pages back I bolded some interesting stuff from the article.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The board did re-examine its decision, in a full vote, and stuck with its commitment for UIUC to be a campus where stakeholders could feel safe to learn. Then they made the wrong decision twice. Unfortunate, but suggests a need for better review practices in future. Commonplace it may be, but correct it is not. I expect better of the institution. It is, of course, free to ignore that expectation, but it is also free to enjoy the consequences of its criticism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
I think what's clear is, in the new, social media environment, the entire concept of educator tenure needs to be re-evaluated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Salaita is dogwhistling calling for the death of jews in Israel. Institutions cannot allow dogwhistled death to their stakeholders. You really need to quit viewing this from an academic point of view, and see it from a nonprofit management viewpoint. I wouldn't call stakeholders 'outside pressure'; thousands of stakeholders petitioning against racism of a potential future hire approval is inside pressure from the institution. This is your problem. A university may legally fall into the category of a nonprofit, but it is and must forever remain distinct in its mission and operation from other nonprofits. Its only purpose should be to teach whatever its academics consider the available evidence to indicate and to let them obtain and discuss further evidence. The only limit must be that its members behave legally given that they are part of the wider society. Donors should not have any power beyond kindly asking for stuff and getting their names attached to stuff on campus, and should most explicitely not be considered members who apply pressure from the inside. They should have less standing than people who drop by for a year and leave with an MBA. If anything, should donor funding become a tool of coercion in practice, we should either increase public funding to or shrink universities to the point where they can stop giving a poo poo about donor pressure. e: in the case of Salaita, outraged donors or concerned faculty members/uni management should have hauled him into court over hate speech if they were so convinced of his antisemitism. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:16
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I think what's clear is, in the new, social media environment, the entire concept of educator tenure needs to be re-evaluated. Support this statement
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I think what's clear is, in the new, social media environment, the entire concept of educator tenure needs to be re-evaluated. Now, more than ever, it needs to be protected so that a hundred thousand morons retweeting random bullshit #FireMyLeastFavouriteProf for a week before moving on to the next outrage du jour cannot shut down reasoned discussion. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The institution did not grant tenure until an individual was affirmed before the board. The judge laughed that argument out of court, so you should probably stop relying on it. quote:How better to arbitrate when one sees antisemitism and another does not, than to have a board vote on whether such was perceived as antisemitic by the institution? By following the established disciplinary procedures for when a professor is charged with hate speech. Of course Wise et al didn't do that because they knew that his statements would never be found hate speech before any kind of faculty panel or jury because it simply wasn't hate speech. Expressing outrage at Israel's conduct, even in strident or crude terms, is not anti-semitic and when neo-McCarthyites like you use it as a cudgel to silence your political opponents, you are supporting anti-semitism, even if unwittingly. Anti-semitism is a serious charge and if you devalue it for political points to where it simply means "I disagree with this person about Israel" then you give cover to actual anti-semitism. For shame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:this would not have occured, were Illinois a right to work state. Right-to-work laws prohibit a labor union from negotiating a closed-shop agreement with an employer. Right-to-work legislation was recently rejected in Illinois. Salaita's membership or non-membership in a union isn't at issue, anyways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
If you argue with a brick wall with the word "anti-semitism" painted on it you'd still have a more nuanced and reasonable debate about the subject than you get arguing with MIGF.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:If you argue with a brick wall with the word "anti-semitism" painted on it you'd still have a more nuanced and reasonable debate about the subject than you get arguing with MIGF. It would also be more productive, because the brick wall would not redirect the argument to the pointless topic of antisemitism if you start talking about the important aspects of the situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:I agree, which is why I have called your attempts to justify the persecution and murder of Palestinians an act of anti-Palestinian bigotry. And yet you continue to spew your hate and bigotry all over this forum, FreshlyShaven posted:So calling your extreme anti-Palestinian views racist is an "ugly and unfounded personal attack on those who disagree with you" but smearing Salaita as an anti-semite for saying that "it's important to separate Jews from Israel and when Israel deliberately conflates the two, it contributes to anti-semitism" or for expressing outrage at the mass-murder of his countrymen is some kind of moral crusade? Have you no decency? I don't know why you keep doing this despite it being quite clear I'm not going to be trolled by such a subpar attempt. Perhaps you have simply concluded that you'll be able to get away with doing it. blowfish posted:It would also be more productive, because the brick wall would not redirect the argument to the pointless topic of antisemitism if you start talking about the important aspects of the situation. blowfish may consider antisemitism to be a "pointless topic", but I think it really quite clear that is very far from a universal opinion. Salaita's offer wasn't pulled because people were disgusted by his tweets expressing his views on the new Star Wars movies, it was pulled because he made a series of inflammatory and angry tweets that many reasonable people read as expressing antisemitic beliefs. That makes antisemitism indispensable to the discussion of this topic. FreshlyShaven posted:Expressing outrage at Israel's conduct, even in strident or crude terms, is not anti-semitic and when neo-McCarthyites like you use it as a cudgel to silence your political opponents, you are supporting anti-semitism, even if unwittingly Calling antisemitism an honorable label or a nobel belief is the sort of thing that only an antisemite would say. He still has rights as an academic(even if he's one of the BDSers who would deny those rights to others), but he's an antisemite who still has rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Calling antisemitism an honorable label or a nobel belief is the sort of thing that only an antisemite would say. So there seems to be two ways to interpret that tweet. The first would be that Salaita thinks Israel's actions and policies are horrific enough that it makes actual racism morally acceptable. Some sort of idea that Israel is so terrible that he thinks it means Jews are actually evil and attacking them as an ethnic group is now good. The second interpretation would be that Salaita feels that Israel has actively worked to change the meaning of antisemitism to be something that applies to all criticism of state policies or institutions, which starts to see it used as a label to attack people who criticise morally reprehensible actions and policies. In this case what his tweet is doing is attacking this Israeli PR tactic by demonstrating an undesirable end result (that a previously wholly negative label will become something that is applied to actual racism and justifiable criticism, which will give cover to genuine anti-semites). In total isolation I think either interpretation could work and it may well come down to how strongly you see antisemitism in the world. In the context of his other tweets however, which are critical specifically of the state of Israel or which specifically don't attack Jews for being Jewish, I think it would be an extremely uncharitable reading of that tweet. Of course if someone is specifically saying antisemitism is a bad thing and Israel is wrong for conflating it with not bad things, it's pretty hard to label them as an anti-semite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:So there seems to be two ways to interpret that tweet. The first would be that Salaita thinks Israel's actions and policies are horrific enough that it makes actual racism morally acceptable. Some sort of idea that Israel is so terrible that he thinks it means Jews are actually evil and attacking them as an ethnic group is now good. I mean, honestly, all of this has been well covered in the OP, I suggest people now joining the conversation re-read it to get a context for Salaita's tweets. You'll find he's also excoriated antisemitism explicitly several times.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
There are also numerous reports from jewish students who have supported the "Salaita is not a racist" notion, in that he was very supportive of their studies, graded them fairly, and helped them when they struggled. Essentially, the tweet in question cannot be interpreted as antisemitic in its context (where it existed alongside other tweets damning Israel's abuse of the term antisemitic during a time where actual antisemitism is still existent), it cannot be interpreted as antisemitic by considering Salaita's record, it cannot be considered antisemitic by way of pragmatism as his firing has caused far more economic and moral damage to the college and its jew students/donors than keeping him on-staff, and it can't be interpreted as antisemitic even in misinterpretations, as a vast majority of jewish students, jewish staff, and chairmen of the Jewish Studies board have all ruled that Salaita is fit to teach without bias. From a legal standpoint he is safe because of the mechanisms of Tenure and the vast support for retaining the integrity of Tenure as well as the incriminating evidence found via FOIA, from a moral standpoint he is safe both because he is not antisemitic and he was not illegally fired for antisemitism (the FOIA requests revealed that the real reason for the firing was to preemptively squash attention which would reveal other shady donor projects and deals in play). Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
It's amazing to me how people who see right through "I'm not a racist, but..." or "I've got black friends" find the very same excuses entirely compelling when it comes to anti-semitism. People who hold racist beliefs are entirely capable of claiming an abhorrence of racism. People who have racist and prejudicial beliefs about black people as a group are entirely capable of holding high opinions of individual black people. I hope this is not news to anyone here. Or does anyone want to step up and defend the anti-racist bonafides of Cliven Bundy or Donald Trump? The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
TIC do you strongly hold the first interpretation of his tweet then? That he clearly thinks the actions of the state of Israel have somehow made groundless mistreatment and discrimination against Jewish people morally good? Could you provide some evidence from his other writings, interviews, interactions with other people to back that interpretation up? Because it seems many people in this thread favour the second interpretation (that Israel has tried to subvert the meaning of antisemitism into covering all criticisms of Israel and doing so drags morally justifiable and admirable stances under the label, thereby subverting its ability to function as a negative label) and as mentioned in the OP, there is wider context and proof that this is what Salaita meant. When someone's career is endangered, they attract widespread media attention and a large number of people are able to point to evidence in writing and actions that this individual's statement were without antisemitic intent (and indeed seems to pretty strongly acknowledge that actual antisemitism is a bad thing) I think the onus is on you to provide a case beyond simply arguing that you don't need proof of his antisemitism because being an antisemite precludes things like being able to be defended against any charge or having any kind of right to fair treatment. I'm not necessarily agreeing with Salaita's position, I'm perfectly happy that you can think he's entirely wrong under the second, non-racist, interpretation. I would just like you to provide some actual context or proof that seriously undermines that interpretation or some other article by him that would lead you to conclude that he thinks being racist against Jewish people is justifiable because Israel. Hell if Obama made some statement tomorrow about IS's claims that criticisms of them are Islamaphobic makes Islamaphobia seem like the correct position to take, would you accuse Obama of being an Islamaphobe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Hell if Obama made some statement tomorrow about IS's claims that criticisms of them are Islamaphobic makes Islamaphobia seem like the correct position to take, would you accuse Obama of being an Islamaphobe? Yes because no poo poo he would be. Here, let me provide a non bugfuck crazy hypothetical to try to elucidate this for you: If Trump made some statement tomorrow about how #BLM's claims that criticism of them are racism makes racism seem like the the correct position to take, would you accuse Trump of being a racist? Of course you would because "If what I say makes me a 'racist', well then I guess I'm a 'racist' " is an amazingly common line from Tea Party style racists attempting to sarcastically defuse charges of racism against them. Have you not realized you can easily find this stuff word for word over on  or in countless right-wing blog comment sections? Does it convince you there? Does it start working when it's about Jews instead of black people?Oh, and if you actually want to read about Salaita's problematic formulation about Jews, Israel, and anti-semitism, you're welcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 08:23
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:blowfish may consider antisemitism to be a "pointless topic", but I think it really quite clear that is very far from a universal opinion. Salaita's offer wasn't pulled because people were disgusted by his tweets expressing his views on the new Star Wars movies, it was pulled because he made a series of inflammatory and angry tweets that many reasonable people read as expressing antisemitic beliefs. That makes antisemitism indispensable to the discussion of this topic. If the people outraged by his statements were convinced he was a dangerous raging antisemite, they should have raked him over the coals in court and/or in the press, instead of choosing a perceived path of least resistance and pretending academic freedom is not a thing to quietly push him out of the way. In fact, I will quote the relevant portion of your post where you give the reason why the antisemitism question doesn't matter yourself: quote:He still has rights as an academic(even if he's one of the BDSers who would deny those rights to others), but he's an antisemite who still has rights. (for reference, I actually think the tweets make him sound like a hyperbolic rear end in a top hat with a hate boner for ~the joos~, but that doesn't matter, and it still wouldn't matter if he were to the right of fox news and complaining about the dirty poors and the muslamic menace) suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 08:40 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
blowfish posted:In fact, I will quote the relevant portion of your post where you give the reason why the antisemitism question doesn't matter: There is a difference between: a) "I reject everything they stand for and find their views contempible, but I will advocate for the legal rights of these neo-Nazis to hold a march through Skokie" b) "Let us march through Skokie, I stayed up all night practicing sieg heiling" That Salaita is an antisemite is relevant but not dispositive to the question "Should he have been fired from a tenured position for his anti-semitic beliefs?" It is kind of important to the question of "Is Salaita(and others who express the same sort of views about Jews and Israel and anti-semitism) an antisemite?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:There is a difference between: Thank you for stating the obvious, but we are debating case a) and whether he should have been fired, not whether he was an antisemitic rear end in a top hat. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Oh, and if you actually want to read about Salaita's problematic formulation about Jews, Israel, and anti-semitism, you're welcome. I'm not actually seeing any problematic formulation of anything? He sounds a little shrill but that's about it. I'm seeing him say "Israel is an apartheid state founded on ethnic cleansing" and a whole ton of angry words insisting he's wrong and some side potshots at Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu for fun. In general even the tweets that started this whole shitstorm aren't really antisemitic except maybe this one quote:Zionists: transforming "antisemitism" from something horrible into something honorable since 1948. And his later tweets seem to backpedal from that or clarify he meant something else. So no, not anti-Semitic, sorry. Dumb as poo poo in writing edgy twitter death threats sure, but anti-Semitic, not really icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:I don't know why you keep doing this despite it being quite clear I'm not going to be trolled by such a subpar attempt. Perhaps you have simply concluded that you'll be able to get away with doing it. So when I apply your own logic to your own statements, you find the argument absurd and dismiss me as a troll. What does that tell you? Every single anti-Salaita argument you've offered could be used (quite accurately) to paint you as a racist. Salaita has never blamed Jewish people for their history of oppression(well, not in the real world; in your imagination, perhaps), but you do blame Palestinians for their own oppression at the hands of the Israeli state. According to your own argument(blaming an oppressed group for their own oppression is bigotry), you're a bigot. You say that if a small percentage of Jews feel offended by a statement, we should assume it's anti-semitic without any kind of due process or fair hearing; I could find plenty of Palestinians who would find your statements in the I/P thread racist so by your own logic, we should assume you're a racist without any kind of fair hearing. quote:Calling antisemitism an honorable label or a nobel belief is the sort of thing that only an antisemite would say. Once again, you deliberately misinterpret a tweet for your own political ends. Salaita didn't say "Israel's behavior is bad, therefore hating Jewish people is 'nobel'(sic)"; he said "by conflating pro-Palestinian activism with anti-semitism, Israel's defenders redefine something honorable(support for Palestinian human rights) into anti-semitism." If you redefine anti-semitism to mean "Palestinians deserve equal rights", then you have redefined it to become something noble. And as Salaita warns, by doing that, you devalue the charge of anti-semitism and give cover to real anti-semitism. Yes, the tweet was ambiguous; that's an inevitable result of trying to express a syntactically-complicated idea into a 140-character tweet. It's understandable to misunderstand the tweet; many did and that's precisely why Salaita responded by clarifying. But this is almost a year after these tweets were posted; you have no excuse for spreading this disinformation. If you had the slightest interest in fairness or the truth, you could have easily found this out through a quick Google search. But then again, you've always preferred to attack Salaita for what you imagine that he said rather than what he actually said. Presumably because it's easier to slime and censor your political opponents that way. Of course the irony is that you falsely accuse him of being an anti-semite on the basis of a tweet in which he warns about the dangers of crying wolf and making baseless accusations of anti-semitism. Your chutzpah never ceases to amaze.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
is this article, which is basically saying the same thing that Salaita was ostensibly fired for, anti-semitic? The Forward in German is Der Stürmer makes u think
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:I'm not actually seeing any problematic formulation of anything? He sounds a little shrill but that's about it. I'm seeing him say "Israel is an apartheid state founded on ethnic cleansing" and a whole ton of angry words insisting he's wrong and some side potshots at Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu for fun. In general even the tweets that started this whole shitstorm aren't really antisemitic except maybe this one quote:Radical Islam. Transforming "islamophobia" from something horrible into something honorable since 2001 No issues with this, I guess? Don't find it "problematic"? quote:Radical feminists: Transforming "misogyny" from something horrible into something honorable since 1966. Nothing problematic in any of these, apparently. quote:Trayvon Martin supporters. Transforming "racism" from something horrible into something honorable since 2012. Clearly only a SJW could object to that. "I am a proud antisemite, exterminate the Jewish vermin" is an antisemitic statement. I assume/hope that's not going to draw an objection from anybody in D&D. "Calling me an antisemite because I speak out against the bloodthirsty Zionists and their murderous Nazi regime? Well I guess you can just go ahead and call me an 'antisemite'  " is also an antisemitic thing to say, albeit less extreme and dripping cognitive dissonance and self-denial. ers may be less racist that Stormfront, but the fact that they repeat many of the same racist canards as actual neo-Nazis do while disowning the racist label and even declaiming against the idea of racism does not mean they are not racists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:No issues with this, I guess? Don't find it "problematic"? That is literally a criticism levelled against Islamic extremists by moderate Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is literally a criticism levelled against Islamic extremists by moderate Muslims. To compare Israel to islamic extremists is disengenuous and carries quite the subtext of antisemitism. Nothing can ever make antisemitism honorable. Nothing. Not now, not ever. To say otherwise is to be an antisemite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:To compare Israel to islamic extremists is disengenuous and carries quite the subtext of antisemitism. No it isn't and doesn't
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
I've got this vision of MIGF getting cut off in traffic and yelling "CUTTING ME OFF IS ANTISEMITIC", and the other driving rolling their eyes and saying "ok well I guess I'm an antisemite then" and then MIGF screaming to anyone who will listen "SEE?? THEY ADMITTED IT!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is literally a criticism levelled against Islamic extremists by moderate Muslims. This is total horseshit. Show me the "moderate Muslims" proclaiming they're proud to be called islamophobes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
The fact that that one quote, which he backpedaled on later, appears to be the literal only evidence you have of his antisemitism shows how hilariously empty your argument is
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:I've got this vision of MIGF getting cut off in traffic and yelling "CUTTING ME OFF IS ANTISEMITIC", and the other driving rolling their eyes and saying "ok well I guess I'm an antisemite then" and then MIGF screaming to anyone who will listen "SEE?? THEY ADMITTED IT!" Why doesn't anyone accept that I'm arguing in good faith? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:This is total horseshit. Show me the "moderate Muslims" proclaiming they're proud to be called islamophobes.  Salaita is not claiming to be an antisemite, and does not think antisemitism is actually noble or a good thing. That is not his point. If someone tweeted some antisemitic canard in quotes, and followed up with "the previous tweet is a quote from a noted idiot antisemite," you'd be claiming the first tweet is evidence that they are antisemitic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:
Saying antisemitic things is antisemitic! There can be no argument on this! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I think what's clear is, in the new, social media environment, the entire concept of educator tenure needs to be re-evaluated. And then when pro-Palestinian activists agitate to have Zionist academics removed, I guess we can re-re-evaluate it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
This isn't hard. He's saying when people try to redefine noble thing X as bad thing Y, they make bad thing Y appear noble because noble thing X doesn't magically become bad just becausr it's relabeled as thing Y. It's the actions and not the label that make something noble.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:
No poo poo. Was that a difficult conclusion for you. I agree Salaita in context is not literally and explicitly declaring himself an antisemite as he would define the term. quote:If someone tweeted some antisemitic canard in quotes, and followed up with "the previous tweet is a quote from a noted idiot antisemite," you'd be claiming the first tweet is evidence that they are antisemitic.  Imagine a post along the following line showed up in, say, the endless criminal justice thread: "Racism is wrong, but because of the way the 'race pimps' play the race card and accused anyone who criticizes thug culture and black on white crime of racism, being called racist is a badger of honor" What do you think should happen to that poster? Would you describe them as expressing racist sentiments? SedanChair posted:And then when pro-Palestinian activists agitate to have Zionist academics removed, I guess we can re-re-evaluate it. Yes I certainly can't think of any sort of political movement active in academia that seeks to exclude Israeli or Zionist academics. The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
The Insect Court posted:'race pimps' That isn't a real thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:41
|
|