So much for free speech.
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
123 points (91.3% liked)
Progressive Politics
1151 readers
318 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
It's never been free, it's an illusion
She's not being prosecuted for it so yeah, she has the freedom of speech still
When you're a college professor, it doesn't really matter if you're sharing on your "personal" Instagram page. Saying you're going to shame your students, make them unwelcome, and treat them like genocide-loving racists, you ought to expect to be fired. There's a way to get your message across without alienating your own students. In fact, that's pretty much the entire job description for teaching.
Remember the good old days when it wasn't controversial to say genocide enablers are bad people?
This is the problem, you're talking about people, not crimes. Talk about the crime. Genocide is a crime. Enabling genocide is less clear. I voted for Biden, does that make me a genocide enabler? The factory worker who builds aluminum shells for bombs? The Israeli school child making care packages for soldiers as a school project?
When you reduce people to a single crime, it's easier to paint with a wide brush, and it becomes easier to decide that all need to be punished equally. It's like the people who call Hamas "terrorists" and decide all Hamas supporters deserve death. Treating all "Zionists" the same lends credence to the very argument that Israel is using to justify its own genocide. So are you a genocide enabler?
I've been called a Zionist for saying that Israel exists. I don't support the Israeli government, I don't support the genocide, I don't support my country supporting it, and I don't support the claim over the land. But a professor 20 miles from my house thinks I am the same as a violent racist.
That's how you lose the high ground. You talk about people as criminals, and say they are bad people. All people have the capacity to be good or bad, but most people are just trying to survive the circumstances of their existence. It is their actions, their choices, that are good or bad, and if we focus on that, we can help people do better. Bad choices can be improved. Bad people can only be killed.
I'm not reducing them to anything. This is what they are. Genocidal colonists and genocide enablers. Just because some of them are more polite or friendly doesn't change it. Saying anything else is just an insult to Jews like this professor who are from all over the world and have the guts to call them out on it.
Genocide is just about the worst crime we have a name for. So, what should be done with genocide enablers? Do they deserve death? Torture? Do they deserve civil rights? A chance to vote? Should they be denied healthcare? Denied commercial services? Should they be denied an education? Or are they merely deserving of scorn and to be ostracized? What's the punishment for all the genocide enablers who are as bad as racists and murderers?
Same thing we do to any individual who helps someone else conduct a serious crime. Charge them as an accessory. Mocking and shaming should be a minimum at least.
So a Zionist is convicted as an accessory to genocide. What's the punishment for the crime?
There's a historical precedent to convict war criminals. It's called the Nuremberg trials.
I was asking your opinion. To my knowledge, none of the types of genocide enablers I mentioned were prosecuted in Nuremberg. You think the Jewish coeds from rural PA deserve a trip to the Hague?
The Nuremberg trials established that a person was responsible for their own actions and that if an organization was found to be criminal, then you could bring forward individuals part of the organization to be charged. Now tell me, if someone has all the evidence in the world thrown at them and chooses to ignore it all and advocate for an ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing. Would you deem them innocent or guilty?
It's weird when someone makes my point for me in the form of a question. I'm not sure how to respond to you, because clearly the answer is guilty in the scenario you've described. My point is that you think that's the scenario that exists, and everyone who doesn't agree with you is equally guilty.
You're creating a scenario where the school child is as guilty as the school teacher and the politician and the factory worker and the airplane mechanic and the average citizen, all of them are the same amount of guilty to you because none of them threw off the constraints of their circumstances and took up arms against society itself.
And you're unwilling to answer a simple, straightforward question because you know the answer reveals your prejudice. What should the punishment be? The school child, the laborer, the politician, and the soldier. All of them deserve death, because genocide is the absolute worst crime, and it should be stopped by any means necessary. That's how "good" people justify bad things. It's how Netanyahu is justifying the genocide of Palestinians right now, only he calls them terrorists.
Israel is engaged in a genocide, and they should be stopped. But killing all Israelis is not going to end the violence. Demonizing all the people who aren't protesting the genocide will not end the violence. Labels and insults and demagogeury will only prolong and extend the suffering.
And if you're a college professor, you really ought to know better.
The scenario I presented in my questions is what's happening. If it's happening then it exists. Just because you're not a big fan of the scenario or how it's presented does not make it non-existent.
I am answering your question, just not in the way you want me to. I neglected to advocate for any kind of specific punishment on purpose for the exact reasons you described. It's more nuanced than that and it deserves to be reviewed by someone(s) more well-versed in law and accounts for all the nuances and grey we know exists in real life. I refuse to condemn an entire population to a single verdict or punishment simply because that makes me no better than the Zionists who I judge for doing the same thing to Palestinians. Even when they are irrefutable guilty of war crimes and the population they have condemned are more or less blameless.
Neither I nor the professor said anything about all Israeli's. The point is made regarding Zionists. It's a Venn diagram with a lot of overlap but also some parts that don't.
If you want to disagree with me on this point then that's fine and it's your right. You're not saying anything wrong in my opinion. We just have different worldviews. For me, there are certain hard lines I have when it comes to morality and these Zionists and the Israeli government have crossed so far over it that I refuse to entertain even their stupidest of attempts to empathize with them.
Have you ever met a tenured college prof before? Lol
Yeah, lots of them. Some were good at their jobs, some were not good at their jobs. Some posted controversial things on social media and got justifiably fired.
In the latest development of liberals becoming increasingly unhinged as they struggle to ignore the deepening divide between their words and their actual beliefs:
Apparently treating genocide-loving racists like genocide-loving racists is now a breach of the precious double-standard social decorum liberals love so much.