The three deans include Cristen Kromm, the former dean of undergraduate student life; Matthew Patashnick, the former associate dean for student and family support; and Susan Chang-Kim, the former vice dean and chief administrative officer.
The suspension of the deans is the latest example of how Ivy League schools have moved to squash any speech critical of Israel or simply challenging the view that students who express pro-Palestinian sentiment are inciting antisemitism.
Columbia has been the spotlight of the student protest movement in solidarity with Gaza over the past several months.
I’m just stating the reality is when I hear anti-Semitism in a news article, I have to read it assuming that it does not mean hate based on religion. And 80% of the time right now in the new cycle it simply means people who don’t support a genocide.
That is the reality as language is being used right now today.
In fact the trap is the opposite thing, arguing with people about what is and isn’t anti-Semitic is the trap. It means people are not talking about the genocide. They’re talking about philosophical debate of language, when quite frankly that doesn’t matter, what matters is people are being killed right now.
The reality is, again, you are allowing them to control the narrative by making that assumption.
You do not have to make that assumption. You are letting them control your ideas of what bigotry means.
Shrug. I’ve had the same battle over AI vs algorithm.
I’m not the one writing news articles.
But you’re the one who controls your own language and your own assumptions.
Yes, and as I have said multiple times now, I’m going to react to the reality of the discussion and talk about the genocide rather then let people bait me into a debate about religious hate which would distract from the real issue of the genocide.
Again… Anti-Semitism in the news means 80% of the time people are not supporting the genocide.
No one is baiting you into anything. I’m trying to get you to acknowledge that there are two different issues here and you are letting the people that you rightfully oppose conflate them when you shouldn’t.
Is it Islamophobia to condemn horrible things the Saudi royal family has done even if they continually insist it is? No. Because we don’t let them control the narrative. So why is this different?
im not sure of your thesis at this point. Is the current common media use of antisemitism a different definition then the dictionary? yes, i agree.
Am I going to debate every article about how anti-genocide normal people are not actually anti-semitic. No, not at all, I think that is actually part of the pro-genocide strategy, it moves the conversation into safer territory for them. Better to ignore that language trap and just talk about the genocide.
My point is that you said, and I quote-
Which means that you are just assuming that some sort of actual bigoted attack did not happen.
And the reason you are assuming that is because you are letting the Zionists win a propaganda war.
I’m letting probability tell me that the term now means what it is being used to mean, and if the news item is about religious hate, then they have to explicitly call that out.
If you want to fight news media and tell them they are not doing their job properly and are using words wrong, more power to you… But thats not how I’m going to spend my life .