Emory University put Umaymah Mohammad through ‘one of the most dehumanizing’ experiences of her life as a new front opens in the silencing of pro-Palestinian voices
I have been more than reasonable. A good faith interpretation was that this internet discussion is not even an argument about the subject matter. I gave you a free lesson in language comprehension. You have exhausted what good faith is left to be had in this discussion.
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.
The next day, she gave an interview on the Democracy Now! news program in which she spoke of the climate on campus for protesters. She also talked about an Emory medical school professor who had recently returned from volunteering as a medic in the Israeli military. This would lead, seven months later, to her suspension from medical school for a year, after she was found to have violated the medical school’s standard of “professional conduct”.
At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. 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 is the school who is in the wrong. You are blatantly lying about their reframing.
Later that month, the open expression committee released a report of its own: according to its independent investigation, the content of Mohammad’s interview was protected by Emory’s policy on free expression. In fact, the committee said, the school of medicine had violated Emory’s policy on open expression by conducting the investigation in the way it did.
Nemenman wrote in the report that, by ignoring the committee, the school of medicine “violated not just the Policy, but, ironically, also the ‘principles of professionalism and mutual respect’, which they had aimed to enforce with this Conduct Code investigation”.
Azka Mahmood, executive director of Cair-Georgia, or the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said Mohammad’s case was unusual because “we haven’t seen medical students targeted in this way,” she said. “You have a Palestinian medical student who specifically joined the field trying to understand inequities and the role of medicine in violence. To have to work side by side with an IDF soldier is exacerbating, and makes it uniquely painful for her.”
Your initial argument was misleading as well.
BUT she was not suspended because she refused to work with or for the IDF. That is a bs title.
Again no one asserted that but you. As it turned out, this was an intentional straw man on your part and not as I had hoped a misunderstanding. You intentionally mislead people who did not read the article. IDF soldiers can come and work in America. And if they work in your medical school, you could have to work with them.
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 goal of that example was to illustrate how objections are commonly phrased.
It’s bizarre to watch a person go to bat for genocide. You’ve gone to such great lengths to twist common language to in turn twist actual events to serve your narrative of an alternate reality.
A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her
This is the title. This is what happened. You’ve made your lies so obvious anyone who happens to read this far will spot them. I highly recommend you stop working to forward a genocide through this campaign of twisting words to legitimize silencing people. A person who in this case is both speaking out against and part of the minority targeted by that genocide.
There’s no way to have a good faith discussion with a person like yourself that is forwarding such an agenda. What you’re doing is effectively advocating for violence against Palestinians. Your goal is to silence this woman so the genocide is not derailed by her speech.
The nature of these internet discussions is that they are long, take time to read, and can in the short term be ambiguous as to what a person’s actual position is. But by discussing topics at length it becomes obvious what a person’s real position is.
I believe anyone who reads this far will see through what you are doing and object to it. Supporting genocide is wrong even if it is done in one of the most obtuse ways possible.
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?
You’re not pro-Palestinian. You’re a fascist. You managed to fool a number of unsuspecting people and you thought I would be an easy mark too.
Now you’ve tried to walk it back. You say you’re against the university while still going after the student as if this is some neutral objective viewpoint from nowhere. You bullshit in your argument and ignore what’s inconvenient in my argument. But you can’t bring yourself to stop lying.
This is the truth that is supported by the article:
A Palestinian American medical student objected to working alongside IDF soldiers. The university suspended her
At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. 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”.
The professor is the IDF solider. She objects to working with IDF soldiers. I object to pretending you are arguing in good faith.
Fuck off fascist!
Here’s your moment of zen.
Is Timothy Pratt pro-Palestinian? Let’s look at how he chose to end his article.
Back at Emory, Brown, Mohammad’s doctoral adviser, said she was proud of her student. “She’s doing what she’s supposed to do – holding her field accountable to its stated ideals,” Brown said, adding: “She will be Dr Mohammad, one way or the other.”
Yes. And that’s part of how he wrote an article that is true. He has a viewpoint from somewhere.
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?
At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. 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”.
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.
Faced with facts you just go straight to the name calling.
This is her objection.
At the same time, Mohammad told her Democracy Now! interviewer: “One of the professors of medicine we have at Emory recently went to serve as a volunteer medic” in the IDF. 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”.
This is mine.
Fuck off fascist.
Look how this fascist pretends the facts aren’t there. I led with the facts.
Just because you’re pretending you can’t read doesn’t mean other people can’t. No one is falling for the act.
I have been more than reasonable. A good faith interpretation was that this internet discussion is not even an argument about the subject matter. I gave you a free lesson in language comprehension. You have exhausted what good faith is left to be had in this discussion.
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.
It is the school who is in the wrong. You are blatantly lying about their reframing.
Your initial argument was misleading as well.
Again no one asserted that but you. As it turned out, this was an intentional straw man on your part and not as I had hoped a misunderstanding. You intentionally mislead people who did not read the article. IDF soldiers can come and work in America. And if they work in your medical school, you could have to work with them.
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 goal of that example was to illustrate how objections are commonly phrased.
It’s bizarre to watch a person go to bat for genocide. You’ve gone to such great lengths to twist common language to in turn twist actual events to serve your narrative of an alternate reality.
This is the title. This is what happened. You’ve made your lies so obvious anyone who happens to read this far will spot them. I highly recommend you stop working to forward a genocide through this campaign of twisting words to legitimize silencing people. A person who in this case is both speaking out against and part of the minority targeted by that genocide.
There’s no way to have a good faith discussion with a person like yourself that is forwarding such an agenda. What you’re doing is effectively advocating for violence against Palestinians. Your goal is to silence this woman so the genocide is not derailed by her speech.
The nature of these internet discussions is that they are long, take time to read, and can in the short term be ambiguous as to what a person’s actual position is. But by discussing topics at length it becomes obvious what a person’s real position is.
I believe anyone who reads this far will see through what you are doing and object to it. Supporting genocide is wrong even if it is done in one of the most obtuse ways possible.
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
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.
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.
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.
If you need to invent this narrative to make your point, your point fails to stand on its own.
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”.
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.
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?
You’re not pro-Palestinian. You’re a fascist. You managed to fool a number of unsuspecting people and you thought I would be an easy mark too.
Now you’ve tried to walk it back. You say you’re against the university while still going after the student as if this is some neutral objective viewpoint from nowhere. You bullshit in your argument and ignore what’s inconvenient in my argument. But you can’t bring yourself to stop lying.
This is the truth that is supported by the article:
The professor is the IDF solider. She objects to working with IDF soldiers. I object to pretending you are arguing in good faith.
Fuck off fascist!
Here’s your moment of zen.
Is Timothy Pratt pro-Palestinian? Let’s look at how he chose to end his article.
Yes. And that’s part of how he wrote an article that is true. He has a viewpoint from somewhere.
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?
This is her objection.
This is mine.
Fuck off fascist.
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.
Look how this fascist pretends the facts aren’t there. I led with the facts.
Just because you’re pretending you can’t read doesn’t mean other people can’t. No one is falling for the act.
https://psychcentral.com/health/signs-pathological-liar#signs-of-a-pathological-liar
My gut instinct was that pathological liars must be miserable. But after looking it up I was wrong.
You must be having a great time. Go figure.