6 ms·

If someone at Harvard was publicly advocating for killing black people, I have no doubt that they would be immediately expelled. So freedom of speech doesn't ap

If someone at Harvard was publicly advocating for killing black people, I have no doubt that they would be immediately expelled. So freedom of speech doesn't apply here.

dekhn 3y ago
Even saying "All Lives Matter" was effectively fatal to several academic careers even though it's a positive affirmation.
- runarberg 3y ago
  The context is important. “All Lives Matter” sprung up as a reaction to “Black Lives Matter”. It was hardly ever said outside of the context of Black Lives Matter, and if it was, it was probably referring to something unrelated, such as animal rights. The only reason people say “All Lives Matter” as a response to “Black Lives Matter” is to void or nullify the latter statement, and as such a very obvious dog whistle for something which is hate speech.
  - dekhn 3y ago
    That's not correct: many people who said All Lives Matter meant it in good faith and not to nullify BLM. Claiming otherwise is .... not a realistic assessment of their intent. And in fact, in saying so,m you're basically trying to shut down discussion by calling people racist.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      If “All Lives Matter” is used outside of the context of BLM, then it is harmless. If it is used inside the context of BLM it is a racist dog whistle. That said, I stand by what I said that most of the time it is being used in the latter case. Wikipedia has an article about the latter case, not the former. Searching the term in any search engine will have you scroll very far down before you see it outside the context of BLM.
      - dekhn 3y ago
        Perhaps that's because so many people who wanted to say "All Lives Matter" were terrified of saying it because... well, a small number of people used it abusively?
  - gruez 3y ago
    Suppose everything that you said is true. What does this mean for arguably "dog whistle" terms like "from the river to the sea"?
    - runarberg 3y ago
      From the River to the Sea is usually said in the context of Palestinian liberation, Israeli occupation or zionism, so applying the same logic it seems to affirm Palestinian liberation and decolonization or deny or nullify zionism. Doesn’t really sound like a dog whistle in that context. Wikipedia seems to agree with my assessment: > All Lives Matter is a slogan that was created as a negative response to the Black Lives Matter movement. It is a conservative rejection of the acknowledgement of police brutality and ethnic violence that is the purpose of the Black Lives Matter movement. > "From the river to the sea" (Arabic: من النهر إلى البحر, romanized: min an-nahr ʾilā l-baḥr; Palestinian Arabic: من المية للمية, romanized: min il-ṃayye la-l-ṃayye, lit. 'from the water to the water') is a political slogan that refers geographically to the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an area described as Palestine, which today includes Israel and the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. > Palestinian progressives use the phrase to call for a united democracy over the whole territory while others say "it's a call for peace and equality after ... decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians." Even the Hamas charter is pretty explicit about what it means (where the context is obvious): > Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea [...] along the lines of the 4th of June 1967 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
      - dekhn 3y ago
        This is one of those cases where wikipedia is not a useful reference.
      - haberman 3y ago
        It sounds like you are saying that it is cancellation-worthy to be aligned with an American conservative position, but normal and acceptable political expression to be aligned with Hamas. Is that your position?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

If someone at Harvard was publicly advocating for killing black people, I have no doubt that they would be immediately expelled. So freedom of speech doesn't apply here.

dekhn 3y ago

Even saying "All Lives Matter" was effectively fatal to several academic careers even though it's a positive affirmation.

runarberg 3y ago
The context is important. “All Lives Matter” sprung up as a reaction to “Black Lives Matter”. It was hardly ever said outside of the context of Black Lives Matter, and if it was, it was probably referring to something unrelated, such as animal rights. The only reason people say “All Lives Matter” as a response to “Black Lives Matter” is to void or nullify the latter statement, and as such a very obvious dog whistle for something which is hate speech.
- dekhn 3y ago
  That's not correct: many people who said All Lives Matter meant it in good faith and not to nullify BLM. Claiming otherwise is .... not a realistic assessment of their intent. And in fact, in saying so,m you're basically trying to shut down discussion by calling people racist.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    If “All Lives Matter” is used outside of the context of BLM, then it is harmless. If it is used inside the context of BLM it is a racist dog whistle. That said, I stand by what I said that most of the time it is being used in the latter case. Wikipedia has an article about the latter case, not the former. Searching the term in any search engine will have you scroll very far down before you see it outside the context of BLM.
    - dekhn 3y ago
      Perhaps that's because so many people who wanted to say "All Lives Matter" were terrified of saying it because... well, a small number of people used it abusively?
- gruez 3y ago
  Suppose everything that you said is true. What does this mean for arguably "dog whistle" terms like "from the river to the sea"?
  - runarberg 3y ago
    From the River to the Sea is usually said in the context of Palestinian liberation, Israeli occupation or zionism, so applying the same logic it seems to affirm Palestinian liberation and decolonization or deny or nullify zionism. Doesn’t really sound like a dog whistle in that context. Wikipedia seems to agree with my assessment: > All Lives Matter is a slogan that was created as a negative response to the Black Lives Matter movement. It is a conservative rejection of the acknowledgement of police brutality and ethnic violence that is the purpose of the Black Lives Matter movement. > "From the river to the sea" (Arabic: من النهر إلى البحر, romanized: min an-nahr ʾilā l-baḥr; Palestinian Arabic: من المية للمية, romanized: min il-ṃayye la-l-ṃayye, lit. 'from the water to the water') is a political slogan that refers geographically to the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an area described as Palestine, which today includes Israel and the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, including the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. > Palestinian progressives use the phrase to call for a united democracy over the whole territory while others say "it's a call for peace and equality after ... decades-long, open-ended Israeli military rule over millions of Palestinians." Even the Hamas charter is pretty explicit about what it means (where the context is obvious): > Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea [...] along the lines of the 4th of June 1967 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Lives_Matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea
    - dekhn 3y ago
      This is one of those cases where wikipedia is not a useful reference.
    - haberman 3y ago
      It sounds like you are saying that it is cancellation-worthy to be aligned with an American conservative position, but normal and acceptable political expression to be aligned with Hamas. Is that your position?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]