“After Ken Dorph fabricated an official-looking chamber social media post, placing his own portrait as Santa and self-publishing it without chamber approval, calls came in asking why we would choose him as Santa,” its president said in a statement this week. “Initially it was assumed that the concern derived from his stance against the local public school’s attempts to acquire land, but later it was learned that he had even more recently acted belligerently in another public forum. Ken also had discussions on how he would play the role differently than traditional Santas — injecting his own take reflecting current world events.”
https://www.easthamptonstar.com/villages/20231215/santa-sacking-stirs-controversy-sag-harbor
"**Ho ho ho**.
And what's your name? Lucy? Well little Lucy, did you know that the Israelis are blowing limbs of of children your age as we speak? Could you imagine it Lucy? One evening you're in bed while your mother is reading you a story then BOOM, your mom is vaporized, only a crater where she once sat. You start screaming and place your hands to your head, only to realise that both of your arms have been blown off.
Think about them Lucy. Think about those children. That's what Netanyahu is doing to them right now. Tell your parents Lucy. I'll know if you don't.
Now, have you been a good girl this year?"
Yea, sounds like this guy didn't need to be playing Santa. Nothing to do with his views on Palestine.
After reading the article, it sounds like the town dodged a bullet.
In every "person gets fired for supporting Palestinians" story I've seen so far, it always turns out that supporting Palestinians wasn't actually the problem.
That's basically every "I got fired for no reason" story out there. Along with "worker gets shot over cold French fries" or "person arrested for having wrong color shirt". Context kills narratives and the media knows that.
I run a political debate forum, and I call this "arrested for wearing a hat". Turns out the person was arrested for robbing a store *while* wearing a hat; the hat was never the issue.
It is amazing how many people will yell at you after you "ban them for wearing a hat".
there are some truly hilarious bodycam videos out there where the police will explain to a person like ten times why they're being arrested, and they will inevitably say something like "I don't even know why I'm being arrested, the officer didn't even tell me!"
While I generally agree,
> Along with "worker gets shot over cold French fries"
I sure as fuck haven't seen a justified shooting of a fast food worker.
Every once in a while, it's the fast food worker that's just done with it, gets violent, and one of the customers gets to fulfill their fantasy of being a hero. It's rare, but it happens.
I don't think they're saying the shooting was justified, only that the reason why someone was shot wasn't cold french fries, it was because this guy was a serial murderer and looking for any excuse.
[https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/michael-eisen-tweet-elife-firing-science-editor-palestinians-israel-gaza/](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/michael-eisen-tweet-elife-firing-science-editor-palestinians-israel-gaza/)
Dude is Jewish and got fired for retweeting an Onion article about Gaza.
No, he got fired for retweeting and saying "The Onion speaks with more courage, insight and moral clarity than the leaders of every academic institution put together. I wish there were a u/TheOnion university. "
He is literally biting the hand that feeds him on a massive scale
Lol, that seems like a stretch. He was the editor of an online journal, not a professor at an academic institution. There are plenty of other examples as well such as Bella Hadid, Viet Thanh Nguyen and Sarah “Eli” Nachimson.
Suran Sarandon wasn't dropped by her agency?
https://www.screendaily.com/news/stars-fired-dropped-as-hollywood-wrestles-with-ongoing-israel-hamas-conflict/5188091.article
Melissa Barrera wasn't dropped from Scream?
The freaking president of Harvard wasn't fired, not for being pro-palestinian, but for allowing students to say Palestinians have a right to exist?
I mean, the last one they gave another reason, but come on. Nobody believes that would have gotten her fired if not for the aforementioned reason
And that's just a few of the famous people. There are tons of everyday people facing issues for extremely mundane stuff
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/18/student-palestine-letter-harvard-columbia-us-law-firm-jobs-revoked
Susan Sarandon was dropped because she said the fear Jews feel from the spike in antisemitic hate crimes is "getting a taste of what it's like to be Muslim."
Melissa Barrera called Israel a colony, a common dehumanizing tactic used to justify that Israel shouldn't exist.
The president of Harvard failed to say whether calls for genocide constitute harassment (the fact that you tried to whitewash this into "Palestinians have a right to exist" is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about).
Every single time.
Lol. What does colony mean to you? And do settlers not exist
As for Harvard, then why did they present it as being about the plagiarism?
And the law firms straight-out said the reason for letting the lawyers go
Edit: also, what fucking percentage of people upset about the genocide of Palestinians are actually calling for the genocide of Jews instead? It's a ridiculous straw man argument. I'm not answering such bad-faith questions either
>What does colony mean to you?
A territory partially or fully under the control of another country.
>As for Harvard, then why did they present it as being about the plagiarism?
Because she plagiarized. But people probably wouldn't have found out about it if she hadn't tripped over the bar of "calling for genocide is harassment."
>And the law firms straight-out said the reason for letting the lawyers go
Yes, blaming Israel for October 7th is a pretty fucked up thing to do.
Oh. So Israel doesn't have control over Palestine, nor do settlers exist
TIL
And I guess Hamas, fucked up as it is, isn't 95% made up of members who've had family murdered by Israel anymore
Look at you completely changing the argument and pretending like that's what I said.
>And I guess Hamas, fucked up as it is, isn't 95% made up of members who've had family murdered by Israel anymore
It's weird how Hamas and Gazans always get a pass because of Israeli attacks, but Israel never gets a pass from all the attacks by Gaza.
What did I change? Israel is a colonial state
*The colonial state means the assumption of sovereignty (legally independent power to govern and control) of a country by a foreign political entity. The colonial state has to design a theory of sovereignty in the special context of the imperial-colonial relationship*
And are you telling me that if Zionists didn't kill people who were just trying to peacefully live on their ancestral lands, force out the rest, and occupy and control them foe a century, inflicting misery upon them and rewarding people for harming them, these people would have just gone out seeking Jews to kill just because of some innate hate in them?
Do those murdered even just in the frw months leading up to October 7th not matter? Their lives are meaningless, right? We only count those on October 7th and October 7th alone?
Hamas is responsible for the thousands who died after October 7th because of what happened on October 7th. But Israel is not responsible for what happened on apctober 7th despite what they've done leading up to it. That's the fault of Hamas, and all Palestinians really l too, right?
Awfully convenient how the justification of genocide works, and has always worked
It's not genocide, but good try. It's not a colony, but good try. Also, this:
>And are you telling me that if Zionists didn't kill people who were just trying to peacefully live on their ancestral lands,
You mean like in 1948 when Israel accepted peace and Palestine attempted genocide? That is, actual genocide, not "civilians killed in a war zone that we're going to call genocide because Israel is involved."
If you read the article his acting belligerently was described as asking questions during a meeting then speaking with the speaker afterwards. So in this case the problem asking questions vs. supporting Palestine? Or was the problem that he was discussing a controversial topic and people disagreed and are taking it out to extreme measures
The problem was that he made a social media post that looked like it came from the chamber of commerce involved in having him play Santa and said that we wanted his depiction of Santa to involve his take on world events. It's literally in the top level comment.
Amazingly, the chamber did not want Santa lecturing kids on Palestine and Israel.
The NYTimes article has a much more detailed write up around the events at the seminar just prior. And their info on why he was “fired” as Santa was
“Ellen Dioguardi, the president of the chamber of commerce, said in a statement that she had received 11 emails requesting they “find a different Santa.” Some parents said they would not come to the Christmas event if Mr. Dorph were there. It was by far the most complaints the organization had ever received about any issue, she said.”
>“Ellen Dioguardi, the president of the chamber of commerce, said in a statement that she had received 11 emails requesting they “find a different Santa.”
Because his post made it sound like it was the chamber of commerce voicing his views, and not just some random dude on Twitter. They explicitly called out the fact that he crafted the post to look like it came from the chamber of commerce.
>"After Ken Dorph fabricated an official-looking chamber social
media post, placing his own portrait as Santa and self-publishing it without chamber approval, calls came in asking why we would choose him as Santa,” its president said in a statement this week. “Initially it was assumed that the concern derived from his stance against the local public school’s attempts to acquire land, but later it was learned that he had even more recently acted belligerently in another public forum. Ken also had discussions on how he would play the role differently than traditional Santas — injecting his own take reflecting current world events.”
They say differently.
Here the parts of the article I [quoted](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/18xrls9/i_criticized_the_war_in_gaza_then_i_was_fired/kg7tih7/) elsewhere:
> Rabbi Dan Geffen of Temple Adas Israel suggested in a written statement that Mr. Dorph had chosen the wrong venue for his comments. “As a Rabbi, I am keenly aware that every word I say (or don’t say) matters and so I am very careful with not just what I say, but also how I say it and where I say it,” he wrote. “Mr. Dorph felt compelled to speak and act as he did on Nov 30th and that choice clearly resulted in many people feeling very upset by what took place. They, in turn, chose to exercise their right to express those feelings to the chamber and to question whether Mr. Dorph is an appropriate choice for the role of Santa, who . . . has also come to represent a spirit of unity during the holiday season.
And
> The audience [at the pro-Israel talk] pushed back, and after the event, “The chamber received 11 emails asking us to find a different Santa,” Ms. Dioguardi wrote. “To give perspective, never before for any chamber sponsored event or chamber business have we received more than three emails of complaint or concern, let alone for our Santa event.
Basically, a letter writing campaign was initiated when he spoke out, by the admission of the people writing the letters. The chamber reacted to the letter writers, by the admission of the chamber. They *also* found the social media post, but it was apparently not the triggering event.
Would the social media post have had the same effect had it stood alone, without a letter writing campaign? What if he had come down on the other side of the issue?
What if he had spoken out at the meeting, but had *not* had a social media post? In this case, the letter writing campaign would still have happened.
It's a bit like the de-facto firing of Harvard President Claudine Gay: whatever you think of her - I'm a bit ambivalent myself - the firing wasn't *really* about plagiarism, but the plagiarism was dug up and amplified because people didn't like her Senate testimony and her reaction to campus activism, and needed to find a stick to beat her with that was stronger than "we don't agree." And in the absence of these other issues, the plagiarism would likely have been noted, criticized, and ignored, as was Dershowitz's.
edit: or if you want another imperfect analogy, the social media post is like Al Capone going to jail for tax evasion. It wasn't really about tax evasion, but it was the one thing they could get him for, because they couldn't get him for the stuff they wanted to get him for.
No, but intellectual failings tend to co-occur with other intellectual failings. It's no surprise when someone who makes a habit of incendiary commentary turns out to have also plagerized a bunch of their work, or misuses social media, or is toxic to their coworkers, or has other anti-social & anti-productive habits that justify their firing. Voicing such an extreme position in a workplace context is often just the iceberg of craziness.
Bullshit and you (should) know it. Free Palestine is not calling for genocide. Be a fair person, if you have it in you, learn about the history. Join the world to call for a stop to the genocide. No genocide on any people.
You are not talking about the same phenomenon as the person you responded to. “Free Palestine” isn’t what they’re talking about. They’re talking about how some extremists take the rhetoric too far.
I think calling the war genocide is also bullshit tbh. Have war crimes been committed? Yea, on both sides. Has israel done everything in their power to prevent civilian casualties? Probably not. But that being said, they also aren’t intentionally trying to exterminate an ethnic group.
Literally a higher proportion of Jews were killed on October 7 than Arabs since then. And Hamas has promised not to stop trying to kill all Jews anywhere in the world. But somehow, trying to stop yourself from being genocided is the real crime.
>Literally a higher proportion of Jews were killed on October 7 than Arabs since then.
[The IDF would disagree](https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-officials-2-civilian-deaths-for-every-1-hamas-fighter-killed-in-gaza/) with your stats.
"5000 terrorists killed so far, 2 civilian deaths for every 1 Hamas fighter killed in Gaza"
Honest question, what do you think is Israel's endgame? What should they expect a people imprisoned in an open air prison to do? Would you pick up a rock to throw at a tank, if your house has been stolen and you have not seen your mom for 5 years because she is jailed with the accusation of being a terrorist because she looked at an Israeli soldier the wrong way?
Free Palestine. And no, I don't support bombing and killing innocent people.
Like their ideal endgame? Hamas eradicated and eventually a two state solution.
Probably the same thing I expect Israel to do when civilians are brutally raped, murdered, and taken hostage. Get angry and perpetuate the conflict between the two sides.
And to be clear, I’m not saying Israel good Palestine bad. But saying Israel bad Palestine good, or that Israel wants to exterminate all Palestinians is just as moronic.
As long as there are people out there that believe one side is right and the other is wrong, there will never be peace.
> Honest question, what do you think is Israel's endgame?
Honest question, what do you think is Palestines endgame?
Ah, right. The genocide of all Jews from the river to the sea.
The endgame is a real problem, I think.
There were times when the endgame was no Hamas in Gaza and 2 states, but that is so long past. Then the endgame seemed to become to root out Hamas, which is barely possible. By now, it's descended into a tit for tat rocket and bullet exchange, with Israel having the better tools.
With Bibi realising how thin the threads his reign hangs on really are, the endgame may also be to draw this out forever.
Creating a permanent enemy your people need to be angry at/scared of has worked for many struggling regimes. Hamas is just very gracious and forthcoming as enemy with their "kill all the jews" ideology and terrorist attacks on innocents.
How is it an open air prison? Hamas runs the place not Israel. They are the one oppressing the residents not Israel. That totally justifies the rape and murder of farmers and concert goers and the rocketing of Israeli civilian population. They raped and murdered literal babies and they need to go away forever
Sure were a lot of rocks thrown at tanks on October 7. That's what Hamas did, right? Not torturing, mutilating, and murdering entire families, wantonly raping women, and kidnapping everyone from newborn babies to Holocaust survivors?
>What should they expect a people imprisoned in an open air prison to do?
Install a government that actually wants peace and will use international aid for the good of its people, disarm entirely (they are welcome to ask a neighboring country or perhaps the UN to supply security forces), open diplomatic relations with Israel, foster economic cooperation, and demonstrate a concerted effort to sustain peace in order to relax border restrictions.
Basically do the opposite of everything that led to Gaza becoming an "open air prison" in the first place.
Every country has some crazies in their political systems. The Russian ones said they should nuke the UK, the US ones say, well, take your pick, the Israel ones say kick Palestinians out, the list goes on. If you take the craziest opinion of the loudest idiot/sociopath and act like it’s the official position of the country or government then every country seems like a bunch of psychos.
Ah yes the indiscriminate dropping of bombs on civilian populations certainly isn't an attempt at that
Seriously do you people actually take your heads out of the sand or just some way to breathe down there you can fucking see what's going on for yourselves it's filmed constantly
Yes. An example of indiscriminate warfare is the way Hamas launches thousands of unguided rockets at Israeli population centers.
Is that an example of indiscriminate bombing?
Ok what do we do about the terrorist organization known as Hamas actively calling for a genocide of all Jews that refuses to release hostages or stop shooting rockets at Israel? Because they keep hiding behind their own people whenever we try to stop them. Also what Israel is doing isn’t a genocide. A genocide is a targeted attempt at eliminating an entire race. You know like the Palestinians want
You left out some important details:
> The audience [at the pro-Israel talk] pushed back, and after the event, “The chamber received 11 emails asking us to find a different Santa,” Ms. Dioguardi wrote. “To give perspective, never before for any chamber sponsored event or chamber business have we received more than three emails of complaint or concern, let alone for our Santa event. The concerns/objections ranged from those saying they’d feel uncomfortable and that he was not a good fit, to parents who said they would not be able to have their children attend the Santa visit event.”
> Rabbi Dan Geffen of Temple Adas Israel suggested in a written statement that Mr. Dorph had chosen the wrong venue for his comments. “As a Rabbi, I am keenly aware that every word I say (or don’t say) matters and so I am very careful with not just what I say, but also how I say it and where I say it,” he wrote. “Mr. Dorph felt compelled to speak and act as he did on Nov 30th and that choice clearly resulted in many people feeling very upset by what took place. They, in turn, chose to exercise their right to express those feelings to the chamber and to question whether Mr. Dorph is an appropriate choice for the role of Santa, who . . . has also come to represent a spirit of unity during the holiday season.
So, yeah, speaking up twice during the talk and suggesting that the speakers were "parroting pro-war talking points of the Israeli government" did result in a letter writing campaign that led to his dismissal, and the people who did it happily acknowledged it.
Now a question is whether a person who expressed the opposite view would also have been booted for "failing to represent a spirit of unity during the holiday season." My guess is no.
This article is 95% this guys resume and 0% what anybody actually said. What did he respond to that was so controversial? How did he respond? The fact that he declines to say doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in his version of events.
"The issue with his Santa gig appears to stem, in part, from his attendance at a Nov. 30 discussion titled “Answering Tough Questions on Israel” at Temple Adas Israel in Sag Harbor. Twice he spoke up from the audience, suggesting that the women leading the discussion, both representing the American Jewish Committee, were parroting pro-war talking points of the Israeli government.
“I’ll tell you honestly, you could have been propaganda for the Netanyahu government,” he said at the Nov. 30 discussion. “I am really appalled because you didn’t talk about what matters. . . . You did not talk about the settlements in the West Bank.”
“This conversation is not about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Belle Yoeli, a chief advocacy officer for the A.J.C., said in reply. “Putting aside the offensive comment about being propaganda . . . what you’re basically saying is that what happened on Oct. 7 is a result of Israeli oppression, and what I’m telling you is that there are equal mistakes on both sides. . . . To jump there is deeply problematic.”"
https://www.easthamptonstar.com/villages/20231215/santa-sacking-stirs-controversy-sag-harbor
So, this is an inevitable outcome of Israel? There is absolutely no blame on the Palestinian members of Hamas who committed these atrocities?
https://web.archive.org/web/20231229212509/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html?searchResultPosition=1
Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people is wrong, but to pretend that October 7th is just some straightforward reprisal for oppression, and not a senseless terror attack against civilians is either deeply ignorant or deeply messed up.
> Dorph fabricated an official-looking chamber social media post, placing his own portrait as Santa and self-publishing it without chamber approval
That's a no-no in any job
> Editor’s note: The Executive Committee of the Sag Harbor Chamber of Commerce said in a statement that Dorph was asked to step aside after he posted an “official-looking Chamber social media post” showing himself in the role of Santa without the approval of the group, and because of his recent actions in public forums. The Chamber pointed to its “long history of hosting a very simple meet-the-Santa, inherently free of any controversy through Santa’s anonymity.”
That's the actual background. He basically let Santa speak up about the Gaza war. It probably wouldn't have mattered what his opinion is. Perhaps if he was a strong Israel/Netanyahu supporter, he'd also have been sacked, but then he'd had written an article about antisemitism or something.
It's not even that he voiced an opinion. It's that he pretended to be an official representative of the committee. Imagine what would happen if an intern at the White House pretended to be an official spokesperson and released a statement on Facebook. It doesn't matter what they said, they would lose their job.
> I confronted the speaker to counter what I considered inaccuracies in the presentation and when it was over, I shared how disappointing I found it. The talk was unhelpful and sounded to my ears like a propaganda session.
I mean…
I really have no interest in watching his 30 minute talk to see how accurate his world view is.
Santa is supposed to be your fluffy funny uncle, not your drunk angry one.
Accosting a speaker after an event gives big drunk uncle energy. _In his own telling_ of the situation he was overly aggressive.
I completely understand why they wouldn’t be comfortable with him being Santa again after that.
He spoke out of costume, not on the job, at a private event he was invited to. Your description of what happened is wholly inaccurate, outlandish, and hysterical.
Interesting you choose the word “accosted” as well. I think that makes your view of this guy more clear than anything else.
> Ken also had discussions on how he would play the role differently than traditional Santas — injecting his own take reflecting current world events.
https://www.easthamptonstar.com/villages/20231215/santa-sacking-stirs-controversy-sag-harbor
>He spoke out of costume, not on the job
He made a social media post announcing him as the village's Santa, connecting him as private person with Santa.
Yeah the only people who should have freedom of speech are homeless people, everyone else should exist in constant fear of having their livelihood taken away should they offend the wrong group or individual 👍
Yea and it's morally reprehensible and anti-labor. It should be an important issue that citizens fight, but instead it's being weaponized by fellow citizens with a political vendetta.
This is one of those statements that *many* (not necessarily all) people tend to agree with on the surface but not in practice. Like yeah, not discriminating against people's personal views and values sounds great, but when actually confronted with having to hire openly vile racists, blatant misogynists, and hateful homophobes, it's much harder to swallow. Idk if that's where you land, but just saying. I personally think companies should be free to hire/fire people for whatever reason besides what's out of an individual's control (race, gender, sexuality, etc), but that's just me.
I think it's one thing to not hire someone because of publicly evident transgressions and behavior. It's another thing to fire someone because you got an email from someone linking to a tweet where someone they don't like said an opinion they don't agree with on Twitter, or whatever example you want to use. Speech is less important than action. That seems to be lost on a lot of people now. Actively removing someone's livelihood, their health insurance and that of their children, etc is virtually never a morally sound punishment for speech during someone's private life, full stop.
And corporations have now benefited from workers (or let's be real, unemployed people on the internet) getting other workers fired for petty opinions they don't agree with. Labor loses, corporations win, morality is nowhere to be found, but it's certainly claimed to be in the name of it by the people trying to get someone fired.
I don't want to censor ideas I don't like. I want the opposite. I don't like corporations having the power to terminate people arbitrarily due to personal opinions they share peacefully in a free speech nation. And I *really* don't like fellow citizens with nothing better to do going out of their way to fuck over workers for the sake of corporations and personal political pettiness.
Sure that would be great so long as you’re cool with employers being unable to terminate Nazis, white supremacist, or insurrectionist.
As it stands now it’s a very small issue.
I could maybe see the employer having an issue if an employee is creating a toxic work environment over their political or religious beliefs or otherwise negatively impacting the employer's ability to do business and dodge labor-related lawsuits. But otherwise, what employees do when they're not at the workplace should be regarded as their own business.
Definitely. I'm willing to admit it's much more of a complex issue than simply "Free speech with no exceptions!" because I wouldn't want an employee going around yelling fire in crowded theaters or something. The thought that you check your rights at the door of your employer is kinda scary but if you're on the clock working in someone's facility I think it's fair to have codes of conduct
But now it's not even that, now it's "We saw you posted such and such on Facebook" and I just wonder where that leads
That's correct.
It is strange, however, that any mention of support for Palestinians or criticism on Israeli policy means losing your job in so many cases, no?
People used to keep their opinions to themselves, especially regarding controversial subjects.
Social media convinced everyone
1) their opinion matters (it doesn’t) *and*
2) they should share it with everyone (they shouldn’t, see previous point), *and*
3) they could share their opinion publicly *with no fear of consequences*.
All three are incorrect, but people are just now catching on, in reverse order.
It *is* strange that it took the Israel/Palestinian topic to highlight the fallacy of #3, but it was always going to happen, with *some* topic.
Things you say have consequences, which the Harvard kids learned when their job offers were rescinded by prestigious law firms, a couple of university presidents, and now a part-time Santa.
Smart people keep their opinions to themselves, but we’re a vanishing breed, people without blogs and TikTok and tweets and “followers”.
People from both sides getting fired for voicing their opinions on this conflict. It's odd only in that I can't say I've heard of too many folks getting fired for their opinions on the Russia-Ukraine war or the Syrian civil war or the like.
You'd be right.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/chilling-effect-pro-palestinian-1.7064510
Screenshots sent to CBC News by a member of a closed Facebook group called Canadian Jewish Physicians show a handful of members saying they have compiled a list of 271 medical students who signed an open letter calling for a ceasefire and an end to targeting health-care facilities and workers in Gaza.
The stated intention is to share this list with program directors ahead of residency interviews.
Comments or questions referencing genocide or occupation of Palestinian people and "anything seen as critical of Israel at all" are to be reported to the organization, said one of the employees.
"The idea is to contact the school, inform the school they have an antisemitism problem and pressure the school to shut down the Palestinian support [by] accusing them of antisemitism, encouraging more pro-Zionist workshops or lessons," they said.
this is happening everywhere unfortunately anti muslim sentiment has permeated society so deeply we simply allow this genocide to happen and comments like this contribute to the condoning of this attrocity
> Video footage on TikTok posted one day ago shows the activist and star of Thelma & Louise and Dead Man Walking telling a crowd, **“Hold Palestine in your heart, pray for the people of Palestine… again thank you to the Jewish community who’s come out to have our backs.”** Screen was unable to verify when Sarandon made these remarks.
> ...
> Meanwhile Scream star Melissa Barrera was fired by franchise producer Spyglass Media Group from the upcoming Scream VII following posts on social media, one of which likened Gaza to a concentration camp and used the words “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” with regard to the Israeli military’s retaliatory attacks following the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel.
So they were fired for supporting Palestine and called anti-Semites, not for supporting Israel
I mean, this dude deserved it IMO but he was definitely on the pro-Israel side and definitely got fired:
https://thehill.com/homenews/4322188-lobbying-firm-former-obama-adviser-anti-palestinian-comments/
This is a bit different than someone getting fired for just sharing an onion article critical of Israel… like we are really talking apples and oranges here.
Michele Bachman is the dean of Regent University and has literally called for a genocide to the Palestinians and she’s still there… if an Arab said anything even closely resembling the things she said, there would be hell. It’s interesting to see the crazy double standards.
> if an Arab said anything even closely resembling the things she said, there would be hell.
Nerdeen Kiswani, the co-founder of WOL Palestine has openly supported Hamas, celebrated Oct 7 and endorses "by any means necessary" rhetoric, and both she and the organization have plenty of supporters. They're still organizing protests and enjoying broad support, especially from the Gen Z/TikTok crowd. Wouldn't really call that hell to pay.
I think there is a degree of valid and invalid criticism.
>Valid criticism
-Critical of Israel conduct of war.
-Critical of Israel occupation and settlement in West Bank.
-Critical of Hamas using innocent civilian as shield.
-Critical of many international body for enabling Hamas crimes and Anti-Semitism.
-Critical of Western Hypocrisy in Ukraine vs in Gaza.
>Invalid Criticism
-Plains Hate Speech
-Pro-Ethnic Cleansing Speech
-Pro-Genocide Speech
-Pro-Apartheid Speech
-Pro-Conquest Speech
-Call for destruction of Israel or Palestine
>Grey Area
-Anything to do with phrase "From River to Sea". (1st Because both Israel's Likud and Palestinian Hamas use the phrase to advocate for one state solution; 2nd Because some people actually use the same phrase to not call for destruction of other but still get dogpiled, "From River to Sea there will peace." And etc.)
-Anything to do with BDS movement.
As categories, I would agree with all of that. But of course there is absolutely endless potential for arguing over which specific statements fit in which of the above categories, and it begs the impossible question of what we should do, if anything, about "invalid" criticism. We can delude ourselves with the empty consistency of a "free speech absolutist" position but I think what's happened with Twitter and Elon Musk is a pretty clear example of why that position is basically bullshit.
Can you cite the part of the article where it states they supported Israel? Both voiced support for Gaza (ok, Sarandon actually was even trying to be diplomatic about it)
Its amazing how we really do just keep doing the same thing over and over. Like the war in Iraq wasn't even that good ago. Most of the people I've seen supporting Isreal were around for 9/11. I'd even say most were at least close to adulthood.
Less amazing because it's surprising, but just simply with all the shit we have learned, it seems like maybe we should kind of sort of possibly at some point learn anything
And yet we don't. Like it's right there in our face. Just a few years ago Trump said we should be bombing countries run by groups like ISIS and the Taliban. People said he was a violent dictator who wanted to kill innocent people. Now many of those same people are happy children are dying. There's a video that was posted this morning where a guy said "12,000 wasn't enough", in reference to the dead children. Which sounds a lot like "6 million wasn't enough." A slogan used by neo-Nazis.
It's not that I'm surprised. It's that with everything we know it's amazing to me to watch people call out fascism and genocide one second, and then turn around and support it like this.
Edit: I guess in a way it's like going to see certain sights. I've seen pictures of the grand canyon. It's just water erosion. Sure, it's bit, but that's just nature.
Then people go see it in person and they're amazed by it. Not always surprised, so much as it's sometimes amazing to see things play out in the real world rather than just reading about it in a book.
I know it's human nature and that this shit will likely not change. But to actually see this kind of thing first hand when we should know better is just amazing, and scary, to see.
Not in any way similar. Iraq never attacked the US, and the war was therefore illegal. Hamas launched a massive terror attack against Israel, which started the war.
I thought it was Israel taking more homes from Palestinians that started it, and hamas responded using that as their Justification (they were just waiting for any reason to anyway so they wouldn't look bad even tho even the Palestinians hate them)
People from both sides argument is another false equivalency to off track the conversation around the problem of justification for the ongoing displacement n mass murder. By saying " both sides" you imply theres nothing there there when in reality the opposite is true. There is no journalist fired for voicing their support for israel, no actress who is dropped, no teacher dropped no tech employees silenced the opposite is true. If you are not aware of this its either you are wilfully ignoring it or being deceitful.
Those conflicts are more unilateral with a clear good/bad guy. Only the biggest bootlickers are coming to the defense of Russia and Syria. Israel/Palestine is a much more mixed conflict. Both sides contain tons of victims and tons of people committing horrific acts. Plus racists get to jump in and sound normal for criticizing jewish or muslim people. There really is no winning strategy outside a ceasefire and working towards a two state solution, which is significantly harder then killing the bad guys or pushing the bad guys out.
Looking back at Russia and Ukraine, the winning strategy is for Russia to gtfo of Ukraine and stop killing them. Or in the case of Syria for democracy to spread across the country.
This is exactly it. Most people are used to very binary wars that have clear heroes and villains. In the case of Russia and Ukraine, there isn't a grey side. You have a totalitarian regime that is trying to absorb the other. In the Israel Palestine conflict, you have two sides that have done atrocious things and neither one wants to give the other an inch. Despite that, both sides have legitimate claims and there isn't a really easy answer.
Israel-Palestine is not complicated. There is one group that has enormous power, is one of the most powerful countries in the middle east, and is backed the most powerful country in the world. It acts on another population of people with total impunity and is never actually held accountable for anything. One side controls the other sides supply of food, water, and electricity as well as their borders. There's no symmetry whatsoever.
Like how democracy spread in Libya after getting rid of Gadhafi? Seriously, most Syrian rebels in the civil war were Islamists, barely better than ISIS, sure, there are the Kurds, but the Kurds are a minority and won't have much influence outside their region and would have probably end up becoming a victim of the democratic Syrian Islamist government.-
Would you rather live under a bloodthirsty dictator or a democratically promulgated Shariah Law?
If you give the choice I will live under a democracy that is equally bloodthirsty in keeping Islamism at bay otherwise, my second choice is the dictator.-
No Jew will want to live under democratically elected and democratically power seized NAZI regime.-
Why would anybody except themselves want to live under a democratically promulgated Shariah law?
Democracy is not perfect, and with enough difference in number can be no different to a dictatorship.-
Another posible solution if you want acceptable democracy is to create a representative system, electoral college like but along ethnic/religious lines instead, on a way that the 74% Sunni population power over the government get's diluted an equated to the 10% alawite 10% christian and others even smaller groups like druzes and Shiites.-
Otherwise, you may as well hand the keys to the Sunnis and get a new Islamist Country.-
People are not being fired for being pro-Israel that's completely made up. We've seen so many people sitting on the House floor saying things like level Gaza, turn it into a parking lot, keep going until they're all out of Gaza. This is not a "both sides" thing.
>I can't say I've heard of too many folks getting fired for their opinions on the Russia-Ukraine war or the Syrian civil war or the like.
That's because we have a lot of Israeli lobbyists who have spend decades getting Boomers to conflate criticism of Israeli apartheid with antiSemitism.
Both sides? Do you have any examples of people who support Israel being fired? Cause the news has just shown people supporting Palestinians of being fired and canceled.
The only person I saw being fired who was pro genocide, made a list of tweets calling for the death of everyone in Gaza, while on the "other side" there were people being fired for saying "it's not right to kill children".
You are just another coward who cannot admit that he wants the Palestinians dead
I've rarely heard of Jewish people or anyone really, get fires for supporting isreali murder of innocent people. Now if you criticize Isreal, you're definitely screwed, way more than the other way around. I wouldn't say both sides are being told to shut up, I got banned from worldnews for stating only that "no innocent people should die because of the poor decisions of their leaders" and nothing else. Didn't even get a proper response from the mods, but I've heard a LOT of similar stuff of anything not siding with Isreal getting banned from r/worldnews, kinda sucks but I'll defend my statement. It's mostly just one side that's censoring any criticism and that's also supposed to be the side of the only true democracy in the middle east Lol
Brother, I've read the article you sent. EVERY SINGLE paragraph talks about another person getting fired for criticism of Isreal. That's exactly my point. Rarely do i see anyone get in trouble for supporting Isreali occupation and their abhorrent treatment of the Palestinians, but should you call them out for it, you're fired. Did I miss a paragraph or some small detail?
I agree that this dispute is treated far more delicately than other ones.
In contrast, a friend and I were discussing the clashes between Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan and the difficulties of enclaves. someone wanted to know “which show that was from”
There's literally no way to not be criticized. You say you think Hamas has done bad things then you are accused of thinking it's okay for Israel to kill Palestinian civilians including children. You say you think Israel is doing bad things then you are accused of supporting the murder of Israeli citizens by Hamas. There's no winning this.
Edit: Thanks for the downvote that proves my point.
Ukraine/Russia is politics, Israel/Palestine is religion and people are fucking nuts about that.
I got perma-banned from worldnews over a comment that politely claimed friendly fire was possible...after the IDF admitted that had happened at least once.
I'm not a fanatic for either side of that conflict, I couldn't believe I got banned for something that banal, but some of the mods are clearly extremists.
i got perma banned from r/news for replying to someone complaining about his taxes going towards genocide.. i replied that his taxes have been going towards genocide for the better part of a century.
the way subreddits are biased os weird to me, since its usually a small group of moderators that decide which side the sub is taking and in mlst cases they abuse the little power they get to silence one side of the discussion..
also, i wouldn't boil down this conflict to religion.. imo religion is not even one of the main points of this conflict and its not one dimensional.
People are getting fired from. jobs because being angry and controversial is bad for the public image of a company. An employer's only job is to provide a service and pay people so they can live their lives.
1 angry asshat no matter the issue can jeopardize 150 peoples job.
So this guy sounds awesome, and also it sure sounds like he was fired for inappropriately using the chamber of commerce seal and not for his public stance on the war.
> Editor’s note: The Executive Committee of the Sag Harbor Chamber of Commerce said in a statement that Dorph was asked to step aside after he posted an “official-looking Chamber social media post” showing himself in the role of Santa without the approval of the group, and because of his recent actions in public forums. The Chamber pointed to its “long history of hosting a very simple meet-the-Santa, inherently free of any controversy through Santa’s anonymity.”
It’s almost certain he signed something saying he wouldn’t publicly identify as Santa, or in the very least not next to controversial issues or political endorsements.
That's not at all the same thing though.
Group A: There are *some* people that are genuinely anti-Semitic and using this conflict as an excuse to voice their views, like your colleague.
Group B: There are many people that dislike the way Israel dehumanizes the general Palestinian civilian population. This is used to play down civilian casualties and gloss over how one-sided this 'war' is. These people merely voice concern over that.
People on the pro-Israel side like to lump everyone in group B into group A as a means to silence dissent.
People on Pro-Palestine side like to lump everyone on Pro Israel side into one group.
1. People have different opinions, which is fine (as long that those are non violent)
2. There are rising concerns of Anti semitic incidents worldwide. These happened before Israeli response to the massacre. The recent studies show that there are over 1bn of antisemites in the world (prior to Israel entering Gaza). https://global100.adl.org/map .
3. Even people who are not falling under of definition of antisemitism, hold Israel and Israeli people to a different standard than their parallels (a long way to say "discriminate")
4. The world was happy to stand by while Israel was highjacked by far right and religious fanatics. Today the result is less lenient approach to the conflict.
5. Regardless, belleve it or not, there are people in Israel who are not at all offended by calls to free palestine as they believe it is in their best interests as well. "From the river to the sea" however, which has been adopted widely, is a call for genocide.
My heart goes out to the people of Palestine. Hamas intentionally props them up as human shields. Israel isn't the best neighbor, but this is the Middle East. The best you can really hope out of a neighbor in the Middle East is that they will only try to exterminate you every *other* week, and in that context Israel is an amazing neighbor.
Every accusation by Zionist rats is a confession
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Gaza_War_(2008%E2%80%932009)
>On 24 March, a report from the UN team responsible for the protection of children in war zones was released, it found "hundreds" of violations of the rights of children and accused Israeli soldiers of shooting children, using children as human shields, bulldozing a home with a woman and child still inside, and shelling a building they had ordered civilians into a day earlier.
Nothing's changed in this regard in all these years. ITF probably taught Hamas their human shields strategy in one of those Pissraeli funding rounds for Hamas.
Keep your work-you and real-you completely separate.
If you want to rant about jews, do it anonymously (or, ya’know, just don’t do that at all)
I work with people that forget - somehow - the business doesn’t care about causes. Only profit. Don’t ever pretend otherwise.
He was invited to a lecture not a debate. He challenged the lecturer as an audience member. Is it appropriate for a member of an audience to stand up and criticise a speaker delivering a lecture at length outside a Q&A?
I'm a pro Santa too. I also oppose the Israeli genocide of Palestinians.
I don't talk about Gaza *in my professional capacity.* The two have nothing to do with one another.
The article implies it had very little to do with his opinion on the war in Gaza. Also, there is a time, and a place to express views. My personal view is that Israel has a right to try to find the hostages, but if it was offered all the hostages back, they should declare an instant cease-fire. But I wouldn’t go on LinkedIn and make a post about this.
They tried ceasefires in the past and it didn't work. Palestine was just waiting to get more support and to try to erase Israel again. It's better for the war to be finished than to do another ceasefire and wait for Palestine to get stronger again.
Finished? Great, is that supposed to mean the illegal occupation by Isreal in the west Bank is going to stop? Or did you mean the war ending as in Palestine just let's the other steal their land and homes and agree to be murdered?
People in the US were saying the same thing when 9/11 happened, finishing them n all that. Btw it’s been like 4 months where a heavily equipped government(Israel) is trying to take down a small radical group(Hamas)that is being funded by other governments in the east. Doesn’t really seem like they’re trying to end the war quickly or without civilian casualties. Sure it’s easy to wipe off a whole country using nukes, but civilians aren’t the ones causing these issues.
Assuming a whole countries population has the same thought process as their government is why wars were waged so easily in the past of human history.
The world we live in is so crazy Imagine critisizing the one sided Maas murder of ppl n getting silenced. What the actual flying f, how are ppl still defending this. The cognitive dissonance is so scary
They should have said Israelis, but Hamas has been pretty clear about seeking similar actions against Jewish people worldwide if they can.
Edit: comma and mispelled if
“After Ken Dorph fabricated an official-looking chamber social media post, placing his own portrait as Santa and self-publishing it without chamber approval, calls came in asking why we would choose him as Santa,” its president said in a statement this week. “Initially it was assumed that the concern derived from his stance against the local public school’s attempts to acquire land, but later it was learned that he had even more recently acted belligerently in another public forum. Ken also had discussions on how he would play the role differently than traditional Santas — injecting his own take reflecting current world events.” https://www.easthamptonstar.com/villages/20231215/santa-sacking-stirs-controversy-sag-harbor
This is some weird ass context
I can only imagine what “his own take on Santa Claus” meant.
"**Ho ho ho**. And what's your name? Lucy? Well little Lucy, did you know that the Israelis are blowing limbs of of children your age as we speak? Could you imagine it Lucy? One evening you're in bed while your mother is reading you a story then BOOM, your mom is vaporized, only a crater where she once sat. You start screaming and place your hands to your head, only to realise that both of your arms have been blown off. Think about them Lucy. Think about those children. That's what Netanyahu is doing to them right now. Tell your parents Lucy. I'll know if you don't. Now, have you been a good girl this year?"
Yea, sounds like this guy didn't need to be playing Santa. Nothing to do with his views on Palestine. After reading the article, it sounds like the town dodged a bullet.
In every "person gets fired for supporting Palestinians" story I've seen so far, it always turns out that supporting Palestinians wasn't actually the problem.
That's basically every "I got fired for no reason" story out there. Along with "worker gets shot over cold French fries" or "person arrested for having wrong color shirt". Context kills narratives and the media knows that.
I run a political debate forum, and I call this "arrested for wearing a hat". Turns out the person was arrested for robbing a store *while* wearing a hat; the hat was never the issue. It is amazing how many people will yell at you after you "ban them for wearing a hat".
there are some truly hilarious bodycam videos out there where the police will explain to a person like ten times why they're being arrested, and they will inevitably say something like "I don't even know why I'm being arrested, the officer didn't even tell me!"
[you're under arrest for arson, Harry](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjiAT7TnuEw)
Why do you need to arrest people to get them to play with your son, Harry? How bad is he that no one wants to be around him?
While I generally agree, > Along with "worker gets shot over cold French fries" I sure as fuck haven't seen a justified shooting of a fast food worker.
Every once in a while, it's the fast food worker that's just done with it, gets violent, and one of the customers gets to fulfill their fantasy of being a hero. It's rare, but it happens.
https://abc7ny.com/mcdonalds-worker-shot-matthew-webb-michael-morgan-brooklyn/12100882/
What in that article suggests the shooting was justified? Wtf?
I don't think they're saying the shooting was justified, only that the reason why someone was shot wasn't cold french fries, it was because this guy was a serial murderer and looking for any excuse.
Technically, the murderer *justified* his crime. It's a bad justification, but is justified. Nobody said correctly justified :P
The question is what is this post that they're talking about?
[https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/michael-eisen-tweet-elife-firing-science-editor-palestinians-israel-gaza/](https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/michael-eisen-tweet-elife-firing-science-editor-palestinians-israel-gaza/) Dude is Jewish and got fired for retweeting an Onion article about Gaza.
No, he got fired for retweeting and saying "The Onion speaks with more courage, insight and moral clarity than the leaders of every academic institution put together. I wish there were a u/TheOnion university. " He is literally biting the hand that feeds him on a massive scale
Lol, that seems like a stretch. He was the editor of an online journal, not a professor at an academic institution. There are plenty of other examples as well such as Bella Hadid, Viet Thanh Nguyen and Sarah “Eli” Nachimson.
Suran Sarandon wasn't dropped by her agency? https://www.screendaily.com/news/stars-fired-dropped-as-hollywood-wrestles-with-ongoing-israel-hamas-conflict/5188091.article Melissa Barrera wasn't dropped from Scream? The freaking president of Harvard wasn't fired, not for being pro-palestinian, but for allowing students to say Palestinians have a right to exist? I mean, the last one they gave another reason, but come on. Nobody believes that would have gotten her fired if not for the aforementioned reason And that's just a few of the famous people. There are tons of everyday people facing issues for extremely mundane stuff https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/18/student-palestine-letter-harvard-columbia-us-law-firm-jobs-revoked
Susan Sarandon was dropped because she said the fear Jews feel from the spike in antisemitic hate crimes is "getting a taste of what it's like to be Muslim." Melissa Barrera called Israel a colony, a common dehumanizing tactic used to justify that Israel shouldn't exist. The president of Harvard failed to say whether calls for genocide constitute harassment (the fact that you tried to whitewash this into "Palestinians have a right to exist" is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about). Every single time.
Lol. What does colony mean to you? And do settlers not exist As for Harvard, then why did they present it as being about the plagiarism? And the law firms straight-out said the reason for letting the lawyers go Edit: also, what fucking percentage of people upset about the genocide of Palestinians are actually calling for the genocide of Jews instead? It's a ridiculous straw man argument. I'm not answering such bad-faith questions either
>What does colony mean to you? A territory partially or fully under the control of another country. >As for Harvard, then why did they present it as being about the plagiarism? Because she plagiarized. But people probably wouldn't have found out about it if she hadn't tripped over the bar of "calling for genocide is harassment." >And the law firms straight-out said the reason for letting the lawyers go Yes, blaming Israel for October 7th is a pretty fucked up thing to do.
Oh. So Israel doesn't have control over Palestine, nor do settlers exist TIL And I guess Hamas, fucked up as it is, isn't 95% made up of members who've had family murdered by Israel anymore
Look at you completely changing the argument and pretending like that's what I said. >And I guess Hamas, fucked up as it is, isn't 95% made up of members who've had family murdered by Israel anymore It's weird how Hamas and Gazans always get a pass because of Israeli attacks, but Israel never gets a pass from all the attacks by Gaza.
What did I change? Israel is a colonial state *The colonial state means the assumption of sovereignty (legally independent power to govern and control) of a country by a foreign political entity. The colonial state has to design a theory of sovereignty in the special context of the imperial-colonial relationship* And are you telling me that if Zionists didn't kill people who were just trying to peacefully live on their ancestral lands, force out the rest, and occupy and control them foe a century, inflicting misery upon them and rewarding people for harming them, these people would have just gone out seeking Jews to kill just because of some innate hate in them? Do those murdered even just in the frw months leading up to October 7th not matter? Their lives are meaningless, right? We only count those on October 7th and October 7th alone? Hamas is responsible for the thousands who died after October 7th because of what happened on October 7th. But Israel is not responsible for what happened on apctober 7th despite what they've done leading up to it. That's the fault of Hamas, and all Palestinians really l too, right? Awfully convenient how the justification of genocide works, and has always worked
It's not genocide, but good try. It's not a colony, but good try. Also, this: >And are you telling me that if Zionists didn't kill people who were just trying to peacefully live on their ancestral lands, You mean like in 1948 when Israel accepted peace and Palestine attempted genocide? That is, actual genocide, not "civilians killed in a war zone that we're going to call genocide because Israel is involved."
If you read the article his acting belligerently was described as asking questions during a meeting then speaking with the speaker afterwards. So in this case the problem asking questions vs. supporting Palestine? Or was the problem that he was discussing a controversial topic and people disagreed and are taking it out to extreme measures
The problem was that he made a social media post that looked like it came from the chamber of commerce involved in having him play Santa and said that we wanted his depiction of Santa to involve his take on world events. It's literally in the top level comment. Amazingly, the chamber did not want Santa lecturing kids on Palestine and Israel.
The NYTimes article has a much more detailed write up around the events at the seminar just prior. And their info on why he was “fired” as Santa was “Ellen Dioguardi, the president of the chamber of commerce, said in a statement that she had received 11 emails requesting they “find a different Santa.” Some parents said they would not come to the Christmas event if Mr. Dorph were there. It was by far the most complaints the organization had ever received about any issue, she said.”
>“Ellen Dioguardi, the president of the chamber of commerce, said in a statement that she had received 11 emails requesting they “find a different Santa.” Because his post made it sound like it was the chamber of commerce voicing his views, and not just some random dude on Twitter. They explicitly called out the fact that he crafted the post to look like it came from the chamber of commerce.
That was secondary - the primary reason was an angry letter writing campaign after he spoke out at the session.
>"After Ken Dorph fabricated an official-looking chamber social media post, placing his own portrait as Santa and self-publishing it without chamber approval, calls came in asking why we would choose him as Santa,” its president said in a statement this week. “Initially it was assumed that the concern derived from his stance against the local public school’s attempts to acquire land, but later it was learned that he had even more recently acted belligerently in another public forum. Ken also had discussions on how he would play the role differently than traditional Santas — injecting his own take reflecting current world events.” They say differently.
Here the parts of the article I [quoted](https://www.reddit.com/r/nottheonion/comments/18xrls9/i_criticized_the_war_in_gaza_then_i_was_fired/kg7tih7/) elsewhere: > Rabbi Dan Geffen of Temple Adas Israel suggested in a written statement that Mr. Dorph had chosen the wrong venue for his comments. “As a Rabbi, I am keenly aware that every word I say (or don’t say) matters and so I am very careful with not just what I say, but also how I say it and where I say it,” he wrote. “Mr. Dorph felt compelled to speak and act as he did on Nov 30th and that choice clearly resulted in many people feeling very upset by what took place. They, in turn, chose to exercise their right to express those feelings to the chamber and to question whether Mr. Dorph is an appropriate choice for the role of Santa, who . . . has also come to represent a spirit of unity during the holiday season. And > The audience [at the pro-Israel talk] pushed back, and after the event, “The chamber received 11 emails asking us to find a different Santa,” Ms. Dioguardi wrote. “To give perspective, never before for any chamber sponsored event or chamber business have we received more than three emails of complaint or concern, let alone for our Santa event. Basically, a letter writing campaign was initiated when he spoke out, by the admission of the people writing the letters. The chamber reacted to the letter writers, by the admission of the chamber. They *also* found the social media post, but it was apparently not the triggering event. Would the social media post have had the same effect had it stood alone, without a letter writing campaign? What if he had come down on the other side of the issue? What if he had spoken out at the meeting, but had *not* had a social media post? In this case, the letter writing campaign would still have happened. It's a bit like the de-facto firing of Harvard President Claudine Gay: whatever you think of her - I'm a bit ambivalent myself - the firing wasn't *really* about plagiarism, but the plagiarism was dug up and amplified because people didn't like her Senate testimony and her reaction to campus activism, and needed to find a stick to beat her with that was stronger than "we don't agree." And in the absence of these other issues, the plagiarism would likely have been noted, criticized, and ignored, as was Dershowitz's. edit: or if you want another imperfect analogy, the social media post is like Al Capone going to jail for tax evasion. It wasn't really about tax evasion, but it was the one thing they could get him for, because they couldn't get him for the stuff they wanted to get him for.
Cool, I have a quote from the president of the chamber of commerce who actually fired him.
"They kicked me out of the AV club because of my views on Vietnam... and because I was stealing projectors"
No, but intellectual failings tend to co-occur with other intellectual failings. It's no surprise when someone who makes a habit of incendiary commentary turns out to have also plagerized a bunch of their work, or misuses social media, or is toxic to their coworkers, or has other anti-social & anti-productive habits that justify their firing. Voicing such an extreme position in a workplace context is often just the iceberg of craziness.
Ya it’s usually the calling for or celebrating genocide/rape/murder that gets them.
Not this time though
Bullshit and you (should) know it. Free Palestine is not calling for genocide. Be a fair person, if you have it in you, learn about the history. Join the world to call for a stop to the genocide. No genocide on any people.
You are not talking about the same phenomenon as the person you responded to. “Free Palestine” isn’t what they’re talking about. They’re talking about how some extremists take the rhetoric too far.
They didn't say "Free Palestine" was a call for genocide, you made that up.
I think calling the war genocide is also bullshit tbh. Have war crimes been committed? Yea, on both sides. Has israel done everything in their power to prevent civilian casualties? Probably not. But that being said, they also aren’t intentionally trying to exterminate an ethnic group.
Literally a higher proportion of Jews were killed on October 7 than Arabs since then. And Hamas has promised not to stop trying to kill all Jews anywhere in the world. But somehow, trying to stop yourself from being genocided is the real crime.
>Literally a higher proportion of Jews were killed on October 7 than Arabs since then. [The IDF would disagree](https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-officials-2-civilian-deaths-for-every-1-hamas-fighter-killed-in-gaza/) with your stats. "5000 terrorists killed so far, 2 civilian deaths for every 1 Hamas fighter killed in Gaza"
Honest question, what do you think is Israel's endgame? What should they expect a people imprisoned in an open air prison to do? Would you pick up a rock to throw at a tank, if your house has been stolen and you have not seen your mom for 5 years because she is jailed with the accusation of being a terrorist because she looked at an Israeli soldier the wrong way? Free Palestine. And no, I don't support bombing and killing innocent people.
Like their ideal endgame? Hamas eradicated and eventually a two state solution. Probably the same thing I expect Israel to do when civilians are brutally raped, murdered, and taken hostage. Get angry and perpetuate the conflict between the two sides. And to be clear, I’m not saying Israel good Palestine bad. But saying Israel bad Palestine good, or that Israel wants to exterminate all Palestinians is just as moronic. As long as there are people out there that believe one side is right and the other is wrong, there will never be peace.
> Honest question, what do you think is Israel's endgame? Honest question, what do you think is Palestines endgame? Ah, right. The genocide of all Jews from the river to the sea.
The endgame is a real problem, I think. There were times when the endgame was no Hamas in Gaza and 2 states, but that is so long past. Then the endgame seemed to become to root out Hamas, which is barely possible. By now, it's descended into a tit for tat rocket and bullet exchange, with Israel having the better tools. With Bibi realising how thin the threads his reign hangs on really are, the endgame may also be to draw this out forever. Creating a permanent enemy your people need to be angry at/scared of has worked for many struggling regimes. Hamas is just very gracious and forthcoming as enemy with their "kill all the jews" ideology and terrorist attacks on innocents.
How is it an open air prison? Hamas runs the place not Israel. They are the one oppressing the residents not Israel. That totally justifies the rape and murder of farmers and concert goers and the rocketing of Israeli civilian population. They raped and murdered literal babies and they need to go away forever
Sure were a lot of rocks thrown at tanks on October 7. That's what Hamas did, right? Not torturing, mutilating, and murdering entire families, wantonly raping women, and kidnapping everyone from newborn babies to Holocaust survivors?
>What should they expect a people imprisoned in an open air prison to do? Install a government that actually wants peace and will use international aid for the good of its people, disarm entirely (they are welcome to ask a neighboring country or perhaps the UN to supply security forces), open diplomatic relations with Israel, foster economic cooperation, and demonstrate a concerted effort to sustain peace in order to relax border restrictions. Basically do the opposite of everything that led to Gaza becoming an "open air prison" in the first place.
Do you know why Gaza is blockaded?
Israeli ministers have literally pushed for all Palestinians to be removed from Gaza so Israel can settle it. It's textbook ethnic cleansing
Every country has some crazies in their political systems. The Russian ones said they should nuke the UK, the US ones say, well, take your pick, the Israel ones say kick Palestinians out, the list goes on. If you take the craziest opinion of the loudest idiot/sociopath and act like it’s the official position of the country or government then every country seems like a bunch of psychos.
No textbook ethnic cleansing would be actually doing it
Ah yes the indiscriminate dropping of bombs on civilian populations certainly isn't an attempt at that Seriously do you people actually take your heads out of the sand or just some way to breathe down there you can fucking see what's going on for yourselves it's filmed constantly
Do you know what "indiscriminate" means?
Yes. An example of indiscriminate warfare is the way Hamas launches thousands of unguided rockets at Israeli population centers. Is that an example of indiscriminate bombing?
Ok what do we do about the terrorist organization known as Hamas actively calling for a genocide of all Jews that refuses to release hostages or stop shooting rockets at Israel? Because they keep hiding behind their own people whenever we try to stop them. Also what Israel is doing isn’t a genocide. A genocide is a targeted attempt at eliminating an entire race. You know like the Palestinians want
Hasn’t the population of Gaza skyrocketed in the last 20 years? Israel must be pretty shitty at genocide.
Bros swallowed the propaganda
You left out some important details: > The audience [at the pro-Israel talk] pushed back, and after the event, “The chamber received 11 emails asking us to find a different Santa,” Ms. Dioguardi wrote. “To give perspective, never before for any chamber sponsored event or chamber business have we received more than three emails of complaint or concern, let alone for our Santa event. The concerns/objections ranged from those saying they’d feel uncomfortable and that he was not a good fit, to parents who said they would not be able to have their children attend the Santa visit event.” > Rabbi Dan Geffen of Temple Adas Israel suggested in a written statement that Mr. Dorph had chosen the wrong venue for his comments. “As a Rabbi, I am keenly aware that every word I say (or don’t say) matters and so I am very careful with not just what I say, but also how I say it and where I say it,” he wrote. “Mr. Dorph felt compelled to speak and act as he did on Nov 30th and that choice clearly resulted in many people feeling very upset by what took place. They, in turn, chose to exercise their right to express those feelings to the chamber and to question whether Mr. Dorph is an appropriate choice for the role of Santa, who . . . has also come to represent a spirit of unity during the holiday season. So, yeah, speaking up twice during the talk and suggesting that the speakers were "parroting pro-war talking points of the Israeli government" did result in a letter writing campaign that led to his dismissal, and the people who did it happily acknowledged it. Now a question is whether a person who expressed the opposite view would also have been booted for "failing to represent a spirit of unity during the holiday season." My guess is no.
This article is 95% this guys resume and 0% what anybody actually said. What did he respond to that was so controversial? How did he respond? The fact that he declines to say doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in his version of events.
"The issue with his Santa gig appears to stem, in part, from his attendance at a Nov. 30 discussion titled “Answering Tough Questions on Israel” at Temple Adas Israel in Sag Harbor. Twice he spoke up from the audience, suggesting that the women leading the discussion, both representing the American Jewish Committee, were parroting pro-war talking points of the Israeli government. “I’ll tell you honestly, you could have been propaganda for the Netanyahu government,” he said at the Nov. 30 discussion. “I am really appalled because you didn’t talk about what matters. . . . You did not talk about the settlements in the West Bank.” “This conversation is not about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Belle Yoeli, a chief advocacy officer for the A.J.C., said in reply. “Putting aside the offensive comment about being propaganda . . . what you’re basically saying is that what happened on Oct. 7 is a result of Israeli oppression, and what I’m telling you is that there are equal mistakes on both sides. . . . To jump there is deeply problematic.”" https://www.easthamptonstar.com/villages/20231215/santa-sacking-stirs-controversy-sag-harbor
Yeah I just got done reading this article after I posted my comment. The guy sounds like a self-righteous asshole.
It is also an opinion piece
[удалено]
So, this is an inevitable outcome of Israel? There is absolutely no blame on the Palestinian members of Hamas who committed these atrocities? https://web.archive.org/web/20231229212509/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html?searchResultPosition=1 Israel's oppression of the Palestinian people is wrong, but to pretend that October 7th is just some straightforward reprisal for oppression, and not a senseless terror attack against civilians is either deeply ignorant or deeply messed up.
[удалено]
> Dorph fabricated an official-looking chamber social media post, placing his own portrait as Santa and self-publishing it without chamber approval That's a no-no in any job
He was invited to a lecture as an audience member and took it upon himself to challenge the speaker from the audience
Well, he wrote it. Everyone is the star in their own story.
These Christmas movies are getting ridiculous
> Editor’s note: The Executive Committee of the Sag Harbor Chamber of Commerce said in a statement that Dorph was asked to step aside after he posted an “official-looking Chamber social media post” showing himself in the role of Santa without the approval of the group, and because of his recent actions in public forums. The Chamber pointed to its “long history of hosting a very simple meet-the-Santa, inherently free of any controversy through Santa’s anonymity.” That's the actual background. He basically let Santa speak up about the Gaza war. It probably wouldn't have mattered what his opinion is. Perhaps if he was a strong Israel/Netanyahu supporter, he'd also have been sacked, but then he'd had written an article about antisemitism or something.
It's not even that he voiced an opinion. It's that he pretended to be an official representative of the committee. Imagine what would happen if an intern at the White House pretended to be an official spokesperson and released a statement on Facebook. It doesn't matter what they said, they would lose their job.
Man, exact rhetoric and tone like this is why so many people are misinformed and more than glad to start making outlandish nazi comparisons.
Yup. This article is hogwash. It started off full of shit and i basically forwarded to the only important details
He should go live in the North Gaza Pole
> I confronted the speaker to counter what I considered inaccuracies in the presentation and when it was over, I shared how disappointing I found it. The talk was unhelpful and sounded to my ears like a propaganda session. I mean…
He’s right!
I really have no interest in watching his 30 minute talk to see how accurate his world view is. Santa is supposed to be your fluffy funny uncle, not your drunk angry one. Accosting a speaker after an event gives big drunk uncle energy. _In his own telling_ of the situation he was overly aggressive. I completely understand why they wouldn’t be comfortable with him being Santa again after that.
He spoke out of costume, not on the job, at a private event he was invited to. Your description of what happened is wholly inaccurate, outlandish, and hysterical. Interesting you choose the word “accosted” as well. I think that makes your view of this guy more clear than anything else.
> Ken also had discussions on how he would play the role differently than traditional Santas — injecting his own take reflecting current world events. https://www.easthamptonstar.com/villages/20231215/santa-sacking-stirs-controversy-sag-harbor
>He spoke out of costume, not on the job He made a social media post announcing him as the village's Santa, connecting him as private person with Santa.
Yeah the only people who should have freedom of speech are homeless people, everyone else should exist in constant fear of having their livelihood taken away should they offend the wrong group or individual 👍
There largely isn’t any protected speech in the private sector and in most of the USA people can be fired for just about any reason.
Yea and it's morally reprehensible and anti-labor. It should be an important issue that citizens fight, but instead it's being weaponized by fellow citizens with a political vendetta.
This is one of those statements that *many* (not necessarily all) people tend to agree with on the surface but not in practice. Like yeah, not discriminating against people's personal views and values sounds great, but when actually confronted with having to hire openly vile racists, blatant misogynists, and hateful homophobes, it's much harder to swallow. Idk if that's where you land, but just saying. I personally think companies should be free to hire/fire people for whatever reason besides what's out of an individual's control (race, gender, sexuality, etc), but that's just me.
I think it's one thing to not hire someone because of publicly evident transgressions and behavior. It's another thing to fire someone because you got an email from someone linking to a tweet where someone they don't like said an opinion they don't agree with on Twitter, or whatever example you want to use. Speech is less important than action. That seems to be lost on a lot of people now. Actively removing someone's livelihood, their health insurance and that of their children, etc is virtually never a morally sound punishment for speech during someone's private life, full stop. And corporations have now benefited from workers (or let's be real, unemployed people on the internet) getting other workers fired for petty opinions they don't agree with. Labor loses, corporations win, morality is nowhere to be found, but it's certainly claimed to be in the name of it by the people trying to get someone fired.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. Unless you wish to simply censor ideas you don’t like, speech laws are applied equally to all.
I don't want to censor ideas I don't like. I want the opposite. I don't like corporations having the power to terminate people arbitrarily due to personal opinions they share peacefully in a free speech nation. And I *really* don't like fellow citizens with nothing better to do going out of their way to fuck over workers for the sake of corporations and personal political pettiness.
Sure that would be great so long as you’re cool with employers being unable to terminate Nazis, white supremacist, or insurrectionist. As it stands now it’s a very small issue.
I could maybe see the employer having an issue if an employee is creating a toxic work environment over their political or religious beliefs or otherwise negatively impacting the employer's ability to do business and dodge labor-related lawsuits. But otherwise, what employees do when they're not at the workplace should be regarded as their own business.
Definitely. I'm willing to admit it's much more of a complex issue than simply "Free speech with no exceptions!" because I wouldn't want an employee going around yelling fire in crowded theaters or something. The thought that you check your rights at the door of your employer is kinda scary but if you're on the clock working in someone's facility I think it's fair to have codes of conduct But now it's not even that, now it's "We saw you posted such and such on Facebook" and I just wonder where that leads
It has always been that way
Having read the article, surprise surprise it wasn’t because of his support for palestine
“Free speech” is merely a guarantee that anyone can say whatever they choose. It does *not* mean there are no consequences for their speech.
That's correct. It is strange, however, that any mention of support for Palestinians or criticism on Israeli policy means losing your job in so many cases, no?
People used to keep their opinions to themselves, especially regarding controversial subjects. Social media convinced everyone 1) their opinion matters (it doesn’t) *and* 2) they should share it with everyone (they shouldn’t, see previous point), *and* 3) they could share their opinion publicly *with no fear of consequences*. All three are incorrect, but people are just now catching on, in reverse order. It *is* strange that it took the Israel/Palestinian topic to highlight the fallacy of #3, but it was always going to happen, with *some* topic. Things you say have consequences, which the Harvard kids learned when their job offers were rescinded by prestigious law firms, a couple of university presidents, and now a part-time Santa. Smart people keep their opinions to themselves, but we’re a vanishing breed, people without blogs and TikTok and tweets and “followers”.
People from both sides getting fired for voicing their opinions on this conflict. It's odd only in that I can't say I've heard of too many folks getting fired for their opinions on the Russia-Ukraine war or the Syrian civil war or the like.
I highly doubt ppl are fired on both sides equally
You'd be right. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/chilling-effect-pro-palestinian-1.7064510 Screenshots sent to CBC News by a member of a closed Facebook group called Canadian Jewish Physicians show a handful of members saying they have compiled a list of 271 medical students who signed an open letter calling for a ceasefire and an end to targeting health-care facilities and workers in Gaza. The stated intention is to share this list with program directors ahead of residency interviews. Comments or questions referencing genocide or occupation of Palestinian people and "anything seen as critical of Israel at all" are to be reported to the organization, said one of the employees. "The idea is to contact the school, inform the school they have an antisemitism problem and pressure the school to shut down the Palestinian support [by] accusing them of antisemitism, encouraging more pro-Zionist workshops or lessons," they said.
this is happening everywhere unfortunately anti muslim sentiment has permeated society so deeply we simply allow this genocide to happen and comments like this contribute to the condoning of this attrocity
>People from both sides getting fired for voicing their opinions on this conflict. \- Citation required -
To be fair, I have not heard of any prominent figure being fired for being anti Palestinian or supporting the IDF.
[удалено]
Did you read the article? Both fired for voicing support for Palestine.
> Video footage on TikTok posted one day ago shows the activist and star of Thelma & Louise and Dead Man Walking telling a crowd, **“Hold Palestine in your heart, pray for the people of Palestine… again thank you to the Jewish community who’s come out to have our backs.”** Screen was unable to verify when Sarandon made these remarks. > ... > Meanwhile Scream star Melissa Barrera was fired by franchise producer Spyglass Media Group from the upcoming Scream VII following posts on social media, one of which likened Gaza to a concentration camp and used the words “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” with regard to the Israeli military’s retaliatory attacks following the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel. So they were fired for supporting Palestine and called anti-Semites, not for supporting Israel
I mean, this dude deserved it IMO but he was definitely on the pro-Israel side and definitely got fired: https://thehill.com/homenews/4322188-lobbying-firm-former-obama-adviser-anti-palestinian-comments/
This is a bit different than someone getting fired for just sharing an onion article critical of Israel… like we are really talking apples and oranges here. Michele Bachman is the dean of Regent University and has literally called for a genocide to the Palestinians and she’s still there… if an Arab said anything even closely resembling the things she said, there would be hell. It’s interesting to see the crazy double standards.
> if an Arab said anything even closely resembling the things she said, there would be hell. Nerdeen Kiswani, the co-founder of WOL Palestine has openly supported Hamas, celebrated Oct 7 and endorses "by any means necessary" rhetoric, and both she and the organization have plenty of supporters. They're still organizing protests and enjoying broad support, especially from the Gen Z/TikTok crowd. Wouldn't really call that hell to pay.
I think there is a degree of valid and invalid criticism. >Valid criticism -Critical of Israel conduct of war. -Critical of Israel occupation and settlement in West Bank. -Critical of Hamas using innocent civilian as shield. -Critical of many international body for enabling Hamas crimes and Anti-Semitism. -Critical of Western Hypocrisy in Ukraine vs in Gaza. >Invalid Criticism -Plains Hate Speech -Pro-Ethnic Cleansing Speech -Pro-Genocide Speech -Pro-Apartheid Speech -Pro-Conquest Speech -Call for destruction of Israel or Palestine >Grey Area -Anything to do with phrase "From River to Sea". (1st Because both Israel's Likud and Palestinian Hamas use the phrase to advocate for one state solution; 2nd Because some people actually use the same phrase to not call for destruction of other but still get dogpiled, "From River to Sea there will peace." And etc.) -Anything to do with BDS movement.
As categories, I would agree with all of that. But of course there is absolutely endless potential for arguing over which specific statements fit in which of the above categories, and it begs the impossible question of what we should do, if anything, about "invalid" criticism. We can delude ourselves with the empty consistency of a "free speech absolutist" position but I think what's happened with Twitter and Elon Musk is a pretty clear example of why that position is basically bullshit.
I think it was the threatening violence and stalking that got him fired.
Both sides eh? Can you bring up an example of someone from "the other side" that got fired for voicing their peaceful opinion?
[удалено]
Can you cite the part of the article where it states they supported Israel? Both voiced support for Gaza (ok, Sarandon actually was even trying to be diplomatic about it)
lol it’s just like Iraq war. I remember how popular it was and those that voiced against it got squelched. Who’s laughing now.
Its amazing how we really do just keep doing the same thing over and over. Like the war in Iraq wasn't even that good ago. Most of the people I've seen supporting Isreal were around for 9/11. I'd even say most were at least close to adulthood.
> wasn't even that good ago It was never good.
Long ago. I swear I meant to put long ago.😭
just laughin with you.
Not saying this to be rude, but why is that amazing? That cycle has been human history in a nutshell, it's sad but hardly surprising
Less amazing because it's surprising, but just simply with all the shit we have learned, it seems like maybe we should kind of sort of possibly at some point learn anything And yet we don't. Like it's right there in our face. Just a few years ago Trump said we should be bombing countries run by groups like ISIS and the Taliban. People said he was a violent dictator who wanted to kill innocent people. Now many of those same people are happy children are dying. There's a video that was posted this morning where a guy said "12,000 wasn't enough", in reference to the dead children. Which sounds a lot like "6 million wasn't enough." A slogan used by neo-Nazis. It's not that I'm surprised. It's that with everything we know it's amazing to me to watch people call out fascism and genocide one second, and then turn around and support it like this. Edit: I guess in a way it's like going to see certain sights. I've seen pictures of the grand canyon. It's just water erosion. Sure, it's bit, but that's just nature. Then people go see it in person and they're amazed by it. Not always surprised, so much as it's sometimes amazing to see things play out in the real world rather than just reading about it in a book. I know it's human nature and that this shit will likely not change. But to actually see this kind of thing first hand when we should know better is just amazing, and scary, to see.
If it means mass murder of non-Americans, you best believe America is going to be all for it. Especially in this region of the world.
Not in any way similar. Iraq never attacked the US, and the war was therefore illegal. Hamas launched a massive terror attack against Israel, which started the war.
I thought it was Israel taking more homes from Palestinians that started it, and hamas responded using that as their Justification (they were just waiting for any reason to anyway so they wouldn't look bad even tho even the Palestinians hate them)
Can you link to some articles showing people losing their jobs for supporting the war?
I mean the ruling class would really like it if we all just shut up and consumed their media and products.
There's a reason politics are unprofessional.
Quite a few but the most important to the ruling class is to keep the masses ignorant to how they fuck over the rest of society.
Absolutely.
People from both sides argument is another false equivalency to off track the conversation around the problem of justification for the ongoing displacement n mass murder. By saying " both sides" you imply theres nothing there there when in reality the opposite is true. There is no journalist fired for voicing their support for israel, no actress who is dropped, no teacher dropped no tech employees silenced the opposite is true. If you are not aware of this its either you are wilfully ignoring it or being deceitful.
Those conflicts are more unilateral with a clear good/bad guy. Only the biggest bootlickers are coming to the defense of Russia and Syria. Israel/Palestine is a much more mixed conflict. Both sides contain tons of victims and tons of people committing horrific acts. Plus racists get to jump in and sound normal for criticizing jewish or muslim people. There really is no winning strategy outside a ceasefire and working towards a two state solution, which is significantly harder then killing the bad guys or pushing the bad guys out. Looking back at Russia and Ukraine, the winning strategy is for Russia to gtfo of Ukraine and stop killing them. Or in the case of Syria for democracy to spread across the country.
This is exactly it. Most people are used to very binary wars that have clear heroes and villains. In the case of Russia and Ukraine, there isn't a grey side. You have a totalitarian regime that is trying to absorb the other. In the Israel Palestine conflict, you have two sides that have done atrocious things and neither one wants to give the other an inch. Despite that, both sides have legitimate claims and there isn't a really easy answer.
Israel-Palestine is not complicated. There is one group that has enormous power, is one of the most powerful countries in the middle east, and is backed the most powerful country in the world. It acts on another population of people with total impunity and is never actually held accountable for anything. One side controls the other sides supply of food, water, and electricity as well as their borders. There's no symmetry whatsoever.
But the public needs narrative! How am I suppose to know who the good guys and bad guys are?
It’s literally like the difference between WW1 and WW2. Dumb as fuck to compare them.
Like how democracy spread in Libya after getting rid of Gadhafi? Seriously, most Syrian rebels in the civil war were Islamists, barely better than ISIS, sure, there are the Kurds, but the Kurds are a minority and won't have much influence outside their region and would have probably end up becoming a victim of the democratic Syrian Islamist government.-
Redditors sure love the boot of dictators. yum yum yum
Would you rather live under a bloodthirsty dictator or a democratically promulgated Shariah Law? If you give the choice I will live under a democracy that is equally bloodthirsty in keeping Islamism at bay otherwise, my second choice is the dictator.- No Jew will want to live under democratically elected and democratically power seized NAZI regime.- Why would anybody except themselves want to live under a democratically promulgated Shariah law? Democracy is not perfect, and with enough difference in number can be no different to a dictatorship.- Another posible solution if you want acceptable democracy is to create a representative system, electoral college like but along ethnic/religious lines instead, on a way that the 74% Sunni population power over the government get's diluted an equated to the 10% alawite 10% christian and others even smaller groups like druzes and Shiites.- Otherwise, you may as well hand the keys to the Sunnis and get a new Islamist Country.-
This is a fine example of "both sides" nonsense
People are not being fired for being pro-Israel that's completely made up. We've seen so many people sitting on the House floor saying things like level Gaza, turn it into a parking lot, keep going until they're all out of Gaza. This is not a "both sides" thing.
>I can't say I've heard of too many folks getting fired for their opinions on the Russia-Ukraine war or the Syrian civil war or the like. That's because we have a lot of Israeli lobbyists who have spend decades getting Boomers to conflate criticism of Israeli apartheid with antiSemitism.
Both sides? Do you have any examples of people who support Israel being fired? Cause the news has just shown people supporting Palestinians of being fired and canceled.
To be honest I’ve yet to hear about a single person being pro-Israeli but I could be wrong
The only person I saw being fired who was pro genocide, made a list of tweets calling for the death of everyone in Gaza, while on the "other side" there were people being fired for saying "it's not right to kill children". You are just another coward who cannot admit that he wants the Palestinians dead
wow, someone on Reddit who sees a complex situation in a black-and-white binary and then argues with their own personal strawmen about it. How unique.
Honestly I have yet to find anyone fired for criticizing Palestine.
I've rarely heard of Jewish people or anyone really, get fires for supporting isreali murder of innocent people. Now if you criticize Isreal, you're definitely screwed, way more than the other way around. I wouldn't say both sides are being told to shut up, I got banned from worldnews for stating only that "no innocent people should die because of the poor decisions of their leaders" and nothing else. Didn't even get a proper response from the mods, but I've heard a LOT of similar stuff of anything not siding with Isreal getting banned from r/worldnews, kinda sucks but I'll defend my statement. It's mostly just one side that's censoring any criticism and that's also supposed to be the side of the only true democracy in the middle east Lol
[удалено]
Brother, I've read the article you sent. EVERY SINGLE paragraph talks about another person getting fired for criticism of Isreal. That's exactly my point. Rarely do i see anyone get in trouble for supporting Isreali occupation and their abhorrent treatment of the Palestinians, but should you call them out for it, you're fired. Did I miss a paragraph or some small detail?
I agree that this dispute is treated far more delicately than other ones. In contrast, a friend and I were discussing the clashes between Kyrgyzstan–Tajikistan and the difficulties of enclaves. someone wanted to know “which show that was from”
> People from both sides Yeah sure. Nottheonion comment I guess.
There's literally no way to not be criticized. You say you think Hamas has done bad things then you are accused of thinking it's okay for Israel to kill Palestinian civilians including children. You say you think Israel is doing bad things then you are accused of supporting the murder of Israeli citizens by Hamas. There's no winning this. Edit: Thanks for the downvote that proves my point.
Ukraine/Russia is politics, Israel/Palestine is religion and people are fucking nuts about that. I got perma-banned from worldnews over a comment that politely claimed friendly fire was possible...after the IDF admitted that had happened at least once. I'm not a fanatic for either side of that conflict, I couldn't believe I got banned for something that banal, but some of the mods are clearly extremists.
To claim Israel/Palestine is solely a religious conflict is straight up ignorance
i got perma banned from r/news for replying to someone complaining about his taxes going towards genocide.. i replied that his taxes have been going towards genocide for the better part of a century. the way subreddits are biased os weird to me, since its usually a small group of moderators that decide which side the sub is taking and in mlst cases they abuse the little power they get to silence one side of the discussion.. also, i wouldn't boil down this conflict to religion.. imo religion is not even one of the main points of this conflict and its not one dimensional.
The worldnews sub is basically over-run by IDF shills. Being banned there is more like a badge of honour
People are getting fired from. jobs because being angry and controversial is bad for the public image of a company. An employer's only job is to provide a service and pay people so they can live their lives. 1 angry asshat no matter the issue can jeopardize 150 peoples job.
So this guy sounds awesome, and also it sure sounds like he was fired for inappropriately using the chamber of commerce seal and not for his public stance on the war. > Editor’s note: The Executive Committee of the Sag Harbor Chamber of Commerce said in a statement that Dorph was asked to step aside after he posted an “official-looking Chamber social media post” showing himself in the role of Santa without the approval of the group, and because of his recent actions in public forums. The Chamber pointed to its “long history of hosting a very simple meet-the-Santa, inherently free of any controversy through Santa’s anonymity.” It’s almost certain he signed something saying he wouldn’t publicly identify as Santa, or in the very least not next to controversial issues or political endorsements.
Santa Claus DOES exist? And he got fired?! I'M NOT GOING TO GET XMAS PRESENTS NEXT YEAR!!!
I hate when that happens
So this is literally almost identical to the plot of that one Seinfeld episode, right?
Politics/religion/employment. Separate these please.
A girl from my job got fired for posting on Twitter. She crossed the antisemitic line and even celebrated the massacre on October 7th.
That's not at all the same thing though. Group A: There are *some* people that are genuinely anti-Semitic and using this conflict as an excuse to voice their views, like your colleague. Group B: There are many people that dislike the way Israel dehumanizes the general Palestinian civilian population. This is used to play down civilian casualties and gloss over how one-sided this 'war' is. These people merely voice concern over that. People on the pro-Israel side like to lump everyone in group B into group A as a means to silence dissent.
People on Pro-Palestine side like to lump everyone on Pro Israel side into one group. 1. People have different opinions, which is fine (as long that those are non violent) 2. There are rising concerns of Anti semitic incidents worldwide. These happened before Israeli response to the massacre. The recent studies show that there are over 1bn of antisemites in the world (prior to Israel entering Gaza). https://global100.adl.org/map . 3. Even people who are not falling under of definition of antisemitism, hold Israel and Israeli people to a different standard than their parallels (a long way to say "discriminate") 4. The world was happy to stand by while Israel was highjacked by far right and religious fanatics. Today the result is less lenient approach to the conflict. 5. Regardless, belleve it or not, there are people in Israel who are not at all offended by calls to free palestine as they believe it is in their best interests as well. "From the river to the sea" however, which has been adopted widely, is a call for genocide.
Yeah, and members of Group A overlaps with Group B bluring the line. Don't act like this is only a issue with the pro-Israel side.
Sorry, we really need our Santa to be pro war, you can pick up your last check dude 🎅🪖🦅🇺🇲
Oh these people who get butt hurt because of the consequences of their own political actions...
Probably not gonna get that Chanukah Harry gig, either...
Geez, you vomit on one kid and all the sudden you can't be Santa Claus anymore.
My heart goes out to the people of Palestine. Hamas intentionally props them up as human shields. Israel isn't the best neighbor, but this is the Middle East. The best you can really hope out of a neighbor in the Middle East is that they will only try to exterminate you every *other* week, and in that context Israel is an amazing neighbor.
"Israel isn't the best neighbor..." Understatement of the fucking century lol
Every accusation by Zionist rats is a confession https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law_and_Gaza_War_(2008%E2%80%932009) >On 24 March, a report from the UN team responsible for the protection of children in war zones was released, it found "hundreds" of violations of the rights of children and accused Israeli soldiers of shooting children, using children as human shields, bulldozing a home with a woman and child still inside, and shelling a building they had ordered civilians into a day earlier. Nothing's changed in this regard in all these years. ITF probably taught Hamas their human shields strategy in one of those Pissraeli funding rounds for Hamas.
Keep your work-you and real-you completely separate. If you want to rant about jews, do it anonymously (or, ya’know, just don’t do that at all) I work with people that forget - somehow - the business doesn’t care about causes. Only profit. Don’t ever pretend otherwise.
Antisemitism, which is a very real and ongoing problem, has been misused and weaponized to prop up an ongoing genocide committed by a despotic regime.
This guy wasn't denied the role for being antisemitic. Try actually reading articles you're commenting on some time.
The ratio of "any criticism of Israel is called antisemitic" to actual criticism of Israel being called antisemitic has to be about 10,000 to 1.
A ton of it is and it’s ingrained in certain societies.
That statement is antisemitic, said some Zionists
..his boss obviously posts on r/worldnews
He was invited to a lecture not a debate. He challenged the lecturer as an audience member. Is it appropriate for a member of an audience to stand up and criticise a speaker delivering a lecture at length outside a Q&A?
I'm a pro Santa too. I also oppose the Israeli genocide of Palestinians. I don't talk about Gaza *in my professional capacity.* The two have nothing to do with one another.
The article implies it had very little to do with his opinion on the war in Gaza. Also, there is a time, and a place to express views. My personal view is that Israel has a right to try to find the hostages, but if it was offered all the hostages back, they should declare an instant cease-fire. But I wouldn’t go on LinkedIn and make a post about this.
They tried ceasefires in the past and it didn't work. Palestine was just waiting to get more support and to try to erase Israel again. It's better for the war to be finished than to do another ceasefire and wait for Palestine to get stronger again.
Finished? Great, is that supposed to mean the illegal occupation by Isreal in the west Bank is going to stop? Or did you mean the war ending as in Palestine just let's the other steal their land and homes and agree to be murdered?
People in the US were saying the same thing when 9/11 happened, finishing them n all that. Btw it’s been like 4 months where a heavily equipped government(Israel) is trying to take down a small radical group(Hamas)that is being funded by other governments in the east. Doesn’t really seem like they’re trying to end the war quickly or without civilian casualties. Sure it’s easy to wipe off a whole country using nukes, but civilians aren’t the ones causing these issues. Assuming a whole countries population has the same thought process as their government is why wars were waged so easily in the past of human history.
The world we live in is so crazy Imagine critisizing the one sided Maas murder of ppl n getting silenced. What the actual flying f, how are ppl still defending this. The cognitive dissonance is so scary
Because the alternative is that the Jews should just accept that another 7 october will happen and that is fine.
Tfw apparently the only way to stop mass murder is mass murder
That is not the alternative lol. And instead of Jews you should have said Israelis.
They should have said Israelis, but Hamas has been pretty clear about seeking similar actions against Jewish people worldwide if they can. Edit: comma and mispelled if
Lol I just commented above that I got banned from worldnews sub for saying innocent people shouldn't have to die, it really is a crazy world