Salman Rushdie pulls out as commencement speaker at California college over protest threats

Posted by Naderium@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 488 comments

[-]

ModderMary@reddit

Students are protesting Salman Rushdie now? I think we are watching the downfall of western liberal democracy in real time. The right has Trump, and the left have whatever this is. Nobody remembers our values.

[-]

Trilobyte141@reddit

I mean, is it the left? I have seen a couple left wing sources condemning this censorship.

It says the protests were threatened by a Muslim student group and pro-Palestinian activists. That doesn't automatically mean the left. Left wingers are more likely to be tolerant of other religious beliefs and against genocide, which puts us and the religious people being subjected to genocide on the same side for this issue, but Islam is still a pretty conservative ideology. Leftists don't want people to be murdered because they believe in a slightly different version of the same fckin sky daddy. That doesn't make those people part of the left wing.

[-]

I would question if someone is really on the left if they support Israel

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

Supporting Israel isn't antithetical to being a leftist. People like to pretend that it is, but there's no inherent disconnect that makes the two positions mutually exclusive.

[-]

Mundane_Emu8921@reddit

It is antithetical.

Supporting Israel and Zionism contradicts the basic leftist belief in equality.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

It's not though. First of all, those two things are not interchangeable. Israel is a country, Zionism is an ideology. They're not the same thing.

Countries don't have ideologies, they can have governments that can have any kind of ideology and the country itself could be a result of an ideology, but the country itself doesn't have ideologies, and therefore they can't contradict any. Unless your ideology is specifically based on the existence of a country, which leftist ideology is not, then this argument is moot.

Zionism, on the other hand, is an ideology itself. The ideology at it's core is about Jews getting the right to self determination by establishing and maintain a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland. You could make an argument that this ideology, especially with how it played out in real life contradicts the leftist beliefs. However, I would also provide a counterargument that a lot of leftist ideology doesn't actually disavow violence at all.

In fact, a lot of leftist ideology operate around the idea that ends justify the means, and that ideological goals must be met by any means necessary including mass killings, violent wars, seizure of property, "transitional" tyrannical governments, and redistribution of resources as deemed fit by said transitional governments. If these things are already a part of leftist ideology, I fail to see why someone can't believe in two ideologies that have a lot of overlap on these matters. It's basically being leftist with a nationalist twist.

[-]

Mundane_Emu8921@reddit

Israel is an entity that was founded due to Zionism; the belief that there should be an exclusive Jewish country in Palestine.

It’s not about violence, it’s about proclaiming that a land is for a certain ethnic group. That is someone you never find in leftist ideology.

[-]

dude_chillin_park@reddit

Let's be as cool as we can about this.

A basic tent of the left is to fight for justice and stand for the interests of the oppressed. Israel's racial apartheid policies, including egregious and ongoing acts of violence against a community under their (de facto) jurisdiction, are unjust and oppressive-- even without litigating the term genocide.

How do you argue a leftist can be on Israel's side?

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

A basic tent of the left is to fight for justice and stand for the interests of the oppressed

This is simply not true. Literally all ideologies have these claims. This is not what defines the left. The left is defined as a range of political ideologies that seek to achieve social, political, and economic equity and equality in a society while opposing some or all social hierarchies.

Israel's racial apartheid policies, including egregious and ongoing acts of violence against a community under their (de facto) jurisdiction, are unjust and oppressive

This is a very oversimplified and obviously biased point of view. With that being said, let's supposed that this is all true, it doesn't contradict supporting Israel. Supporting Israel doesn't necessarily mean supporting every single action of it's government. It could just be that someone supports the country and wants what's best for it, even if those things contradict what the current government of said country stand for.

For example, somebody could support Cuba but oppose the Marxist regime and their tyranny. Somebody could support the US but hate Trump and his administration going after American allies. Somebody could support Russia, but oppose the Putin and the war in Ukraine. Somebody could support Iran, but hate the Ayatollahs and their islamist rule. You get the idea.

That's the key point here, Israel isn't an ideology, it's a country. Supporting or opposing it is not as black and white as you seem to think it is, and it's antithetical to be left wing or right wing. There are leftists in Israel who support Israel, and there are leftists outside Israel who support Israel. By the same token, there are also leftists inside Israel who don't like Israel, and leftists outside Israel who don't like it either.

[-]

dude_chillin_park@reddit

I support the idea of a Jewish state. For most of my life, I considered it a complicated issue, in which the colonialist crime of creating Israel by displacing the non-jews living there was in the past-- much like Usa or Canada. I still don't think the Jews living there should be removed, apart from maybe West Bank settlements etc.

But Israel as it is today is not making the world safer for Jews. It is creating violent resentment through its disgusting, violent policies. Usa is in the same ballpark by supporting terror around the world. I support the people of Usa and the people of and in Israel of all religions and ethnicities in seeking freedom and justice-- even when they need to fight against entrenched power to do so. I think that's a basic leftist position. The question of nationalism can go either way, but violent oppression is not negotiable.

You haven't made a leftist case for Israel. You've just said that someone can call themself a leftist and also say they support Israel. My point was that I would challenge someone actually being a leftist if they're not against what Israel is doing right now.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

I support the people of Usa and the people of and in Israel of all religions and ethnicities in seeking freedom and justice-- even when they need to fight against entrenched power to do so. I think that's a basic leftist position.

Is it? There are authoritarian leftist ideologies that have robbed people of freedom and justice while claiming to be for these value. At the same time, there are right wing ideologies, like liberalism for example, that also makes the same claims but you could argue that it actually upholds them to a degree. My point is that things like freedom, justice, and fighting oppression are not exclusive leftist values. Like I said before, all ideologies make the same claims. Using these values as the measuring stick for what defines leftism is not entirely accurate.

You haven't made a leftist case for Israel. You've just said that someone can call themself a leftist and also say they support Israel.

I don't to make a leftist case for Israel, and I didn't merely that someone can call themselves leftist while supporting Israel. I'm saying that there's no inherent contradiction between these two things, and therefore leftists who support can and do exist in the world.

My point was that I would challenge someone actually being a leftist if they're not against what Israel is doing right now.

But these are two different things. You said that people supporting Israel can't be leftist, that's not the same as saying that people who support the current Israeli government's actions can't be leftists. My whole argument is that you can make a case for the latter, but not the former because countries don't have ideologies.

[-]

dude_chillin_park@reddit

First off, my original comment was a single line. If it wasn't clear to you that I was talking about the current conflict, you could have asked for clarification. Telling me about Israel as a hypothetical dream rather than the real violence we see them choosing every day is a discursive strawman.

The left is defined as a range of political ideologies that seek to achieve social, political, and economic equity and equality in a society while opposing some or all social hierarchies.

Can you make an argument that Israel is today supporting any of these aims? It seems clear that they are perpetuating racially motivated violence and enforcing economic and political apartheid: among the most shocking and destructive social hierarchies in the world today.

Can you make the case that Israel at any point since 1948 has been in service of these aims? Is apology for the Holocaust a leftist position? Colonialism certainly is not, even if we can partially excuse the Jewish Zionists for not having complete control over where in the world and how space was made for them to found a state.

Israel is the most obvious example today of a country that exists through injustice. Jewish leftists who settled in the area prior to the creation of the state may have once offered some deniability to the colonialist (and perhaps genocidal from the beginning) aims, but today their voices are no longer part of state power, even if some Israeli individuals remain in nationalist opposition.

However, other countries like Canada and Usa were also founded on deliberate genocide, and their existence also remains a crime against humanity. Likely, many other countries have histories of equally horrifying conquering and domination, but that hardly excuses letting it happen before our eyes right now.

It has historically been leftists who resisted such crimes, not libertarians, and certainly not monarchists or mercantilists. While right libertarianism has fought some good fights, it has been leftists-- especially Marxists-- who sought to aid other nations in their struggles. And so it remains today.

This isn't to say that Hamas is leftist. Nationalism is against the left (even when promoted by Stalin), but that doesn't mean either that fighting for survival as a nation must be corrected before oppression is ended.

So although Hamas is very far from the perfect ally for a leftist, it is an underdog fighting for political equality for the collective of Palestinians who it represents (for lack of better representation). Israel, however, is not seeking equality nor to reduce hierarchical exploitation-- a statement that's forced into stark definition by its violence against Palestinian civilians and its dehumanizing rhetoric to justify it. Yes, it is easier to forgive an underdog for their crimes than it is to forgive the oppressor.

I have seen leftists argue for Russia (challenging American imperialism) and for Ukraine (defending innocents against conquest), and that situation has a less clear "bad guy" (I condemn invasion, even if I can understand the geopolitical reason for it). But as much as Hamas's terrorism disgusts my privileged sensibilities, it's clear to me that Israel is the aggressor in this war, and has been since 1948, by their very existence as a settler colony. Sadly for the world's Jews who wish to see a Jewish state, the corruption at the heart of the Zionist project as it was implemented has finally come to a violent head, and the whole thing has become insupportable.

If you'd like to change my mind, please explain how Israel-- go back decades if you wish-- is a force for equality or for eliminating oppressive hierarchies.

[-]

Mundane_Emu8921@reddit

From first-hand experience, I can say that this is wrong. They do support the PLFP (People’s Liberation Front of Palestine) and DFLP (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine). Some far-left parties have given funding for these groups.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

I mean I'm sure they support all of the pro-Palestinian groups, but we've seen over the years, and especially since this war started that the far left is quite supportive of these islamist terrorist groups.

[-]

loggy_sci@reddit

Democrats never get blamed for their fringe positions.

Bingo

[-]

Trilobyte141@reddit

However, it seems that usually in America, the entire left, including the Democrats, are blamed for every fringe position on their side of the aisle, so people will think the entire left believes this, even though it’s maybe ~3000 college protestors in the entire country.

Yup. It's so obnoxious. There's also a lot of annoying assumptions going on just in the comment that I responded to. "Students are protesting Salman Rushdie now?" -- the implication is that students are left wing. The truth is that younger and more educated demographics are more likely to be left wing, but there's still plenty of right wing students too. So people who belong to a conservative religion get blamed on the left because they are "students"? Feck off.

On top of that, there's the idea that this is unusual. Controversial speakers get protested and boycotted all the time from both sides of the divide, and usual the opposition is ignored and the speaker goes ahead. And there's nothing wrong with that. The protestors are using free speech to express their disapproval of the speaker. The college can either agree or disagree -- also free speech. And then people can have opinions about that decision. And so on. Lots of disagreement is a feature of the system, not a bug.

Rushdie caved to this one, which is why it's news. I don't blame him for it either, he's old af and he was nearly stabbed to death by an extremist, and I think it's understandable he'd have some trauma triggered by facing down protestors when other speakers would shrug them off.

[-]

Tw1tcHy@reddit

This is a glaring false equivalence in pretending both sides protest controversial speech equally, especially in academic spaces. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of campus disinvitations, speaker cancellations, shout-downs, and heckler’s vetoes come from the Left—not the Right. Organizations like FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) and studies from the Heterodox Academy have consistently shown that it’s left-leaning students who are more likely to call for the de-platforming of speakers, demand trigger warnings, and push for speech codes under the guise of inclusion or harm prevention.

HKEY_LOVE_MACHINE@reddit

Backed as in funded, because Israel knew that Hamas would make it harder for a Oalestian state to exist.

You're misremembering a very well documented fact because you've been relying on social media instead of reputable articles.

In 2018, Netanyahu, prevented israeli and US authorities from blocking and reducing the flow of money coming from Qatar.

Qatar had been funding Hamas ever since 2007-2008, sending hundreds of millions every year, first with suitcases of cash, then through bank accounts in Doha (capital of Qatar, and headquarter of Hamas) and other financial centers of the Middle East.

The goal of Netanyahu was indeed strengthening Hamas, to prevent Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, their competitors (now stuck to the West Bank), from taking over Gaza again.

So Netanyahu did not "fund" Hamas, he wouldn't have had the money himself (neither the Likud) - he allowed Qatar to continue funding Hamas.

...

I've seen countless western militants purposely leave out Qatar from the picture, same with Iran and the millions-worth of rockets and drones, to propagate some conspiracy bollocks about Hamas (and PIJ, and Fatah) being a secret Mossad operation, and that arab and persian nations just want peace and harmony with everyone.

It may see fun for you at first "oh let's pin all that shit on Israel, this should discredit them further!", but the only thing it does is showing that pro-pal militants are unreliable as heck when it comes to investigating the shaddy deals in that conflict.

Not all that much, however Islamists really, really hate him because of the Satanic Verses and thanks to the Gazan war Islamists are getting ever more influence.

[-]

gazongagizmo@reddit

Left wingers are more likely to be tolerant of other religious beliefs and against genocide, which puts us and the religious people being subjected to genocide on the same side for this issue, but Islam is still a pretty conservative ideology. Leftists don't want people to be murdered because they believe in a slightly different version of the same fckin sky daddy. That doesn't make those people part of the left wing.

Can I please take a ride back in your time machine? I yearn for this former version of the left that you apparently think is still around/in power.

It's like for you all the retardations of identity marxism of the past 10/15 years have never metastasized. Muslims are at the top of the oppression pyramid now.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

I mean your point that left is too broad for such a generalization is valid, however, it should also be noted that there are subsects within the left that are like this. There are a lot of people on the left who don't care about the mass deaths in Gaza from a humanitarian point of view, they just see it as a tool to push to be vocally hateful or push various fringe agendas publicly.

Once you move past the mainstream factions of the left, which are mostly critical of Israel's actions going way too far, you'll see a lot more unhinged takes from the left like terrorist groups like the Houthis or Hezbollah are freedom fighters, Israeli civilians deserved to die on Oct 7th, or that Oct 7th attacks were fake or were done by Israel. It's hard to find moral consistency in the far left.

[-]

redditor_since_2005@reddit

There was a vibe 10 years ago that Charlie Hebdo brought it on themselves. Not surprised at all.

[-]

Hasan Piker has quite a large audience and that's his views

[-]

TraditionalGap1@reddit

Damn, one guy? Better burn the platform down and castigate everyone on 'the left'

[-]

genasugelan@reddit

Not just one guy, he has plenty of orbiters and they are an entire group with tens of thousands of fans.

And we are talking about the extremist very far left, not moderate left-wing people.

[-]

ShaunDark@reddit

"Plenty of channels" out of an average of 90,000 active ones really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things. If it were like 90 channels we're talking about that would account for 0.1% of all active twitch channels. And I reckon there's a higher proportion of extreme leaning people on either end of the spectrum in the general population, so imho that's really not out of the ordinary. And definitely not a number to warrant painting the whole platform as extremists.

[-]

genasugelan@reddit

They are some of the most popular channels on the entire platform. How would you even compare the amount of active channels when the bottom vast majority have less than 10 viewers when he and his friends get tens of thousands of CONCURRENT viewers, not even talking about follows. This is the most bad faith argument I've heard in a long while.

[-]

ShaunDark@reddit

Not really into twitch and I've never heard of the guy tbh. I was just doing some math based on your comment and some quick web searches for twitch stats.

I'm not saying the guy is irrelevant. After checking out his channel stats, he seems to have about 1.25% of the average viewership whenever he's streaming, accounting for ~0.4% of total twitch watch time over the last week.

Assuming he is one of the leading figures in his bubble, I'm gonna assume the total accumulated watch time may be 10 times as high, maybe even 15 times, but I think any more would be stretching it. Which would account for something like 5% of all twitch watch time within some margin of error. The concurrent average viewership is harder to pinpoint, but I guess it won't be as high, since a lot of viewers would likely watch multiple channels at different times.

Imho a high estimate for his bubble may be peaks of 5-10% of total twitch viewership with an accumulated watch time share of maybe 3-7%.

Which isn't nothing, you're right. Don't get me wrong, the guy clearly seems to have some pull and frankly I don't know enough about him, his views or his content to assess what this means and whether that's a good or a bad thing from my point of view.

But his positions none withstand; he also clearly doesn't represent the whole platform. His bubble – based on the information given and some typical statistical distributions – shouldn't be close to reaching a majority or even a plurality of channels, viewers or watch time. Which was the (imho) bad faith argument you were making before and which I wanted to frame correctly.

[-]

genasugelan@reddit

The bubble being that he's the second most popular political streamer on Twitch behind Asmongold (goes by Zackrawwr or something like that). The reason he represents Twitch is that he's direct friends with Dan Clancy, the CEO of Twitch, who has stated that he's his fan and Clancy also made the Twitch stuff sing happy birthday to Hasan in a video. He has insane protectionist status on Twitch and can get basically away with anything.

I'll list some things he's done on stream:

Constantly plays Hamas and Houthi propaganda videos uncritically, like his one infamous clip of having his streamer friend in the room and asking "Do you want to see a Houthi musical?" Then playing it and leaving the room. Or playing videos of the Houthis hijacking a ship.
Called for the killing of senator Rick Scott, saying: "If you can care about Medicare or Medicaid fraud, you would KILL Rick Scott" for which he got banned for a staggering 24 hours and like 4 minutes. (the fact that he even got banned was actually surprising for me)
Said that the Houthis should get a Nobel Peace Prize and they would deserve it. (in the debate with his former podcast co-host Ethan Klein)
Denied any rapes happening and saying there were no women coming forward about being raped after Ethan Klein played him 2 clips of women coming forward about being raped by Hamas (same debate, it was like a 4-hour debate)
his infamous clip of saying "America deserved 9/11" for which even his own uncle (who hilariously defends beastiality, not relevant, but I thought it would be pretty funny to mention) on The Young Turks. His uncle is the owner of a massive media conglomerate in Turkey, Cenk, you can google him. Hasan isn't just some random streamer, he has massive media influence through the mentioned uncle Cenk and his billionaire father.
was friends with Hussam Shabat, a Hamas sniper (he was listed as a sniper in Hamas' list of members with the title of a sniper)/journalist that got killed by Israel; and he was even directly in Hasan's room streaming with him at one point.
many others I can't remember from the top of my head, but you can easily fin them if you are interested, he's been extensively covered. He didn't get banned for any of that outside of that Rick Scott thing I mentioned, even though Twitch's ToS explicitly state that playing terrorist propaganda videos, even for criticism, warrant a ban (for comparison, another streamer, Tectone, got a 2-week ban for calling Hasan's former top moderator Frogan a "fat piece of shit", you tell me how that compares and if Twich is biased towards him and his friend group.)

Some other things he did unrelated to terrorism:

it was recently revealed that he attended P. Diddy parties (one at least, he confirmed it after evidence piling up).
Went to the brother Artemis in Berlin, which got later swatted for sex trafficing, even of a minor.
used the police to harass his ex-girlfriend

Hope that gave you some context about him.

[-]

ShaunDark@reddit

Okay he doesn't seem to be the nicest guy. Having political opinions that would be hard to justify to a generic audience. And he may be too close to some of the twitch leadership.

Some things that I'd still like to add, though:

Let's ignore his actual content and relationships for a moment. Just looking at it from twitch's business perspective. He's a popular content creator pulling in viewers. Why wouldn't they try to keep him going as long as he's generating more money for them than they lose tangibly by the negative impact he creates? In the end, it's all a question of "is he worth the hassle to keep him around"?
Not saying he isn't a total rotten asshole. Just playing devil's advocate for a second. He seems to have gotten popular by embracing anti-israel positions. The nature of social media dictates that the most emotionalising and controversial content will create the most engagement, in turn generating the highest revenue possible. Just from a business perspective it seems to be useful to spew forth the most radical bullshit these days just to reach a bigger audience.

I'm thinking of a similar mechanism the Bolsheviks used to gain popularity within the Russian revolution back in the days. At first they were just a small splinter group. But by always pushing the envelope and taking the most radical position on every issue, they made sure that people always talked about them. Whether it was to take their position or to argue against it; being the talk of the town was a good start to engage as many people as possible. In the end, they managed to oust the more moderate Mensheviks just by making sure they always turned it up to eleven.

Again, I don't know much about the top twitch guys – but from the YouTube clips I've seen so far – Asmongold seems to be a rather clueless idiot who is mostly known for being popular and doesn't seem to care for too much else either. He may react to stuff uncritically, but imho that mostly seems to stem from the fact that he's just incapable of a critical thought in general. Compared to the picture you've painted of Hasan at least, I'd classify him as a money hungry man whore, but I wouldn't personally consider him to be a political streamer.

He just seems to engage with whatever is popular on a given day in order to siphon the largest share of views away from the general creator economy. And on some days that popular content may be political in nature, but that doesn't make him a political person per se.

In order to be political, you first need to have an agenda, which requires a level of complex thoughts I don't think he's capable of. If you want some more input on the whole topic, there's a great couple of videos by DarkViperAU on his opinions regarding react streamers in general and I think I subscribe to most of his positions on that issue – albeit I haven't watched them in quite some time tbh.

Hasan may be in bed with the twitch leadership. Whether he got in touch with them through being popular or whether it was the other way around, I can't personally assess. But imho that doesn't mean the whole platform shares his personal views, which I thought you were implying when I first answered your original comment.

tl;dr Don't get me wrong, if I were to make the rules, I wouldn't let Hasan stream shit, Icm with you on that one. But from the perspective of everyone involved, it seems to make sense to keep up the status quo, since they're all benefitting from it. And it doesn't mean twitch as a whole is an extremist platform. Or at least you can't say that for sure just based on one guy being popular there.

[-]

genasugelan@reddit

Let's ignore his actual content and relationships for a moment. Just looking at it from twitch's business perspective. He's a popular content creator pulling in viewers. Why wouldn't they try to keep him going as long as he's generating more money for them than they lose tangibly by the negative impact he creates? In the end, it's all a question of "is he worth the hassle to keep him around"?

I mean yeah, business is business and all that. That's the exact reason why I brought up Twitch in the first place, because I think platforming people like is is not only incredibly immoral, but he's already broken US laws regarding providing material support for terrorist-desgnated groups, which also includes promoting terrorist propaganda uncritically, which can land him for 20 years in prison. I believe the only reason he's not behind bars so far is his family's influence.

I'm thinking of a similar mechanism the Bolsheviks used to gain popularity within the Russian revolution back in the days. At first they were just a small splinter group. But by always pushing the envelope and taking the most radical position on every issue, they made sure that people always talked about them. Whether it was to take their position or to argue against it; being the talk of the town was a good start to engage as many people as possible. In the end, they managed to oust the more moderate Mensheviks just by making sure they always turned it up to eleven.

Yeah, I completely agree with that. Same thing with all extremist dictators like Hitler. They overwhelm the moderates by appeal of emotion like you said to gain popularity. All extremes work like that.

so far – Asmongold seems to be a rather clueless idiot who is mostly known for being popular and doesn't seem to care for too much else either.

Yeah, that's fair, he dabbled into politics only semi-recently, he used to be WoW streamer, then went variety gaming and now he's basically reacting to everything that happens, giving his take. I personally think that he tries to be fair (based on when, because he used to be way more rash and emotional some time ago and got banned for a pretty bad take, but he accepted the ban and that was basically a wake up call for him).

And on some days that popular content may be political in nature, but that doesn't make him a political person per se.

Yeah, basically, as I said, he reacts to EVERYTHING. So you are right about that.

In order to be political, you first need to have an agenda

Interesting point, honestly. Never thought of that. I think what constitutes a political streamer is kind off based on opinion, I think most people would describe it as covering political content with their own commentary, into which Asmongold fits in, but by that idea you mentioned doesn't (maybe, I don't know Asmongold's full political opinions, I mostly just click on his short clips as to see what happened in the world or the USA, I take him with a pinch of salt).

And it doesn't mean twitch as a whole is an extremist platform.

Of course not Twitch as a whole (it's primarily a gaming streaming platform after all), but it certainly has a heavy ideological and individual bias, you can find countless examples of that if you want to dive into it.

BTW, your last two replies were pretty fair and constructive, so I'll have to commend you for that. I'm going to bed and travel away for the weekend, so I'll not reply anymore. Have a nice weekend.

[-]

TraditionalGap1@reddit

And we are talking about the extremist very far left, not moderate left-wing people.

That isn't what you said in the post I replied to:

But it seems that people (and most likely you) can't support Palestitian victims without defending terrorists.

You are ducking moron . My point was just about SA. Hamas did take prisoners etc - not denying that.

The UN said they had not independent access .So we have no publi evidence of SA on oct 7. So without evidence I am inclined to not believe some ZAKA liars and Benji's stooges

Meanwhile .there is evidence of SA by Z soldiers .

https://news.sky.com/story/video-appears-to-show-idf-soldiers-sexually-abusing-palestinian-detainee-13193857

[-]

genasugelan@reddit

Overall, based on the totality of information gathered from multiple and independent sources at the different locations, there are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence occurred at several locations across the Gaza periphery, including in the form of rape and gang rape, during the 7 October 2023 attacks. Credible circumstantial information, which may be indicative of some forms of sexual violence, including genital mutilation, sexualized torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, was also gathered.

https://www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/report/mission-report-official-visit-of-the-office-of-the-srsg-svc-to-israel-and-the-occupied-west-bank-29-january-14-february-2024/20240304-Israel-oWB-CRSV-report.pdf

[-]

mwa12345@reddit

Read the part where the report talks about access ...or la k there of. Easy to find in the document. Wonder why the police can't find witnesses .

Putting citizens into ghettos and systematically starving the entire population, all the while bombing hospitals and schools. Israel would put a smile on Hitler's face.

[-]

ShootmansNC@reddit

Yes, very much so.

[-]

jadedflames@reddit

And yesterday Benjamin Netanyahu said, and this is an exact quote, “I am a war criminal guilty of genocide and also I pooped my pants.”

Ah yes, the far right are totally for devaluing their allegedly superior ideology by comparing it to the one they despise the most. That's some "special" logic you got there.

No, the reality is that this a cope made Marxists for Marxists to avoid dealing with harsh truth that their ideology is pure shit. In the 20th century alone, there were dozens of Marxist attempts all over the world, where at some point they controlled nearly 1/3 of the world's territory. Today? There's only 4 left, and all of them are Marxist in name only. Why is that? It's simple, they all collapsed and had to revert to some other system. The result of Marxism is that it's a failed ideology in both theory and practice and has led to nothing but poverty, tyranny, cultural destruction, and the deaths of tens of millions all over the world in a single century.

So yes, Marxism is indeed just as bad Fascism. If you don't like it then you're definitely one of the two, and if you are then your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. Go argue with a wall because that's the level of attention trash deserves.

[-]

Rylovix@reddit

What human rights abuses did Karl Marx commit? Attributing dictator death tolls to all material analysis is like blaming your little christian grandma for the crusades.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

What human rights abuses did Karl Marx commit?

Wtf are you talking about? This isn't even a coherent reply to what I said.

Attributing dictator death tolls to all material analysis is like blaming your little christian grandma for the crusades.

[Argument]
"I think you're not a person worth talking to." [mic drop]

You know this is complete lack of debate or discussion culture right? The cornerstone of democracy and you are worse at it than a tanky.

[-]

bigstankdaddy10@reddit

okay well you’re a meany so nananabooboo, you lose

[-]

Your comment also isn't neutral and also not necessary.

[-]

aasfourasfar@reddit

It wasn't meant to be neutral, I criticize their fixation on making fun of muslims in a country where everything a muslim does becomes a hot issue in the news.

You take the most marginalized population in a country, and mindlessly make fun of their sacred symbols for...? What? What is the point?

[-]

genasugelan@reddit

Most marginalised community whatever. That doesn't give anyone the right to physically attack people just because they said or drew something that offends them.

[-]

aasfourasfar@reddit

Where did I say they had the right to do so?

[-]

genasugelan@reddit

Sorry, you are right, you were just victim blaming.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

muslims aren't marginalized in France, it's the opposite, they're the ones responsible for marginalizing others like homosexuals and women. muslims in France are responsible for the vast majority of social regression and terrorist attacks in the country. They're literally going after freedom of speech by trying to inform their shitty religion on to everybody else.

brassmonkey666@reddit

He switched from being pro Palestine to proZionist once he got into the orbit of Islamophobes, neocons, and political elites.

[-]

SaneForCocoaPuffs@reddit

So when he says he wants a Palestinian state that isn’t run by Hamas, this is Zionist Islamophobia?

I have been in favour of a Palestinian state for most of my life," he continued. "But if there were a Palestinian state now, it would be run by Hamas and we would have a Taliban-like state. A satellite state of Iran. Is this what the progressive movements of the western left want to create?”

It’s wild that half the pro-Palestinians say they don’r support Hamas and the other half claim you are a Zionist unless you support Hamas

[-]

YourphobiaMyfetish@reddit

Sounds as though he's saying the Palestinians aren't ready for self-determination and so shouldn't have a Palestinian state, correct?

[-]

Bhavacakra_12@reddit

That's not what he's saying at all. He's supported a Palestinian state longer than you've been alive.

[-]

YourphobiaMyfetish@reddit

Then what does he mean when he says "But if there were a Palestinian state now, it would be run by Hamas and we would have a Taliban-like state. A satellite state of Iran. Is this what the progressive movements of the western left want to create?”

[-]

Bhavacakra_12@reddit

He's saying that an independent Palestine today would quickly get overrun by Hamas because they are the dominant military power in the country. Considering Rushdie has been a victim of a fatwa- one issued by the former AYATOLLAH of Iran, AND the fact that in Tehran there exists a shrine to a guy who died while prepping a bomb in a failed assassination of Rushdie; are you surprised he would be against Iran gaining even more power in Palestine?

Considering Hamas actions the past two years, do you honestly Palestinian people would be better off?

The current leader of PA is a Holocaust denier, and he's not disliked for that reason, at all.

Not only a denier he literally wrote his PhD thesis on it.

[-]

ilikedota5@reddit

Yeah, and apparently this somehow escapes the room.

[-]

Angry_drunken_robot@reddit

"But if there were a Palestinian state now, it would be run by Hamas and we would have a Taliban-like state.

Now as if it happened NOW, not forever. The word 'NOW' means 'during the current time.

Obviously English is not your first language.

[-]

infidel11990@reddit

This is a disingenuous comment and misrepresents what Rushdie actually believes in.

Supporting Palestinian rights does not require supporting the terror outfit Hamas at the same time. But leftists consider Hamas as freedom fighters and resistance, so it's a complete waste of time arguing with them.

[-]

brassmonkey666@reddit

Yes, the protest movements condemn the killing of civilians. Resisting occupation is legitimate.

[-]

samishah@reddit

Ah yes, the Qatar owner Middle East Eye is a reliable source of info on this now.

[-]

[-]

infidel11990@reddit

This is patently nonsense. Hamas and associate groups oppose a Jewish state in principle.

Their planned solution is to either deport all Jews away from the Middle East or outright kill them. They aren't in favor of a two state solution. Their 2017 charter does not recognize an Israeli state at all. Even though PLO accepts a two state solution.

Hamas doesn't help the Palestinian cause. It merely makes the war and oppression go on longer.

The fact that leftists in the west have now switched to supporting Hamas, and even celebrating Oct 7 attacks, while calling Hamas the resistance, should make it pretty clear that antisemitism has taken deep roots in their protests and movement.

It's quite clear that attacks against Jews and Israelis in particular will rise in the west.

[-]

0liviuhhhhh@reddit

I agree that antisemitism has gotten out of control, but it also needs to be acknowledged that Zionism and Judaism aren't the same thing. Being anti-zionist is not antisemitic.

On that note, acknowledging that a terror group initially funded by Israel to give Israel greater cause to crack down on a region they've invaded wouldn't be an issue or exist if israel hadn't invaded and funded them isn't antisemitic, its just acknowledging reality

[-]

noncontrolled@reddit

“Anti-Zionism is not antisemitism”.

Correct, I am in full agreement. A state should not be exempt from criticism. Israel’s actions are appalling and horrifying.

The issue is, for some, that statement has morphed into “anti-Zionism can’t be antisemitism, ever” or, for those who have just gone mask off - “antisemitism isn’t a big deal and really can you blame people these days?”.

I’m not sure the Overton window had ever once moved to the left in the last 10 years of American politics but soap box about your favorite book all you want lol

[-]

BendicantMias@reddit

Depends on what subject matters to you. Economically it didn't, of course. In fact that book, which is older than 10 years btw, was very much capitalist. No one has said differently.

But we're not talking economically. We're talking socially. And socially ya'll were busy building your new society, before people like Trump came on the scene a decade ago. They wrenched your victory out of your hands, ironically via a familiar force for the left - populism. Still, the only thing they affected initially was state policy, and even in that they were more limited earlier, not social discourse. The Overton Window was still mostly left, socially, as the media establishment (from the NYT to Hollywood to videogames to even Reddits' norms themselves) were all firmly wokeified. THAT is the Overton Window, not what the President says on any given day. If you want to see it, you need only see mod behavior all over this very site. It still hasn't changed, and in fact is only getting more strident, finding ever more forms of 'hate speech' or whatever to outlaw online. But the discourse didn't used to be so curtailed. You think the presidency changing changed everything? Far from it. You're still using the nazi excuse to silence people all over the net. Except, while mods still abuse their power to do so, nowadays fewer and fewer people are convinced of the accusation.

[-]

KnicksGhost2497@reddit

There you go on your soapbox again using “you” and “yall” lol

[-]

Jinshu_Daishi@reddit

They only called people to the right of the Strasser brothers Nazis. Most people are to the left of the Strassers.

[-]

Well said people pretending this is the greatest calamity and fall of civilization is absurd.

Very fair to talk about this, but absurd to claim this is the sign of civilizational collapse.

We are actively funding a genocide....and colleges are suppressing student free speech Somehow this is the civilizational issue- not the governors proclaiming Jim crow laws as permanent.

[-]

zackks@reddit

Apparently the majority are still out there advocating for those things.

[-]

Abject_Job_8529@reddit

Leftist college students think Islamism is a left-wing resistance movement. Christ.

[-]

gazongagizmo@reddit

Leftist college students think Islamism is a left-wing resistance movement

Judith Butler (the academic Jesus of Queer, essentially) called Hamas and Hezbollah an integral part of the global progressive left.

Leftist uni students have been contaminated for decades.

[-]

Mundane_Emu8921@reddit

It’s not really leftist resistance for saying “it’s not okay to blow up kids.”

The mainstream acceptable political position towards Israel is so extreme that Ronald Reagan, George W Bush & Richard Nixon have “left wing” views toward Israel.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

It’s not really leftist resistance for saying “it’s not okay to blow up kids.”

We both know that's not what "leftist resistance" is or stands for. They don't care about freedom, human rights, or kids dying. In fact, they support all those things if it meant advancing their agendas. To them what's happening in Gaza is just a useful tool for propaganda, they don't harbor genuine humanitarian concern. Mainstream center left factions are like that, but not anything beyond that.

The mainstream acceptable political position towards Israel is so extreme

What that be? Most people agree that Israel has the right to exist and defend itself from attacks, but at the same time their retaliations go way too far and their far right factions are responsible for war crimes.

[-]

Mundane_Emu8921@reddit

What propaganda?

You can’t point to any media outlet or social media platform that is nefariously advancing a vague “propaganda” narrative to “indoctrinate” people.

Instead, people are looking at what is happening - they are watching Israeli propaganda - and don’t like it.

It’s not radical or “fringe” to not want civilian casualties.

repeating that line, “Israel has a right to defend itself” is going to cause a lot of problems moving forward.

Russia is already justifying its attacks by saying that exact same line.

That line is just a thought terminating cliche that is trying to justify horrific actions in the short term at the expense of very serious long term consequences.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

You're being dishonest. You misrepresented what I said after I pointed out that misrepresented what OP said. You're doing the strawman fallacy twice in a row. It's literally strawman².

Let's go over what the topic is for the sake of consistency:

Post: It's about a guy that is a well known critic of islam, and he got attacked for exercising his right to free speech by islamists. Due to this incident, he backed out of giving a speech out of fear of being attacked again.

Top comment: The original commenter stated that he thinks it's dystopian that college students are protesting to defend the islamists over the guy who got attacked for doing no wrong.

Original sub comment of this thread: Commenter stated that he thinks that leftist students think islamism is a left wing resistance movement.

Notice how this post and these two comments are all logically consistent and talking about the same relevant topic?

Then you come in and start spewing anti-Israel talking points... even though it has ZERO relevance to what this post, this thread, or the what comment you replied to are talking about.

I came in and pointed that leftist college students who support islamists aren't humanitarians because they support groups that abuse human rights on the regular. They're just exploiting this conflict to push agendas since they're not morally consistent. I also pointed out that your other talking point wasn't even true. Notice how I tried tie it back to original topic?

You come in again, and bring up the same bullshit talking points again about Israel even though they're entirely irrelevant. You're either so ignorant that you have no idea who Salman Rushdie is and just assume that he's some pro-Israeli or anti-Palestine activist (which he isn't) or your brain is so fried that you think islamism and Israel are opposites or your brain is rotted that you automatically try to turn everything into an argument about Israel/Palestine. Regardless of which of these it is, get help.

[-]

Abject_Job_8529@reddit

I'm not even talking about that, we're talking about salman rushdie and you're going into your own thing. Islamism, the ayatollah, and the fatwa on salman rushdie are indefensible and I have no idea why you have chosen to go to bat for them.

[-]

have_you_eaten_yeti@reddit

A yes the “Muslim student organization” that hallowed “leftist” institution…

[-]

BehemothDeTerre@reddit

Fascism on both sides, one wearing a cross, the other a crescent.

We failed to educate a whole generation as to how to oppose fascism. Hint: it's not "by mindlessly supporting anyone who doesn't like the US/the West".

In reality, he probably withdrew to garner some publicity. He has been pretty irrelevant for a while. Rushdie is so out of touch he alienated his support base.

Try to find one intelligent, liberal figure who still has a career today after spouting the same rhetoric of hardcore Israeli settlers.

[-]

KLUME777@reddit

It's primarily because of mass immigration, in this case of Muslims, that make it too dangerous for a freethinker to give a public speech. He was stabbed 15 times last time. He's smart enough to not do it again (unfortunately).

[-]

Jinshu_Daishi@reddit

Immigration isn't the issue here.

[-]

KLUME777@reddit

Oh really? The issue is the Muslim student union. How do you think they got here? Immigration.

[-]

thot_cereal@reddit

It's honestly not even that big of protest from the students, the Guardian doesn't mention that sentencing for the guy that stabbed Rushdie 15 times is the same day as the commencement address.

I'm sure the student pushback played a role in him not coming, but from what i can tell, the protests are objecting over him being commencement speaker, not him coming to campus in the first place. The kids were putting up posters, not picketing the administration.

Claremont McKenna is a pretty conservative environment anyway as far as colleges go, especially relative to its neighbors.

[-]

polymute@reddit

the Guardian doesn't mention that sentencing for the guy that stabbed Rushdie 15 times is the same day as the commencement address.

The left has eating their own and holier than thou-ism

You racist

[-]

ZhouDa@reddit

Muslims who protest Salman Rushdie aren't on the left, they are religious conservatives who simply disagree with the religious right's Christian brand, but like the religious right don't want tolerance or liberalism.

[-]

Automatic-Nature-837@reddit

Protesting is a western liberal value you dunce

[-]

anime_titties-ModTeam@reddit

Your submission/comment has been removed as it violates:

Rule 4 (Keep it civil).

Make sure to check our sidebar from time to time as it provides detailed submission guidelines and may change.

Please feel free to send us a modmail if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

fools_eye@reddit

Claremont McKenna’s Muslim Student Association had criticized the college’s choice of Rushdie in a May 2 statement, calling it “disrespectful” and out of line with the college’s commitment to inclusion.

The nerve of these people. If western liberals don't disavow and reject Islam publicly and emphatically, they are in a world of hurt.

The right, rightfully, opposes the seepage of this toxicity into the western world but the left will soon find out when that snake inevitable bites them.

[-]

fools_eye@reddit

They don't like the commencement speaker

Why? That's important. Why don't they like the commencement speaker?

Did they threaten violence

Yes, that is implicit. The millions of threats he has been getting for decades, a fatwa and a price for his head by an Islamic state and a lost eye are more than proof enough.

[-]

Sea_Curve_1620@reddit

The millions of threats he has been getting were not necessarily made by the same people who simply don't want him to be the commencement speaker.

Every single year, during graduation season, some colleges choose speakers that are objectionable to some of their students, and the students say "I don't like that. He should not speak." This is really mundane stuff.

However, anyone that did threaten violence against Rushdie should be punished, because it's important to be peaceful.

[-]

UndocumentedMartian@reddit

Publically rejecting the entirety of a religion plays into the hands of the kind of people that oppose Rashide. It's also pointless. Most Muslims are regular people.

[-]

thewindburner@reddit

Most Muslims are regular people.

Depends on how you define regular people!

"However, when asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that homosexuality should be legal in Britain, 18% said they agreed and 52% said they disagreed, compared with 5% among the public at large who disagreed.."

He was protested by the Muslim Student Association, which i wouldn't imagine would like him even in times of peace in Palestine

[-]

Bhavacakra_12@reddit

I agree. But when you add the religious aspect to that, it seems very obvious what's happening here. It's complete and total intimidation of anyone who doesn't share their 100% beliefs. It's ridiculous.

[-]

TeasBeDammed@reddit

it justifies treating them as any other homophobe

[-]

loggy_sci@reddit

Please stop trying to pink wash your bigotry

[-]

Sea_Curve_1620@reddit

Your regularity or irregularity as a person is not defined by how you respond to surveys.

[-]

apophis-pegasus@reddit

Depends on how you define regular people!

Fundamentalism in Sunnis gained polularity with the last 150 years and most of that in the 20th century. With Shias you could argue it was just with the Iranian revolution that fundamentalism really became what it is today.

I’m not saying you CAN’T reject it. I’m saying it won’t actually benefit anyone. Religious people generally have conservative views, but you’re not going to remove religion from your society with have far more repressive policies than what most religious people want.

Above in the chain I did a little writeup/highlight-paste of this excellent article about the foreign funding

Qatar is the largest source of foreign donations to U.S. universities since reporting began in 1986, with $6.3 billion coming from the gas-rich Gulf state.

If the whole world knows that your foolishly open society has a pay-to-play corruption scheme open to just about anyone (the only one missing from the creme-de-la-shame seems to be North Korea...), then of course little by little your youth gets corrupted against your own national soul.

(All glory to Yuri Bezmenov, hallowed by his prophecy. If only we had listened.)

[-]

gazongagizmo@reddit

Qatar and other muslim countries are funding US academia to the tune of billions. This has been going in for decades, but has exploded under Biden. Biden's admin didn't just open the floodgates of the border, but into the minds of the youth, i.e. future elite.

Foreign donors have given as much to U.S. universities in the last four years as they did in the previous 40, according to a new report by the Network Contagion Research Institute shared exclusively with The Free Press. The study shows an explosion in overseas funding for American schools between 2021 and 2024, with nearly $29 billion in foreign money donated during that period.

This excellent article links to the graph of top funders for the Biden years where it says "Germany ($3.3 billion) was the largest source of foreign funding over the last four years", and if you leave off the countries ideologically aligned with the US, you get:

China 2.3B, Qatar 2B, Saudi Arabia 1.9B, Kuwait 1B

Mind you, this is just 2021-24.

The ideological contamination of academia has been going on for decades, of course.

If you total the figures since the 80s, you get:

Qatar is the largest source of foreign donations to U.S. universities since reporting began in 1986, with $6.3 billion coming from the gas-rich Gulf state.

But this is just what has surfaced by now, the dark figure is a lot higher:

A 2024 study published by the National Association of Scholars found that universities failed to disclose at least $1 billion in foreign funding since Biden took office, the majority of which came from authoritarian countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. This latest move is not Trump’s first attempt to scrutinize foreign funding in higher education. In 2019, during his first term, the Department of Education investigated a dozen elite universities and uncovered $6.5 billion in previously unreported foreign funds to U.S. colleges and universities from authoritarian countries such as China and Saudi Arabia. (...)

The true amount of foreign donations could be even bigger than the reported figures. The NCRI analysis includes only donations disclosed to the federal government, as required by law for donations over $250,000. As The Free Press has previously reported, at least 200 American colleges and universities illegally withheld information on billions in undisclosed contributions from foreign regimes.

(All glory to Yuri Bezmenov, hallowed by his prophecy. If only we had listened.)

[-]

gazongagizmo@reddit

Foreign donors have given as much to U.S. universities in the last four years as they did in the previous 40, according to a new report by the Network Contagion Research Institute shared exclusively with The Free Press. The study shows an explosion in overseas funding for American schools between 2021 and 2024, with nearly $29 billion in foreign money donated during that period.

China 2.3B, Qatar 2B, Saudi Arabia 1.9B, Kuwait 1B

Mind you, this is just 2021-24.

The ideological contamination of academia has been going on for decades, of course.

If you total the figures since the 80s, you get:

Qatar is the largest source of foreign donations to U.S. universities since reporting began in 1986, with $6.3 billion coming from the gas-rich Gulf state.

But this is just what has surfaced by now, the dark figure is a lot higher:

A 2024 study published by the National Association of Scholars found that universities failed to disclose at least $1 billion in foreign funding since Biden took office, the majority of which came from authoritarian countries such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. This latest move is not Trump’s first attempt to scrutinize foreign funding in higher education. In 2019, during his first term, the Department of Education investigated a dozen elite universities and uncovered $6.5 billion in previously unreported foreign funds to U.S. colleges and universities from authoritarian countries such as China and Saudi Arabia. (...)

The true amount of foreign donations could be even bigger than the reported figures. The NCRI analysis includes only donations disclosed to the federal government, as required by law for donations over $250,000. As The Free Press has previously reported, at least 200 American colleges and universities illegally withheld information on billions in undisclosed contributions from foreign regimes.

(All glory to Yuri Bezmenov, hallowed by his prophecy. If only we had listened.)

[-]

The_Majestic_Mantis@reddit

Likely paid operatives from places like Iran.

[-]

Ornery_Ad_8349@reddit

They changed their charter in 2017 to recognize Israel, and they wanted to negotiate an exchange for the thousands of hostages Israel has taken.

Their charter still uses wishy-washy words without explicitly recognizing Israel, not to mention they haven’t stopped trying to violently destroy Israel…

The casea of (sic) rape have been exposed as a fabrication (sic).

You really believe this? Every single one was a fabrication? Give your head a shake. Do you think that all those half-naked women seen on video on October 7th being paraded through the streets just spontaneously started bleeding from their vaginas for no reason?

One child was killed in the crossfire. Try again.

How about the Bibas children? Kidnapped, then strangled to death and bashed with rocks to appear as though they were killed by an Israeli strike? You can’t seriously be this naive.

[-]

MonsterkillWow@reddit

I am not denying atrocities, but the NYT blew them out of proportion to manufacture consent for the response. And look at the response. And look at the way Palestinians were living before Oct 7.

Would you fault Nat Turner for his violence against oppression? So why fault Hamas? Should we fault the IRA for fighting the British? Should we fault the Soviets for brutality toward the Nazis? Oppressors invite violence.

[-]

Ornery_Ad_8349@reddit

I am not denying atrocities, but the NYT blew them out of proportion to manufacture consent for the response. And look at the response.

You literally just were denying atrocities. Now you’re backpedaling from your ridiculous stance and trying to pretend you never held it.

And look at the way Palestinians were living before Oct 7.

A hell of a lot better than the way they’re living now. Was the rampage worth it, I wonder?

Would you fault Nat Turner for his violence against oppression?

African slaves in the US didn’t do anything to provoke their enslavement. Palestinians constantly provoke Israel with suicide bombings, stabbing sprees, missile strikes, etc. there’s obviously a difference between the two.

So why fault Hamas?

If Hamas directed its violence towards the Israeli government/military, I’d be more sympathetic. Instead, they target random innocent civilians because they’re cowardly bullies, and bullies can only prey on those weaker than them.

This did not start Oct 7.

Did I say it did? Try to converse with me, not your strawman.

Even if you believe Israel should have responded and had a right to defend itself (it didn't since it is an illegal occupier), the response has been roughly 40-100x more devastating in terms of casualties, and has displaced over a million people. Is that proportional?

You don’t understand what ‘proportional’ means. It doesn’t mean that the two sides of a conflict have to perfectly balance all destruction/casualties, because that’s insanely stupid. Israel happens to be better at defending its people than Hamas, which is what happens when you develop defensive infrastructure instead of digging miles and miles of terror tunnels.

How much is an Israeli life worth relative to a Palestinian one to you? Make it make sense.

Obviously they’re worth the same. But an Israeli life is naturally worth more to Israel than a Palestinian, and a Palestinian life is (or should be) worth more to Palestine than an Israeli. If Palestinian leaders actually cared about their people, they’d support diplomatic avenues rather than constant violence.

[-]

MonsterkillWow@reddit

You just dismissed the disproportionality of it completely. Because you can't make the math work.

And Hamas offered to turn over all the hostages in exchange for a total and permanent ceasefire. Israel refused. Israel has violated the terms of their deals multiple times.

Israel is the one stealing and annexing Palestinian territory. Israel is committing ethnic cleansing. Israel wants to act like it wasn't oppressing Palestine prior to Oct 7. It has been oppressing Palestine since the first Nakba. There is no way to sanitize any of this.

[-]

Ornery_Ad_8349@reddit

When you say mass rapes and bring up infants plural, I have to assume you read the NYT article and didn't read about the controversy surrounding it. You should understand how media is used to justify action and manufacture consent.

Why would you assume that? I don’t even know what article you’re talking about. You brought it up out of nowhere. I’m talking about what I saw with my own eyes on October 7th, from videos that terrorists took and proudly shared with the world.

You just dismissed the disproportionality of it completely. Because you can't make the math work.

No, I dismissed your mistaken understanding of what proportionality means in a conflict. Once again, it doesn’t mean that each side has to balance the number of casualties or level of destruction.

And Hamas offered to turn over all the hostages in exchange for a total and permanent ceasefire. Israel refused. Israel has violated the terms of their deals multiple times.

[-]

BabylonianWeeb@reddit

Result of Qatari and Iranian propaganda

[-]

banksybruv@reddit

Strategies involving cultural anthropology were put widely into play back in the 50s by intelligence agencies around the world.

There were a few countries out ahead. One of those countries is the enemy of the west and has funded proxy wars against the west for a century. It’s tough to tell how deep anything really goes once it’s part of our collective unconscious.

[-]

Limp_Growth_5254@reddit

Chickens for KFC

[-]

TheStoicNihilist@reddit

Smooth-brained take.

[-]

BlueKilvin@reddit

The west really needs to figure out a balance between fighting against genuine racism and islamophobia, and allowing criticism against islam by not coddling islamists and extremists. You should be able to criticise an ideology and the behaviour of the people who follow it, as long as you’re not bashing every believer for the simple crime of believing.

[-]

vegeful@reddit

They should just follow what other Islamic nation do. Prohibited certain Islamic teaching and this is being regulated by mufti. Western need to know that Islamic religion is strict and discipline. Without being supervise or regulated by respectable Islamic scholar it can quickly go radical due to some people with bad intention spreading fake fatwa.

Because people are just too lazy to fact check a sunnah, hadith and fatwa.

Even Islamic nation don't like Extremist and the western embrace them like kid is crazy.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

The issue is that islam itself as an ideology is inherently extremist, and any attempt to regulate it will be seen as a direct attack on islam by both muslims and western leftists. Any government sponsored event is going to be seen as blasphemy that's going to be rejected with violence.

You also have to take into the fact that islamic countries haven't exactly found a solution to islamic extremism either. They ALL suffer from islamic extremism. Their attempts to reign in on it is to either have ruthless dictators rule with an iron fist to keep the extremists down or continuously keep giving them concessions in hopes that they wouldn't cause chaos.

[-]

vegeful@reddit

Rule with iron fist.

And its wrong as oppose to how the west handle it? Do u think we should not be strict with extremist?

[-]

I feel like it kind of is normal. To me, this seems like what you get when you take a place that doesn't have a lot of abundance, and the main resource that could bring the population wealth has been the subject of so much foreign meddling.

There are other examples around the world of outside interference turning a population towards nationalism and religious fundamentalism. Sometimes it's a direct result of persecution, where people support the group who will fight back the best. Sometimes it's because of foreign interference helping a fundamentalist/hardline group succeed in a coup.

This isn't to say that there are no valid criticisms of Islam, or all organized religions. But the age of enlightenment that the West experienced, and the liberal values that came with it, were largely resisted at the time by the church. These social advancements came in spite of the conservative structure of organized religion, and we wouldn't have had the luxury of philosophers to dream of a better way if we were the ones subjected to colonial oppression.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

To me, this seems like what you get when you take a place that doesn't have a lot of abundance, and the main resource that could bring the population wealth has been the subject of so much foreign meddling.

If this was true then it would apply to countries that aren't islamic as well, but it doesn't. For example, South America is full of natural resources and has had a long history of foreign meddling, but they don't have religious fundamentalist problem like islamic societies. You could also look at East Asia another example of this.

The backwardness in islamic societies is unique in today's world. There really isn't anything like it. People have tried to come up with commonalities between them to explain the extremism other than islam, but all the proposed theories have numerous counterexamples that make them fall short.

But the age of enlightenment that the West experienced, and the liberal values that came with it, were largely resisted at the time by the church.

This is all true, but I think it's also important to note what caused the age of enlightenment in the first place. Two of the biggest causes are thought to be the printing press and the age of exploration. New knowledge and wealth from the new world allowed new concepts, wealth, and technology to be created and all of these new idea spread quickly via the printing press. These two things made knowledge and information more accessible to a much wider array of people, and this caused people to reexamine their societies and how they worked.

In our case, the world is interconnected today way more than during the age of enlightenment. People can travel and immigrate anywhere, international investment is the norm, people can talk to anybody anywhere at any time, and the people have more access to information today than at any point in history. muslims are not barred from any of this, in fact they're active participants, which makes it baffling that islam still has such tight strangle hold on islamic societies after 80 years of the current global order.

So, when I say that this has become disturbingly common, I mean that this kind of semi-religious zealotry formerly the purview of extremists on both sides - and historically a badge of honour for the far right - has filtered down farther across the board than ever before, squeezing the life out of whatever centre we have left.

So, its not just about how extreme the issues are. Its about the extreme hatred the two sides have for one another. In the past finding common ground for compromise was part of the job for politicians. Now, its considered consorting with the enemy by the people who's votes they rely on to stay in office.

So...is this a result of Trump? IMO, Trump just dramatically sped up something that was already there and growing. Sadly.

[-]

MagnanimosDesolation@reddit

Where did this come from? Is there no chance it is based on issues. Because dealing with extremism is inherently engaging with extremism.

[-]

fartingbeagle@reddit

Well, that's absolute rubbish. Take that back ! How dare you! /s.

Now, I get you. It's like we're all in our little cars, cursing at other drivers.

[-]

OrderOfMagnitude@reddit

Now, I get you. It's like we're all in our little cars, cursing at other drivers.

The internet made discussion less pedestrian and more automotive.

That fear of getting punched in the face really is what holds us together huh

[-]

slicerprime@reddit

Yep.

Or a country of terminally cranky old farts who can't stop peeking through the blinds at the other side of the street and blaming them for the neighbourhood going to hell. Never mind that we haven't mowed our own yard in six months, and everything else is caving in because we won't go to the HOA meetings cuz "they" will be there.

[-]

Konukaame@reddit

Nuance doesn't get clicks.

SCRAMING headlines about how someone EVISCERATES someone else with a post on Xitter, now that'll get clicks. And even better, that slop is far easier to shovel out.

And people defend that as "journalism"

[-]

Jolly-Journalist8073@reddit

Yeah but this man wasn’t a critic but a hateful man.

Proof, his entire book was based on a lie

[-]

miklosokay@reddit

Please don't use completely made up words like "islamophobia". All ideologies can always be criticized. Only fascist ones try to avoid criticism by using such nonsensical labels to try and tar people pointing out problems.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

Facts

[-]

Mundane_Emu8921@reddit

Or Rushdie can stop saying that protesting against the war is somehow “antisemitism”.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

When has he said that? Post a source.

I know you won't be able to because you made this up.

[-]

AVeryBadMon@reddit

The West has ALREADY figured this out before with Christianity. That's the reason why we have liberalism.

Discriminating against people for their religion = bad = freedom of religion

Criticizing religions or ideologies = good = freedom of speech

I think its weird that people are overlooking his comments on pro palestinian activism and how a free Palestine would be like another Afghanistan:

“Is that what the progressive movements of the western left wish to create? To have another Taliban, another Ayatollah-like state, in the Middle East, right next to Israel?” said the Indian-born British-American author on a podcast run by German broadcaster Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg which was released on Thursday.

“The fact is that I think any human being right now has to be distressed by what is happening in Gaza because of the quantity of innocent death. I would just like some of the protests to mention Hamas. Because that’s where this started, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation. It’s very strange for young, progressive student politics to kind of support a fascist terrorist group.”

[-]

Capital_Tailor_7348@reddit

Is he wrong?

[-]

Mundane_Emu8921@reddit

Yeah. It speaks volumes about his worldview if that is what he is saying now.

[-]

mickey_kneecaps@reddit

He’s a victim of Islamist extremism who opposes empowering Islamist extremists. Seems pretty understandable to me.

[-]

Mundane_Emu8921@reddit

Not really. He is just some liberal who doesn’t really stand for anything.

Nobody likes liberals dude.

[-]

Maximum_Rat@reddit

Nope. He’s specifically talking about creating a state right now, which would be run by Hamas—an explicit proxy of Iran. He’s pro-Palestinian state, just against an Ayatollah-lead puppet state.

[-]

AvaMaxiPad@reddit

Hamas' connection to Iran, much like the Islamic Revolution in Iran is not divorced from a historical context of Western interference for selfish reasons at the expense of human rights violations. I do not hold any ill will towards Rushdie and I'm sure his comments are not wholly reflective of his opinions over the last 19 months and of Palestinian liberation, but it's really annoying to hear people spend disproportionately more time talking about concerns of a hypothetical islamic fundamentalism against a real ongoing genocide of Palestinians. It almost serves a similar purpose akin to cries of antisemitism to distract from the fact that we're likely well past 250,000 Palestinians killed.

Israel has killed more Palestinian children since October 7, than the total death of all Israeli civilians from palestinian armed resistance since 1948. idk if I can see that Israel is committing a genocide against Palestinians and killings indiscriminately months after the ICJ had found there to be plausible risk of genocide, i would think twice about how my words of condemnation of Hamas and activists come across.

It's also weirdly ahistorical for him to frame Hamas as this diabolically evil collective when the IDF is so much worse than Hamas. Hamas' emerged during the first intifada and has had rise to prominence as a result of the failure of secularist leadership and their ability to offer social welfare when the Palestinians have been effectively abandoned. Rushdie is smart enough to know that Hamas is connected to a ongoing Nakba, 5 years after Israeli's involvement of the genocide of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila in 1982, and I wished he used his words better.

[-]

TommyYez@reddit

but it's really annoying to hear people spend disproportionately more time talking about concerns of a hypothetical islamic fundamentalism against a real ongoing genocide of Palestinians

For Rushdie, islamic fundamentalism is not hypothetical, it's real and it has defined most of his life. He couldn't live safely because of fundamentals. Islamic fundamentalism is not hypothetical, it's real, it's in Hamas' name that genocided Israelis on October 7.

[-]

AvaMaxiPad@reddit

Conflating Hamas with Islamic Fundamentalism obscures the historical context of how Hamas emerged in Palestine and is not productive for any meaningful sustainable solution. Hamas is not Iran and clearly there have been fractures between Iran and Palestinian resistance when their own leader is assassinated in Iran.

The reality is that nations that have prided themselves for being beacons of freedom and valuing secularism, and that even some of the most prominent secularists have been among the loudest supporters and apologists of the genocide of Palestinians, and have done nothing to ensure Israel fulfills it's obligations to disband its occupation. We are trying to create moral distance from Hamas and other Islamic resistance as exceptionally evil and history shows that Hamas was founded and operated by children who directly experienced the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine and their descendants who have lived under occupation and brutal violence denied of their rights as children. I don't ever wish to glorify violence but I like Baudrillard's thinking about terrorism in "The Spirit of Terrorism". Hamas' use of violence is the inevitable outcome of the violence of domination, and any attempt to try to quantify would suggest it pales in comparison to the IDF and much of the West.

[-]

TommyYez@reddit

Conflating Hamas with Islamic Fundamentalism obscures the historical context of how Hamas emerged in Palestine and is not productive for any meaningful sustainable solution.

Hamas literally means Islamic Resistance Movement my brother. Obscuring is to ignore this, not the other way.

[-]

Maximum_Rat@reddit

Honestly I think framing everything as “who cares about this extremely relevant thing, THERE’S A GENOCIDE.” Is not just annoying, but actively harmful to the Palestinians.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, Israel is committing countless atrocities. It’s also true that Hamas is a radical death cult that oppresses its own people and would set up a brutal theocratic dictatorship if they were in power. These two things are not in conflict.

There are thousands of Palestinians protesting Hamas, RIGHT NOW, in Khan Yunis, even in front of Sinwar’s old house. And being tortured and killed for it. Why? Because only 39% of Gazans support armed resistance at all, and they want to end the war.

[-]

AvaMaxiPad@reddit

A sustained opposition to the killing of Palestinians is harmful to Palestinians??? I'm pretty sure it's the literal killing of Palestinians and destroying their land that is harmful to Palestinians....

[-]

Maximum_Rat@reddit

Yes, opposition to killing Palestinians is harming Palestinians. /s

What I'm saying is that framing legitimate critique and analysis of a complicated situation as detracting from a Genocide is harmful. For a number of reasons.

First, this war will come to an end. And if you plan on actually pressuring your government to do something that builds a sustainable future for the Palestinian people, you should have some well-thought-out opinions on what that should look like.

And objectively, a future state with Hamas in power will be worse for Palestinians than one where they're not in power. Not just because they oppress their own people, but because they're radical dipshits that are going to start another war and get more of their own people killed. You can be anti-Israel and anti-hamas simultaneously. As evidenced by MOST GAZANS.

Second, this "the genocide is more important than anything" attitude is what leads to people excusing really dumb shit that matters: Like anti-semitism, idiot protesters waving Hezbollah flags and chanting about the Houthis, campus takeovers, false and easily debunked reporting, calling Hamas freedom fighters, etc.

And that hurts Palestinians, because it makes pro-palestinian people look like radical morons. At its core, protest is optics. It's persuasion. It's getting more and more
people to join your movement, until you create a critical mass that puts pressure on elected officials. And you know who you need for that? NORMIES! The left/far left don't have the numbers or political power to do anything on their own. And all the aforementioned dumb shit ALIENATES NORMIES, and actively works against the cause.

Hell, even if you believe that Hamas are freedom fighters, Israel deserved Oct. 7, Iran are the good guys, Israel should be destroyed, and that Jews should "Go back to Poland", it is still absolutely crazy to say that. Because most people won't agree with you, and won't join your cause.

[-]

iwantsomeofthis@reddit

failure of secularist leadership and their ability to offer social welfare

i dont think at any point has Hamas ran on a platform remotely related to social welfare. they are a militant party explicitly....

would love to read otherwise

[-]

AvaMaxiPad@reddit

Hamas has been providing social services since its founding and especially in response to the obstacles of forming sustainable institutions for palestinians under occupation. This is not unique - you can easily see that this have been done by the likes of Hezbollah too. Trying to frame them as solely militant you are overlooking the fact that these groups are responding to abhorrent policy failures that often times reflect the consequences of western imperialism.

There's plenty of books and academic journals that have discussed this, including the likes of Norm Finklestein, and Sara Roy -who herself is jewish and child of holocaust survivors who lived in Gaza openly Jewish while conducting her research. You can read Sara Roy's "Hamas and Civil Society in Gaza: Engaging the Islamist Social Sector" and her other books on how Israel's occupation, blockade, and military offensives on Palestinians through the decades.

[-]

iwantsomeofthis@reddit

Your right, it was ignorant and reductive to state that they did not provide any social services. They are obviously running as a political party, so it needs to have a rounded platform, but I was more referring to the fact that from their creation Hamas has had explicitly violent intentions baked into its essence.

That being said, IMO these issues have just as much if not more to do with Islamic imperialism as it has to do with western. The crushing of minorities, of which the Jews are just one, is an ongoing issue even today. Since it’s inception and genesis there has been zero expectation or even consideration with regards to any sort of non-theocratic rule. That’s obviously massively problematic in its own right.

I’ll certainly take a look at Sara‘s work, however.

Personally, what are your thoughts for the path going forward? How do you see statehood evolving between two entities?

[-]

Maximum_Rat@reddit

They did when they ran for office in 07. It’s a big part of why they won. They presented themselves as moderating, and leaned into their past as a charitable institution. Which, didn’t turn out to be true, but…

[-]

Leather_Insect5900@reddit

Rushdie is a talentless career opportunist who made his name punching down on people. He is the originator of the “but Khamas” trope.

You want to have a good laugh, go read any of his books.

[-]

I’m not fan of the queen of England, but it’s embarrassing that someone actually edited it. The guy doesn’t know how to write.

Never read anything of his after that.

[-]

dickie_anderson99@reddit

"Punching down" on who?

I've read some of his work and he seems to be a satirist of all types of hypocrisy. Western liberal, Islamic, Christian etc. I've noticed it's mainly muslims who have this assumption that he's an evil bully who targets them, often without having read a word

[-]

Leather_Insect5900@reddit

Ok, what is one insightful thing he wrote? A passage, anything that was so awe inspiring.

[-]

dickie_anderson99@reddit

Nothing awe inspiring in my opinion, just funny little creative takedowns of certain (usually western) cultural mores. I remember a Hamlet parody he wrote that lampooned overly-verbose and pretentious literary criticism that I found funny. Another story he wrote about a man's obsession with the ruby slippers from the Wizard of Oz seemed like an imaginative critique of consumerism

Which is why the muslim hatred of him is so misguided. He's a mostly comic writer and a satirist of different cultures, but they've been lead to assume he's a violent crusader against Islam

[-]

Leather_Insect5900@reddit

I know that, having read satanic verses I didn’t get the hate. I was upset cause I had to read that crap. Like the Ayotallah made a decree and battle lines were drawn and everyone played their part in it mindlessly.

[-]

AdminsSindQoweds@reddit

Kudos for proving him right. You people were the ones who set a decree for muslims worldwide to hunt and kill him, just like he was stabbed by one of yours live on stage.

[-]

satanic_citizen@reddit

This might not have to do with Salman Rushdie's comments that are seen as supportive of Israeli talking points, not with his commentary on Islam.

Rushdie has said that the situation in Gaza was fully started by Hamas on October 7th and essentially that the genocide is Hamas' fault, opposed creating a Palestinian state, conflated antisemitism with anti-Zionism and dismissed calls for boycotting Israel.

Taking into account what the student protestors have faced over their Palestine-protests, I don't think it's surprising some students might not want a man who has basically amplified the smears to come and talk in the campus.

[-]

It chose to cooperate and actual progress happened in West Bank. Not so much in Gaza in comparison.

[-]

But the Palestinian people were the ones that voted them in

Exactly. Do you deny this happening or what? Without being voted into power, they wouldn't be where they are, regards of any indirect factor. They had the power into their hands.

This is all on the Palestinian people and has nothing to do with Israel

Exactly, If someone echoes state propaganda talking points, dismisses a Palestinian state, and blames the victims of a genocide. It’s no surprise students wouldn’t want him speaking on campus.

His stance as of recent seems to be akin to condemning Hamas

“Is that what the progressive movements of the western left wish to create? To have another Taliban, another Ayatollah-like state, in the Middle East, right next to Israel?” said the Indian-born British-American author on a podcast run by German broadcaster Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg which was released on Thursday.

“The fact is that I think any human being right now has to be distressed by what is happening in Gaza because of the quantity of innocent death. I would just like some of the protests to mention Hamas. Because that’s where this started, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation. It’s very strange for young, progressive student politics to kind of support a fascist terrorist group.”

https://www.theguardian.com/books/article/2024/may/20/salman-rushdie-says-a-palestinian-state-formed-today-would-be-taliban-like

[-]

Hatch778@reddit

I mean besides opposing a palestinian state none of those views are extreme or anything. I mean that is practically Biden and Harris positions too lol. Opposing a Palestinian state is a bit extreme.

[-]

TommyYez@reddit

He isn't opposing one, people are deliberately misquoting and misinterpreting him

[-]

TommyYez@reddit

opposed creating a Palestinian state

What a lie, why do you lie? 1 minute of Googling:

the author said that while he has “argued for a Palestinian state for most of my life – since the 1980s, probably – right now, if there was a Palestinian state, it would be run by Hamas, and that would make it a Taliban-like state, and it would be a client state of Iran”.

Claremont McKenna’s Muslim Student Association had criticized the college’s choice of Rushdie in a May 2 statement, calling it “disrespectful” and out of line with the college’s commitment to inclusion.

Eat shit. Weaponizing inclusion is and has always been a scumbag move. There’s no equity-based reason to “respect” your belief that certain things are beyond criticism or unacceptable to discuss.

Students upset with Rushdie’s upcoming address said they protested, sending emails to administrators and speaking to news outlets to make their stance known, co-president of the group, Kumail Afshar, told the Los Angeles Daily News.

A new generation of theist Karens great. Maybe the white trash will get that domestic holy war after all… HoA vs Madrassa.

The Greater Los Angeles Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations also called on the college to address students’ concerns, noting in a statement that the author “previously made troubling statements about Muslims and Palestine.”

“Troubling statements…” get fucked. Literally just as bad as the other ethnicity trying to use a global human catastrophe as a cudgel to enforce their worldview.

[-]

pingpongpiggie@reddit

All examples of Jewish terrorism. As you said you didn't know about them, heres a simple list for you to research.

[-]

TommyYez@reddit

How is the list related to the Jewish faith more exactly?

[-]

pingpongpiggie@reddit

Google them, your ignorance isn't for me to fix.

[-]

To be fair, a few Haredim here wouldn’t mind treating women like they treat them in Afghanistan

[-]

Yea, you will likely be a right winger in no time with the lack of reading you did.

[-]

Shadowpika655@reddit

It was the Muslim Student Association that raised objections to him speaking there

[-]

SaulsAll@reddit

So what I'm seeing is the US administration thinks it is perfectly fine to protest and cancel and speak out against a Jewish man. But if you protest or cowrite an op-ed criticizing Israel, you get fucking deported.

[-]

Shadowpika655@reddit

it is perfectly fine to protest and cancel and speak out against a Jewish man

When? Salman Rushdie isn't Jewish

[-]

UltraHawk_DnB@reddit

They're protesting against THIS guy of all people? Something is going seriously wrong in the united states lmao. And in california of all places, you'd think they'd be all for listening to him speak.

[-]

Shadowpika655@reddit

Tbf Muslims never liked him

[-]

JellyfishSolid2216@reddit

Despite liking his books, every interview I’ve seen with him he’s been an arrogant jerk and I would not be happy to have him as a commencement speaker.

[-]

SurfiNinja101@reddit

These comments are pretty insane. Yeah, let’s demonise 2 billion people.

[-]

empleadoEstatalBot@reddit

Salman Rushdie pulls out as Cali college commencement speaker over protest threats

Novelist Salman Rushdiebacked out of delivering a commencement speech at a California college just days before the graduation, following protests by some students on campus.

The celebrated British-Indian author, whose novel The Satanic Verses has long triggered controversy and even death threats, backed out of delivering a May 17 commencement speech at Claremont McKenna College earlier this week, the Los Angeles Daily News reported.

News that Rushdie, 77, would no longer deliver the address was shared across the campus in an email from Claremont McKenna President Hiram Chodosh.

“I write with news that Sir Salman Rushdie notified us yesterday of his decision to withdraw as our keynote commencement speaker,” he wrote.

“This decision was his alone and completely beyond our control,” Chodosh added. “We remain steadfast in our commitment to Sir Salman’s visit to CMC and have extended an open invitation to him to speak on our campus in the future.”

Novelist Salman Rushdie backed out of giving a commencement address to a California college.

Novelist Salman Rushdie backed out of giving a commencement address to a California college. (AP)

Claremont McKenna’s Muslim Student Association had criticized the college’s choice of Rushdie in a May 2 statement, calling it “disrespectful” and out of line with the college’s commitment to inclusion.

Rushdie’s famous 1988 novel has triggered controversy since it was published for its depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. One year after the novel’s publication, Iran’s spiritual leader at the time, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa on the author — prompting him to spend years in hiding.

The author has also made headlines in recent years after he was stabbed 15 times on stage while preparing to deliver a lecture in western New York. The horrifying incident caused him to lose sight in one eye, his agent said.

His attacker, Hadi Matar, was convicted in February of trying to kill the Booker Prize-winning novelist. Matar is set to be sentenced on May 16,according to The Guardian.

Students upset with Rushdie’s upcoming address said they protested, sending emails to administrators and speaking to news outlets to make their stance known, co-president of the group, Kumail Afshar, told the Los Angeles Daily News.

The Greater Los Angeles Area office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations also called on the college to address students’ concerns, noting in a statement that the author “previously made troubling statements about Muslims and Palestine.”

Rushdie did not appear to address the criticism when withdrawing as the commencement speaker.

Dr. Richard Heinzl, founder of Doctors Without Borders Canada, will now deliver Saturday’s keynote address, according to Chodosh’s letter.

Maintainer | Creator | Source Code
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot

[-]

coverageanalysisbot@reddit

Hi empleadoEstatalBot,

We've found 10 sources (so far) that are covering this story including:

The Independent (Leans Left): "Salman Rushdie pulls out as Cali college commencement speaker over protest threats"
Pasadena Star News (Center): "Salman Rushdie pulls out as Claremont McKenna College graduation speaker"
OC Register (Leans Right): "Salman Rushdie pulls out as Claremont McKenna College graduation speaker"

Of all the sources reporting on this story, 25% are right-leaning, 25% are left-leaning, and 50% are in the center. Read the full coverage analysis and compare how 10+ sources from across the political spectrum are covering this story.

I’m a bot. Read here to learn how it works or message us with any feedback so we can improve the bot for you.