NewDayRocks

Multiple horror stories is the weakest data set you can come up with.

How many tourists do you think come through the US in a single day? What percentage does "multiple" cases make up?

Yes, it is how its always worked that if you go through immigration and you get flagged for something suspicious you get detained for further questioning. Did you expect the immigration officer to let you through if you failed the initial set of questions like "where will you be staying for the duration of your trip? "

Let me throw this back at you for a sec. How exactly do you are the Trump administration organizing this? Did they suddenly hire a bunch of new immigration officers? Among the hiring and spending freeze and stupid Doge stuff, where did these new officers come from? Do the officers now have some detained quota they need to meet each day? Are all TSA secretly MAGA waiting for the chance to deny tourists?

Sometimes the simplest explanation is right in front of you. The girls were too truthful on their form and that for them flagged and detained. You need to account for where you will be while in the US ( or most countries honestly). Otherwise it is assumed you might do something like try to work and stay long term beyond your visa. When their answers didn't add up they got sent home.

If you don't believe this go ahead and try and travel to any country and tell them you don't have a place to stay yet, don't know when you will leave exactly, but you'll just wing it. See if that flies.

This really doesn't seem like something the administration has a hand in.

When you travel internationally and land the first thing that happens is you fill out a slip go through immigration. The slip asks how long you are staying and where your are staying among other things.

Not accounting for your accommodations for the full duration of your trip will get you flagged for more questions. If the immigration officer things you are going to work during your stay they will deny you because it's illegal on a tourist visa.

What the girls should have done was just say they were staying at the hotel for the whole time (although 5 weeks at a hotel is probably also a red flag)

Why is this a shit post? This is like straight out of Silicon Valley.

I respect that name

We are not accounting for the percentage of people who read it but are still cool with forfeiting their soul.

And let's be real, it's ok to be emotional and want attention. That's human.

But I'm sure this can be done, and is probably easier to accomplish by not being a nazi, which is the real issue here.

Why would the father be in question if it was through IDF?

See, I consider microwave food to be unhealthy and overall bad for you. Which is why I'd rather skip the meal and opt for multiple seconds of junk food to satisfy my hunger.

This is her objection.

No it's not. That is what the article says, yes. That is not what the source interview (which i pointed you to, twice) says.

She did not mention anything about working with IDF soldiers in the entire interview. Let me repeat that to you for the 1000th time. She just plains never talks about this.

That quote you keep using is not her objection to working with IDF soldiers. It is her complaint that pro-Palestine supporters are being punished for their beliefs, but a professor can work with the IDF for 6 months, and come back to work without any consequences. She is saying the treatment is unequal. Once again, she is not objecting to working with this professor if she had to. She is objecting to the unequal treatment of pro-Palestinian vs pro-Israel supporters.

My claim at the very top of this post is that the title is wrong. Turns out I was right in every possible way. Not only was the title wrong, but so is the article.

I didn't attack the student. I didn't give an opinion on her. I am attacking the author and The Guardian for being misleading.

I'd ask you to reflect and ask yourself, what would it take to change your mind, how much proof you would need before you accept valid criticism of the author...

but we both know won't.

Faced with facts you just go straight to the name calling.

She's not objecting to him working or even hypothetically working with him. She objects to the unequal treatment of pro-Palestine supports vs pro-Israel supporters. It's clear in the interview.

Well thanks for your time. I'm sorry and I hope your life goes better.

By the way, I went ahead and looked up the interview on YouTube. It is on Democracy Now's channel and is from 11 months ago with the title Atlanta Police Violently Arrest Emory Students. Her interview starts at the 8:50 mark.

All she did was point out the hypocrisy of how pro-Palestine student/faculty vs how pro-Israel half were treated.

SHE NEVER ONCE MENTIONS WORKING WITH OR OBJECTING TO WORKING WITH IDF SOLDIERS

Are you finally ready to accept what I have been saying all along? that the title to your article is BS, intentionally deceptive, and clickbait?

You are not being reasonable or arguing in good faith if you have to lie about the subject to prove your point. I don't need a language lesson from someone who does not have the capability to even entertain that their reading is wrong or to try to see the point the other side is making

You are now lying about the article. She objected because she was being put in a position where she could have to work with that professor in medical school. This objection is why she was suspended

I am lying about the article by.. directly quoting the reason for the suspension written in the article. The objection is not why she was suspended. The singling out of a professor is why. I quoted the specific reason she was suspended.

You quoted the part of the article where the author deliberately muddles the reason so that it can be viewed like the school suspended her for her objection.

It is the school who is in the wrong. You are blatantly lying about their reframing.

I think the school IS wrong, but again you are accusing me of lying when I quoted the exact part of the article that states why she was suspended.

BUT she was not suspended because she refused to work with or for the IDF. That is a bs title.

I stand by this even if you add the word "objected" to it. Because thats not why she was suspended. No matter how many times you try to assert this.

I explain how I read the title, how many people would read that title. If you state that you object to being forced to work with IDF soldiers in the title, one would assume the story involves some detail of a situation where you were forced to work with IDF soldiers. When it turns out this was just a made up hypothetical, it is not a lie to point that out and call it BS.

IDF soldiers can come and work in America. And if they work in your medical school, you could have to work with them.

If you need to invent this narrative to make your point, your point fails to stand on its own.

You're even lying about a fictional example I gave you. In that example I found a rock in my soup. Plain and simple. There's a bowl on the table full of soup and in that soup I have identified a rock. If I attempt to eat that soup as is there is a chance I will eat a rock. The food inspector is shutting that place down. No one is taking you seriously.

The rock in this example is "being forced to work with IDF soldiers". There is no rock in the soup, just something that resembles one in the restaurant. There is not even a second visible rock. No one has forced you to eat rocks.

This is what it sounds like when you have a situation where the medical student objects to working with IDF soldiers when we have no proof she is being put in that position.

And by the way, I have not watched the interview and I guess you have not either. We don't actually know if it is true that she has stated that "objects to working with IDF soldiers".

That professor, she continued, “participated in aiding and abetting a genocide, in aiding and abetting the destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza and the murder of over 400 healthcare workers, and is now back at Emory so-called ‘teaching’ medical students and residents how to take care of patients”.

It's possible that it could just be the author's words summarizing the above as "objecting to working with IDF soldiers"

I'm ignoring the rest of your rant as it's just attacking me because I'm not pro-Palestinian enough for you. Apparently agreeing that the school is in the wrong is somehow still pro-genocide. Maybe if you can accept the fact that blindly accepting every content just because it paints Palestinians in a good light or Israel in a bad light is not a mindset, we can finally have a real conversation.

Let me put it to you this way. See if you can answer these questions.

• Do you believe this author to have a pro-israel or pro-palestine bias? I am not asking about her objectivity. You can have a bias but still be an objective journalist. I have no reason to believe she is not at least trying to maintain objectivity.
• If there existed other IDF soldiers at this university, do you think the author would have mentioned it in the article or left it out?
• If there was verifiable details that the student was put in a position to work with IDF soldiers, do you think the author would have mentioned it in the article or left it out?

The end result is the author trying to make you believe that a university suspended a student for objecting to a hypothetical nonexistant situation that is not currently happening. When in reality, the stated reason for her suspension is also in the article and different from what the title is suggesting. That's misinformation. It's misinformation regardless of whether it is pro-Israel or pro-Palestine.

I pointed this out and people agree with me. If this view was pro-genocide, you think the people in Lemmy would vote it to the top?