More than a thousand Harvard students walked out of their commencement ceremony yesterday to support 13 undergraduates who were barred from graduating after they participated in the Gaza solidarity encampment in Harvard Yard. Asmer Safi, one of the 13 pro-Palestinian student protesters barred from graduating, says that while his future has been thrown into uncertainty while he is on probation, he has no regrets about standing up for Palestinian rights. “This is an ethical stance that we’re taking,” Safi says. We also hear from history professor Alison Frank Johnson, one of over 100 faculty members who voted to confer degrees on the 13 seniors, who describes Harvard’s punishment of them as an “egregious departure from past precedent,” as was the board’s subsequent overruling of faculty. “We hoped then that the Corporation, as it has always done in the past, would accept our recommendations for degree recipients and allow the 13 to graduate, which they chose not to do.”
More than a thousand Harvard students walked out of their commencement ceremony yesterday to support 13 undergraduates who were barred from graduating after they participated in the Gaza solidarity encampment in Harvard Yard.
Asmer Safi, one of the 13 pro-Palestinian student protesters barred from graduating, says that while his future has been thrown into uncertainty while he is on probation, he has no regrets about standing up for Palestinian rights.
That’s not quite virtue signaling. He isn’t proclaiming support of a good cause or expressing some distinct moral correctness, he is condemning a single perspective and common response in these posts. After all, we can infer his stance, though he makes no claim towards his beliefs, all we know is what he is against. It’s a petty distinction, though I feel it helps move it away from virtue signaling.
But no, few things are inherently bad. Our interpretation and our meaning(s) behind our words or actions make them that way. Which is why people tend to fall heavily on one side of a discussion or another.
edit: I see I am getting some downvotes. I am happy to take criticism on this take. No easier way to learn than to challenge oneself to listen and then do.
I’m trying to highlight the distinction between Biden and Trump options. There are many on social media that are proclaiming they will not vote for Biden because he is “promoting genocide”. Despite the fact that every POTUS in the last 50 years has had this exact policy (supporting and providing weaponry to Israel). Despite the fact that Trump is actively in favor of genocide and fascism. The lesser of 2 evils is also known as “the better choice.”
Personally I think it’s probably best for Americans to vote Biden, since that will give the left some more time to organize, but I get that it’s just too much for some to swallow. I’m just glad I have actual options in my country.
That’s not what I was asking about, what did you hope to accomplish? Are you actually trying to convince people or did you just think you’d feel better if you did?
Nobody here said anything about biden, you’re just insulting people unprompted.
Edit: What exactly are you trying to accomplish by posting this?
It is related. Moreover, can’t blame him for preemptively calling out the typical bullshit and virtue signaling we’ve been seeing.
Do you consider virtue signaling to be inherently bad? Because I’m pretty sure his comment also qualifies as such.
That’s not quite virtue signaling. He isn’t proclaiming support of a good cause or expressing some distinct moral correctness, he is condemning a single perspective and common response in these posts. After all, we can infer his stance, though he makes no claim towards his beliefs, all we know is what he is against. It’s a petty distinction, though I feel it helps move it away from virtue signaling.
But no, few things are inherently bad. Our interpretation and our meaning(s) behind our words or actions make them that way. Which is why people tend to fall heavily on one side of a discussion or another.
edit: I see I am getting some downvotes. I am happy to take criticism on this take. No easier way to learn than to challenge oneself to listen and then do.
I’m trying to highlight the distinction between Biden and Trump options. There are many on social media that are proclaiming they will not vote for Biden because he is “promoting genocide”. Despite the fact that every POTUS in the last 50 years has had this exact policy (supporting and providing weaponry to Israel). Despite the fact that Trump is actively in favor of genocide and fascism. The lesser of 2 evils is also known as “the better choice.”
To what end are you trying to highlight that distinction though? What is the goal or motivation for writing that?
The lesser of two evils is also known as “the better choice”.
Unlike some paying lip service about “red lines”, my promises are real. My red line is genocide.
You can vote for your varying levels of evil, I will not vote for genocide.
Personally I think it’s probably best for Americans to vote Biden, since that will give the left some more time to organize, but I get that it’s just too much for some to swallow. I’m just glad I have actual options in my country.
It’s America, you don’t get the choice to vote against genocide.
Just like you don’t get the choice to vote against capitalism.
Democracy.
If yout live in a swing state, maybe. Those of us in solid states can vote however we like as our votes don’t matter anyway
Great system we have
That’s not what I was asking about, what did you hope to accomplish? Are you actually trying to convince people or did you just think you’d feel better if you did?