The magazine also said in its mail that while the organisation encourages free expression and constructive political debate, it has a zero tolerance policy towards hate speech.
So she’s not allowed to express solidarity with the Palestinian victims of Israeli oppression without also mentioning the Israeli victims of Hamas terrorism?
Are people not allowed to express solidarity with Israeli victims without also mentioning Palestinian victims either?
Massacring hundreds of people at a music festival isn’t fighting for liberation. Quite the contrary. Apart from in itself being an unforgivable atrocity, it’s just the excuse the IDF occupying force needed to give up any pretense of restraint when massacring innocent Palestinians.
If there’s been any constant in the conflict it is that every time Hamas or other terrorists pretending to be protectors of Palestine attack, the IDF kills more Palestinians and exactly zero freedom from oppression is achieved.
Apart from being inherently heinous, violence begets violence, especially when one party has the second most advanced military in the world, the unlimited support of the most advanced military in the world and a fascist government with no compunctions against genocide.
Since you seem utterly unable to understand something so obvious, we’re done here.
It might be a fact that many people see it that way, but that would just mean that many people are wrong. Many people believe all sorts of ridiculous lies and distortions of reality.
I have laid out compelling arguments based on the real world context of what’s happening, what her words are most likely to mean given that context, even explained which part was misunderstood and what the most rational explanation for that was.
I’ve done part or all of that at least a handful of times in replies throughout the comments of this post. I have also conceded that it might have been an ill-advised way of saying things because a public figure being less than 100% clear about a statement regarding anything contentious can and most often WILL open the door to misinterpretations, whether honest or wilfully manipulative.
That’s as close to “you are wrong, I am right” as a fiberglass canoe is to a shoddily made origami boat.
So she’s not allowed to express solidarity with the Palestinian victims of Israeli oppression without also mentioning the Israeli victims of Hamas terrorism?
Are people not allowed to express solidarity with Israeli victims without also mentioning Palestinian victims either?
deleted by creator
Massacring hundreds of people at a music festival isn’t fighting for liberation. Quite the contrary. Apart from in itself being an unforgivable atrocity, it’s just the excuse the IDF occupying force needed to give up any pretense of restraint when massacring innocent Palestinians.
deleted by creator
If there’s been any constant in the conflict it is that every time Hamas or other terrorists pretending to be protectors of Palestine attack, the IDF kills more Palestinians and exactly zero freedom from oppression is achieved.
Something that can ACTUALLY work is BDS
deleted by creator
Apart from being inherently heinous, violence begets violence, especially when one party has the second most advanced military in the world, the unlimited support of the most advanced military in the world and a fascist government with no compunctions against genocide.
Since you seem utterly unable to understand something so obvious, we’re done here.
deleted by creator
Just fuck off, weird terrorism fan
Did I ever mentionned “not allowed”? I said mentionning killer’s family on a victim’s funeral is A LITTLE un-diplomatic sir
Except that’s not in any way close to analogous to the situation.
well, that’s totally how many people see it. That’s a fact.
It might be a fact that many people see it that way, but that would just mean that many people are wrong. Many people believe all sorts of ridiculous lies and distortions of reality.
¯_(ツ)_/¯ You don’t provide compelling arguments neither, you just say “You are wrong, I am right”
I only point out that it was pretty bold tweet given the circumstances
I have laid out compelling arguments based on the real world context of what’s happening, what her words are most likely to mean given that context, even explained which part was misunderstood and what the most rational explanation for that was.
I’ve done part or all of that at least a handful of times in replies throughout the comments of this post. I have also conceded that it might have been an ill-advised way of saying things because a public figure being less than 100% clear about a statement regarding anything contentious can and most often WILL open the door to misinterpretations, whether honest or wilfully manipulative.
That’s as close to “you are wrong, I am right” as a fiberglass canoe is to a shoddily made origami boat.
Except in this instance the killer’s family is tied up in the corner of the funeral home actively being murdered by the victim’s uncle