• Blackbeard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why? Why should this person have said something about both sides?

    Bobby punches Danny

    Danny punches Bobby in response

    Teacher scolds Danny in front of entire class

    Danny visibly upset

    Can you really not understand why failing to address both sides of a conflict might be seen as problematic to an outside observer, and as a personal attack by one group or another?

    Note: I’m not assigning first cause blame to one party or another in the Israel-Gaza case, just to be clear.

    Why should a job offer be affected by your persnla views unless you say you only hire people who have shared values and only those shared values ? Isn’t… That … discrimination?

    A law firm has a right to refuse to hire an actual neo-Nazi, too. They can associate with or disassociate with anyone they want. You’re torturing the definition of “discrimination” to the point where it’s lost all utility in this conversation.

    • xdr@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You are running in circles. I am saying why isn’t pro Israel lobby saying something about the POV of Palestine ? Why does it have to be only pro Palestine people who have to recognize the other side?

      • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, you quite literally said: “Why? Why should this person have said something about both sides?”

        I’m not engaging your whataboutism. I’m specifically responding to the exact words you used. This person should have been more sensitive to the broader context than they were, as the president of the university’s Student Bar Association and a person with a considerable audience. In the event of a violent conflict it’s poor taste to come out and lambast the actions of one party but sidestep or ignore the actions of the other.

        I didn’t say anything about any “lobby”, or the fact that one person should be instructed to do something and the other given a pass.

        Go back and read my comment again, because you clearly didn’t get it the first time.