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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.