• T00l_shed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    He provided context as to why that piece would be performed. I don’t think he went over the top at all.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza? Do you support the use of this platform because you agree with the position or because you believe he should be able to voice whatever position he wants? Would you be in support if his opinions were on White nationalism?

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        “I feel his comments were appropriate”

        “Would you feel the same if they were different comments?”

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re getting closer to where I was going:

          “I feel his comments were appropriate”

          “How different would his comments have to be to be not appropriate?”

          This isn’t a binary state, its a scale. I was asking questions of scale.

      • T00l_shed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, he is providing factual context about a situation, denouncing violence. Your examples aren’t comparable.

      • takenaps@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible. Your questions detract from that & minimize the problems to a matter of personal opinion

        • xhrit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible.

          The violence began before israel even existed. Israel is not responsible for violence against jews.

            • xhrit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Hamas issues press passes to its military spotters. The transmission of military intel makes people valid targets under the laws of war. That is a valid excuse for bombing journalists.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible. Your questions detract from that & minimize the problems to a matter of personal opinion

          Isn’t that what I said in the very first line of my post you’re replying to? I’ll quote myself:

          “Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza?”

      • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Denouncing violence is very different than supporting or inciting violence, fwiw.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Denouncing violence is very different than supporting or inciting violence, fwiw.

          I completely agree. You can see that in the first question I asked in that post: "Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza? "

          The followup questions were probing if that poster was simply against violence or simply a pure free speech advocate.