166

TheIntercept.com

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Dienervent@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago

I was going to say that there's a difference between opposing Israel and supporting a massacre. But if what the article say is true, the guy never outright supported Hamas' actions. It looks like the worst you can accuse him of is to sweep it under the rug by not mentioning it.

In the current climate and context, it is an absolute shitbag move on his part for doing that. If you're going to condemn one side doing atrocities, you have to condemn the other as well in order to not be a shitbag in my book.

I would generally think that this should still not be sufficient cause to fire an employee in general (or rescind an offer), unless your reputation and political alignement is inherent to your job function.

I don't know enough about how the law firms work to know for sure if this is the case here. But I've seen many stories of law firms letting go of low level lawyers due to them failing to maintain a certain level or reputation. Either way it's not specific to Israel.

[-] xdr@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago

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

In a court of law, when an attorney goes to plead their case, do they have to plead their case or both sides equally?

What about their opponents? Does netanyahu or bush or any pro Israel supporter who condemns only hamas for "massacre" also say that Israel commits war crimes by doing collective punishment or by using white phosphorus or killing thousands of babies in the last week alone ?

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?

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 2 points 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 0 points 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
166 points (84.3% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3778 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS