Matt Taibbi

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score -20
5/5/2024, 3:59:09 PM
X
In reply to:
Lyndon's Johnson
@BlackCopWI
·
499d
@mtaibbi Should colonialism be tolerated if it occurred in 1948? How far back are we going to go to condemn colonialism? If China does it in Africa next year will we condemn it?
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
499d
It’s anything but complex? One side mass-bombs civilians and the other keeps hostages and killed civilians in a terror act. Each time I ask about Palestinian demands I get different answers. At Rutgers protesters shouted “We don’t want two state, we want ‘48.” Is that right?
Regal the Proletarian
@jelleesnacks
·
499d
@mtaibbi I mean, you aren't required to. But the situation is anything but complex, and the notion that this conflict would be seen in the future as somehow confusing or difficult, or that those who remained silent should be viewed favorably, is simply baffling.

The statement '@BlackCopWI So… Israel should just give up their state?' is part of a larger conversation on Twitter that addresses the complex issue of colonialism, statehood, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This conversation involves multiple users and spans various aspects of historical and contemporary geopolitical issues. The specific statement in question directly engages with the topic of Israel's statehood in the context of a debate about colonialism and its modern implications, making it a part of public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm but could be seen as simplifying a complex issue, potentially leading to misunderstanding.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others and does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not actively promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it simplifies a complex geopolitical issue which might polarize or inflame opinions rather than fostering understanding. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in a form of dialogue but could be seen as confrontational rather than constructive, as it challenges the position of another user in a potentially provocative way.
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement uses its influence to engage in a significant societal debate, contributing to the discourse on a contentious issue. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement upholds the principles of free speech by participating in a public debate, though it could be more responsible in promoting a more nuanced discussion. [+1]