Matt Taibbi

Rank 32 of 47
|
Score -20
5/5/2024, 3:59:52 PM
X
In reply to:
Gman
@Gman_1986
·
499d
@mtaibbi Stop the killing of thousands of innocent civilians.

How complicated is that, @mtaibbi ??
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 '@Gman_1986 Does that go for holding hostages also?' is part of a larger conversation on Twitter addressing the complex issue of conflict involving civilian casualties, hostage situations, and political demands. The statement is a direct response to a call to stop the killing of innocent civilians, questioning the consistency of moral judgments in conflict scenarios. This qualifies as public discourse as it engages in a substantive discussion about the ethics and actions in a geopolitical conflict, contributing to civic dialogue on an important public issue.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement indirectly promotes harm reduction by questioning the consistency of moral judgments in conflict scenarios, aligning with the principle of doing no harm with words. [+1]
  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, as it 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.
    By questioning the consistency of actions in conflict scenarios, the statement indirectly promotes understanding and empathy, although it could be more explicit in fostering compassion. [+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 constructive criticism by challenging the views presented, without resorting to personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]