Matt Taibbi

Rank 33 of 47
|
Score -35
5/5/2024, 6:53:09 PM
X
In reply to:
Gilles Jaunes Deleuze
@CarolinaDellaV3
·
498d
@mtaibbi Israel is holding thousands of Palestinians hostage without charge, MT...not too hard to research that
Matt Taibbi
@mtaibbi
·
498d
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
·
498d
@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 '@CarolinaDellaV3 Fine. So it’s okay for the other side to do it?' is part of a larger conversation on Twitter regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This specific reply is addressing a previous comment about Israel's actions and poses a rhetorical question about the actions of the opposing side. The statement is part of a public discourse as it engages in a discussion about a significant international conflict and the ethical considerations surrounding the actions of the involved parties.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement indirectly challenges the actions of both sides in the conflict, suggesting a desire to avoid harm by questioning the justification of such actions. However, it does not directly promote harm. [+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 dignity of others by not engaging in personal attacks or derogatory language. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    While the statement does not explicitly promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, it does invoke a consideration of fairness and ethical consistency, which could indirectly contribute to a deeper understanding of the conflict.
  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 by questioning the actions of both parties in the conflict, which could be seen as an attempt to foster a more balanced view. However, it could be more constructive by providing more context or suggesting alternatives rather than just posing a rhetorical question. [+1]