anarkisses:eltigrechico:sheepdippedmax:unlimited-shitpost-works:the-armed-utahn:unlimited-shitpost-w
anarkisses:eltigrechico:sheepdippedmax:unlimited-shitpost-works:the-armed-utahn:unlimited-shitpost-works:762nukem:unlimited-shitpost-works:emperilysm:rossjm:the oath says “I’m not going to boycott Israel”, not “I support Israel”I know it’s splitting hairs, but that’s a editorialized headlinelike, you aren’t pro-Wal-mart, just because you aren’t actively boycotting Wal-martThat’s not any better.I didn’t say it was “better”, just that the headline is a dishonest representation of what is actually happening.If newspapers ran “Military turns fire hoses on protesters’ cause” as a headline and what actually happened was protesters had stared a fire in an attempt to burn down Notre Dame,Paris firefighters are part of the army in Francethe protesters’ cause was burning down Notre Damethe firefighters tried to put the fire out with fire hosesMaybe you can argue that the headline is representative of the facts, but it’s loaded with partisan bullshit, and does not effectively communicate what took place. It’s intentionally misrepresenting the facts. While the case here is not so blatant and extreme, I’m criticizing the headline. The headline doesn’t line up with the facts in the article. interesting perspective shift in this article, too. SPECIFIC relevant excerpt from article:(Greenwald’s headline is even more misleading, and demagogic in a way that undoubtedly appeals to anti-Semites, claiming that Ms. Amawi was required to sign a “pro-Israel oath.”) I don’t support the Israel government’s actions. I also don’t support hack journalism.An oath that says “I will not boycot Israel” sounds pretty “pro Israel” to me. Especially when teachers aren’t asked not to boycot any other countries. What’s the point of you splitting hairs like this? You knowSome people literally thought nitpicking the wording was an affective camaflouge for tyranny lmao -- source link