politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Cool .freedom and democracy. As long as you don't oppose Israel. Then its all hands on deck to fuck you up and still you are treated as a criminal but hey, it's a free world unlike some countries who discriminate against women and lgbtq
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.
Here's what the Student Bar Association's (former) President wrote:
It's worse than that. He said all of the bloodshed was Israel's fault, and went on to issue several apt condemnations of Israel. He very pointedly did not condemn Hamas for the attack.
He blamed the context of how we got to the murders instead of the actual murderers. It was never swept under the rug.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Because failing to acknowledge the major differing and valid viewpoints in a complex situation contributes to echo chambers and radicalization which can ultimately lead to or contribute to political disfunction, civil war, war and deaths.
Because of the several layers of indirections I think it's completely unreasonable to expect people to live up to the expectation of acknowledging differing valid viewpoints, but people who fail to do so are still engaging in shitbaggery, in my opinion, because they contribute to the deterioration of the political discourse which can have catastrophic consequences.
As I said I generally think that engaging in shitbaggery in political discourse shouldn't harm your job /career. Unless your job relies heavily on your reputation, which lawfirms seem to weirdly believe is the case for lawyers. I personally don't get it, a lawyer's argument should always be just as a valid regardless of which lawyer makes the argument, but I know very little about law practice.
This reads like a chatgpt response.
This reads like a middle schooler's response.