this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
30 points (58.7% liked)
World News
31540 readers
500 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They asked him for like 7 minutes why he's denying them entrance and if it had anything to do with their Hijiabs.
Other questions were being answered but not that one.
There's a shorter 2 minute version as well here https://twitter.com/npl_palestine/status/1752371248473186670
Not answering an accusation instead of denying it implicitly says "yes".
hey should have directly said "no it's not because of your Hijabs" and even better, actually tell them why they were denied entrance
No, come on that's just not true. You know for a fact that if anyone said "no it's not because of your hijabs," they would have been called a liar and then that would have been the clip on the news. PR 101 teaches don't repeat the question and don't accept the premise. There's no answer they can give to that question that ends the interaction and makes the women stop filming and go home.
The answer to their question was the statement the campaign put out. That's the right move, the smart move. Let people with experience who actually speak for the campaign take the time to issue a written, edited, vetted statement that is factual and without emotion.
Edit to add, their subtle homophobia also undercuts their credibility. Suggesting he's being racist because he's a "member of the LGBTQ community" is odious and belies their own bigotry. It makes me doubt their even Democrats.
Yes there is a good response. That would be "you have disrupted previous events". That would not be controversial.
They should have not given them a wristband in the first place if they were barred. That is the point where the Democrats already screwed up. Not giving a reason at the door is even more screwed up and if it's true that they were the only women with Hijabs in the crowd then the implication of barring them for their religion is not unfounded.
They only got a reason after the video went viral which is the part that can't be ignored.
I believe she's referencing that the LGBTQ community was supposed to be inclusive. Her statement at 0:36 is "You're part of the LGBT community too right... and you're still gonna kick us out?" The tone seems disappointed, not accusatory
You'd be playing right into their game, fueling the drama.
"Oh, so this isn't a democracy? I don't have the freedom to speak? Because I thought this was America! My grandfather fought in WWII on the beaches of Normandy, but because I'm an islamic woman, I don't get the same rights, is that what you're saying?"
You see it in the video. These women jump immediately to accusing him of racism, and he shuts off because he's smarter than you. You'd be there trying to reason with instigators who know full well why their group was denied entry and who are looking to make a scene, make a video, and make you look bad. Whatever you say would be twisted, edited down, and shared on twitter and Fox News to make your party look bad.
Why is that detail so important to you? Of course they didn't get an explanation at the time, because they were making accusations to create a scene. They had been refused entry, and I'll bet if they had been reasonable in their request for an explanation, they would have gotten it. Turning on the camera and accusing people of racism is not reasonable. Of course the campaign didn't issue a statement before the video went viral, because there would be no need to make a public statement to let the people involved know what happened. You think they release statements about every disruptive attendee they turn away on the off chance that the attendees made a video accusing someone of racism?
For that matter, we don't know that the group wasn't privately given an explanation before the statement. These two women might not have gotten the memo, but there were more people involved.
I believe you're giving these people too much deference. First, the paradox of tolerance is not a sincere argument, because anyone who values inclusivity understands that it is not absolute. Anyone who uses that argument is already suspect, because they are either arguing in bad faith, or they are hoping to abuse the values of the tolerant to be intolerant.
And why is she assuming he's a member of the LGBTQ community? Is that public information? Does he want everyone on twitter to know his sexual orientation? Outing a member of the community on video is a not-so-subtle form of harassment. There's no excuse for that behavior, just like there's no excuse for baseless accusations of racism.
The people who made this video are the bad people in this video. They are villains, liars, and traitors to rhe cause they claim to support.
And your defense of them has exceeded reasonable discussion. You've ignored the reasonable questions I have asked you, and repeated their absurd talking points even after acknowledging that they are baseless. If you have any confusion, read my comments again. They were as clear as I can possibly make them.
Good day.
Because if the video didn't go viral they would have never even gotten a reason. Your arguments make no sense.