Okay, I’m gonna say something very controversial, and the mods might not like it, but hear me out:
Adolf Hitler deserved to die. If I had a gun and he was alive standing in front of me, I would have aimed the gun to his head, and repeatedly pull the trigger until I ran out of ammo, then reload, and keep shooting at him until I can confirm that he is indeed dead.
DEATH, DEATH TO ADOLF HITLER!
Tell me, is this “advocacy of violence”?
Nooo poor Hitler :(
I am very interested in this pending response.
I would say it is slightly. But only because of the part where you would keep shooting after reloading.
“From the river to the sea, Inshallah one day Palestine will be free!” Yeah what a vicious chant.
C.E.A.R.T.A. and Death Death to the IDF!
When did IDF become a protected minority group? Is saying “Death to Nazis” not allowed in the UK?
I’ll get downvoted for this but what im about to say is an undeniable fact. Chanting death for anyone is inciting violence and murder, UK governments and police can’t be allowing that, especially as there is no death penalty.
Yes I know, the IDF incite violence and murder, but does that make it OK to do in UK?
Did they say “IDF” or “IDF members/staff”? IDF isn’t a person, so maybe it’s more of a metaphorical death, as in dismantle the IDF.
I dunno.
I’ve thought about this, a metaphorical death/end to the IDF chant is completely acceptable. I guess it’s all down to intent
the artist chose “death” because it rhymes with IDF. so I wonder if it’s just one of those things
What a shitty article. It’s so heavily biased in favor of genocide.
There was a really interesting podcast on the AP style and its entrenched biases - but only available to subscribers:
https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/bonus-who-writes-the-rules-of-news/
An article on the same topic:
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/how-the-ap-stylebook-warps-reality-to-serve-power
What did you want them to say? It’s not an opinion piece.
They should be more neutral in a non-opinion piece. They quote a lot more people saying pro-genocide things than they quote people saying anti-genocide things. They quoted pro-genocide politicians and pro-genocide BBC staff. They did not give the musicians any opportunity to respond to the article.
Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza has inflamed tensions around the world, triggering pro-Palestinian protests in many capitals and on college campuses. Israel and some supporters have described the protests as antisemitic, while critics say Israel uses such descriptions to silence opponents
Let’s consider the two positions mentioned in this paragraph:
-
Israel should stop committing genocide
-
Israel should continue committing genocide, and position 1 is antisemitic
The first position is described as “pro-Palestinian”, as if these protesters support the Palestinian military (Hamas) and want them to win. This is incorrect. These people mostly just want the genocide to end.
The second position is a shitty opinion, but also contains an overt falsehood. It’s an objective fact that it’s false, and that fact should be reported in the story, but it isn’t.
Also I think what is really shitty is that outlets report on a genocide in this matter. But this article was about the response to Bob Vylan. I think both of us are angry about how anything related to the genocide has to be reported as the Israel Palestine conflict unless you want to receive an extremely negative response to your reporting.
Hell if we want to be all intellectual we can brand this as another symptom of the global capitalist system. AP can’t afford to call this a genocide. No news/corporation is brave enough to stand up to the genocide because it’s gonna hurt their bottom line.
I agree that they didn’t use enough anti-genocide supporters, their sources were one sided.
But your second critique would require a complete rewrite and would change the article completely.
I agree that pro vs anti genocide is the better way to approach the conflict, however, for reporting purposes, it makes more sense to call it an Israel vs Palestine conflict. Calling it pro vs anti genocide means that you have taken the position of calling the conflict a genocide (which I agree with, it is genocide). But as the article states, Israel does not see this as a genocide and neither do a lot of governments.
AP describes the conflict as a war of Israel against Hamas. Not a war of Israel against Palestine. This could be interpreted as 1) diminishing the genocide and 2) reporting on one specific facet of the conflict ie Israel against Hamas forces, which it could be argued, is a different conflict than Israel against the Palestinian people. This also means that by the articles definitions, Palestinian supporters are different than Hamas supporters.
Their second position does not say one side is correct and one side is wrong. They say
Israel and some supporters have described the protests as antisemitic
Israel and their supporters, not the AP describe protests as antisemitic.
critics say Israel uses such descriptions to silence opponents.
Critics, not the AP, say Israel is incorrect in their antisemitic descriptions.
If the article did what you wanted, it would be an opinion piece about how we need to call the conflict a genocide, and all future reporting should reflect this.
I don’t think this article is very supportive of the Palestinian people’s struggles. I also don’t think it supports the Israelis. It is tip-toeing the very fragile line of (falsely accused) antisemitism that they write about. It isn’t perfect, but it’s unfair to call it pro Israel.
-
Israel will be remembered in the History books the same way Germany circa 1930’s is today.
Not if the fascists keep winning.
I was going to link their merch store so people can keep supporting them, but almost everything is already sold out lol
Death to the IDF.
https://bobvylan.myshopify.com/ is the link in case anyone wants it
Wait, I thought we hated Shopify? (Cause of the data breach.)
Not to mention that they were happily selling Kanye West’s Nazi clothing until the press and social media called them out for it.
I have no idea, I was just fixing the broken link
Thank you, fixed it in my post 🙏
Removed by mod
Calling for death of any group is not allowed.
Does this include the Russian military?
What about indirect stuff such as “The Ukrainians should crush the Russian invaders” ?
Indirect stuff I generally let slide, other mods may or may not. Plausible deniability and all that.
But yes, the videos some other communities allow showing drone attacks on Russian soldiers, cheering when people get killed? We’d remove those.
Of course a top level post would be removed because we don’t allow video posts, but as a comment, I’d remove those too.
The IDF, being an occupying army, under international law is absolutely a legitimate target for violent armed Palestinian resistance. Legitimate target of violent armed resistance. It’s the law.
Great, go to Gaza and sign up. Don’t advocate for violence HERE.
Removed by mod
Nwo is the old governments.
