3 ms·

I think you are still not understanding what an opinion piece is? It’s fine that you weren’t persuaded by it - maybe it was a poor argument, or maybe you weren

I think you are still not understanding what an opinion piece is? It’s fine that you weren’t persuaded by it - maybe it was a poor argument, or maybe you weren’t the target audience, or maybe you’re totally hidebound in your thinking and perfect rhetoric wouldn’t have moved your opinion in the slightest. Could be any or none of the above, and again, that’s OK! But at the end of the day, the author is under no obligation to state his opponents’ points for them.

Alupis 3y ago
An opinion piece is a persuasive piece, as you've already noted. In persuasive writing, you are supposed to... persuade the audience to share your conclusion. This piece does no persuading. It's written for a certain subset of readers that already think poorly of the current Israeli government, and stops just short of shouting a token "Hitler!". Which leaves one to wonder - who's this piece really for then? It's not persuading anyone. We learn in grade school that persuasive pieces must address opposing viewpoints. It's not enough to just state your opinion within a vacuum. There's two sides to a disagreement, and making zero attempt to cross that threshold and provide context or discussion fails to bring anyone closer to the writer's viewpoint. Overall it's a very poorly written opinion, devoid of any facts or reality. It doesn't even present one "side" of the issue, it only shares the writer's naïve and poorly articulated viewpoint. In essence, this piece doesn't even need to exist... anyone who's going to agree with it already does, and no one else will take it seriously.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > who's this piece really for then? Investors, for one. Sovereign parliaments are risky structures. Particularly when underpinned by a majoritarian and religious-fundamentalist base. Israel's Supreme Court has issues. The FT has covered them well. (Imagine if SCOTUS justices chose not only their replacements, but staffed the federal courts.) But this--ramming through a neutering of the court--is obviously a crap solution, one that's been derided by powerful voices within Israel and without. Within Israel, the issue is hopelessly polarized. Outside, opinions are still being formed. Having an honest if biased opinion adds information to that discussion, even if it won't change minds domestically. Note that the FT does this frequently. It's how they keep their articles short. You're expected to click through to prior articles that flesh out the context from a neutral position if you're coming to the field anew.

Alupis 3y ago

An opinion piece is a persuasive piece, as you've already noted. In persuasive writing, you are supposed to... persuade the audience to share your conclusion. This piece does no persuading. It's written for a certain subset of readers that already think poorly of the current Israeli government, and stops just short of shouting a token "Hitler!". Which leaves one to wonder - who's this piece really for then? It's not persuading anyone. We learn in grade school that persuasive pieces must address opposing viewpoints. It's not enough to just state your opinion within a vacuum. There's two sides to a disagreement, and making zero attempt to cross that threshold and provide context or discussion fails to bring anyone closer to the writer's viewpoint. Overall it's a very poorly written opinion, devoid of any facts or reality. It doesn't even present one "side" of the issue, it only shares the writer's naïve and poorly articulated viewpoint. In essence, this piece doesn't even need to exist... anyone who's going to agree with it already does, and no one else will take it seriously.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> who's this piece really for then? Investors, for one. Sovereign parliaments are risky structures. Particularly when underpinned by a majoritarian and religious-fundamentalist base. Israel's Supreme Court has issues. The FT has covered them well. (Imagine if SCOTUS justices chose not only their replacements, but staffed the federal courts.) But this--ramming through a neutering of the court--is obviously a crap solution, one that's been derided by powerful voices within Israel and without. Within Israel, the issue is hopelessly polarized. Outside, opinions are still being formed. Having an honest if biased opinion adds information to that discussion, even if it won't change minds domestically. Note that the FT does this frequently. It's how they keep their articles short. You're expected to click through to prior articles that flesh out the context from a neutral position if you're coming to the field anew.