5 ms·

I don't really agree with your summary of his position given the quote in the article: "War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be

I don't really agree with your summary of his position given the quote in the article: "War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are," That is a reminder that crimes against humanity are more serious than political sides. Israelis and Palestinians who have massacred civilians must equally face consequences. People who are angry at that quote are the ones to ostracize.

keepamovin 3y ago
It's certainly possible to read it as you portray it: a reminder of moral priorities and the importance of integrity in upholding those in an unbiased way. It's commendable that you take that constructive and positive view. However, the comment you provide lacks sufficient context to make that reading explicit, meaning it is at least open to interpretation. This vagueness could be seen as moral equivocation, insensitivity, or an indirect statement of a more extreme position. Crucially, the quote you provide is preceded by additional comments regarding the rhetoric of Western leaders except Ireland, which makes it clear that the subject of the comment is Israel, given the widespread support Israel has received from many Western leaders after Hamas' attack. It's wise to consider the quote in context of Mr Cosgrove's original and complete statement here: https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553 https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553 Regarding ostracizing of people who were angry at the above tweet, your sentiment could itself be read as insensitive to the loss of life and indirectly supporting Hamas. In general, it's hard to argue that people who condemn Mr Cosgrove's statement should be ostracized, while simultaneously claiming a lack of bias. Finally, it's important to note that condemnation of the tweet was widespread with many companies boycotting the event.
- orwin 3y ago
  I mean, he's right, frankly. This debacle/terror attack was enabled by the one person that every western leader wants to take a picture with. This is frankly embarrassing. Its like after the Libya dam failure, every western leader went there to take a picture with the government leader who did nothing to prevent it. Ridiculous.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    You raise a good point about optics. While the optics, such as which Western leaders may be seen to be supporting incompetent or enabling behavior, are certainly important, it's vital to consider that in a conflict as complex as the Israel-Palestine one, it might be hard to definitively pin down who is "right" and who is "wrong". It may even be hard to judge with certainty who is "responsible" and who is "victim". All these binary labels may sometimes only function to further divide already fracturing conflicts and make resolution and reconciliation harder to reach. So, binary thinking is often to be avoided. But "binary thinking" may have a silver lining, in that, perhaps the only real choice we have is between deciding if we want to invest our time in either: figuring out who we are going to label as "wrong" and who as "right"; or, focusing our attention getting results that reduce conflict and suffering.
    - jaggs 3y ago
      I'm sorry but I've got to say it. Are you using ChatGPT for your comments? Because they seem uncommonly precisely written (as do some of the responses).
      - catlover76 3y ago
        Yeah that poster comes across as very weird with that contrived, overly polite and formal tone.
        keepamovin 3y ago
        It's understandable to have that reaction to something unfamiliar. When I first encountered writing with the tone I now use, I felt offended by it--hahaha!--but then I realized I just didn't know how to respond to it. So I had to up my game! If it's very weird to emphasize clarity over conflict, deliberate expression over reflexive reaction, curious exploration over winning, nuance over binary thinking, politeness over rudeness, and formal over disrespectful, then perhaps that attitude about what is normal and what is weird is part of the problem! Hahaha! :) It may be wise to think about how your norms and expectations may be normalizing something bad, or contributing to a conflict that you wish to also avoid! Because if the norm leads to suffering, perhaps weirdness is the solution, then maybe we need more weird! :)
- potatopatch 3y ago
  > In general, it's hard to argue that people who condemn Mr Cosgrove's statement should be ostracized, while simultaneously claiming a lack of bias. I don't see any disconnect as I didn't claim to be a block of wood. If we are going to ostracize people for supporting things, it should be people who support crimes in the state of high emotion. I sure wish they were ostracized after September 11th.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, I now understand that you don't see a disconnect there. Ha! "block of wood" that's a good one! Thank you for sharing your real view, your courage in sharing is inspiring, and I respect your integrity! :) I read your "must equally face consequences" as promoting an admirable lack of bias. Likewise with your helpful comparison of the relative moral priorities of (war) crimes versus loyalties, which I saw as evidence of your support of impartiality and justice. I appreciate you clarifying your position and owning your bias--even if you don't state what it is!--we all have biases, but if we are primarily led by them, and not by the more objective and impartial principles you also mention, it may be difficult to arrive at a satisfactory solution, or peace.

keepamovin 3y ago

It's certainly possible to read it as you portray it: a reminder of moral priorities and the importance of integrity in upholding those in an unbiased way. It's commendable that you take that constructive and positive view. However, the comment you provide lacks sufficient context to make that reading explicit, meaning it is at least open to interpretation. This vagueness could be seen as moral equivocation, insensitivity, or an indirect statement of a more extreme position. Crucially, the quote you provide is preceded by additional comments regarding the rhetoric of Western leaders except Ireland, which makes it clear that the subject of the comment is Israel, given the widespread support Israel has received from many Western leaders after Hamas' attack. It's wise to consider the quote in context of Mr Cosgrove's original and complete statement here: https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553 https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553 Regarding ostracizing of people who were angry at the above tweet, your sentiment could itself be read as insensitive to the loss of life and indirectly supporting Hamas. In general, it's hard to argue that people who condemn Mr Cosgrove's statement should be ostracized, while simultaneously claiming a lack of bias. Finally, it's important to note that condemnation of the tweet was widespread with many companies boycotting the event.

orwin 3y ago
I mean, he's right, frankly. This debacle/terror attack was enabled by the one person that every western leader wants to take a picture with. This is frankly embarrassing. Its like after the Libya dam failure, every western leader went there to take a picture with the government leader who did nothing to prevent it. Ridiculous.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  You raise a good point about optics. While the optics, such as which Western leaders may be seen to be supporting incompetent or enabling behavior, are certainly important, it's vital to consider that in a conflict as complex as the Israel-Palestine one, it might be hard to definitively pin down who is "right" and who is "wrong". It may even be hard to judge with certainty who is "responsible" and who is "victim". All these binary labels may sometimes only function to further divide already fracturing conflicts and make resolution and reconciliation harder to reach. So, binary thinking is often to be avoided. But "binary thinking" may have a silver lining, in that, perhaps the only real choice we have is between deciding if we want to invest our time in either: figuring out who we are going to label as "wrong" and who as "right"; or, focusing our attention getting results that reduce conflict and suffering.
  - jaggs 3y ago
    I'm sorry but I've got to say it. Are you using ChatGPT for your comments? Because they seem uncommonly precisely written (as do some of the responses).
    - catlover76 3y ago
      Yeah that poster comes across as very weird with that contrived, overly polite and formal tone.
      - keepamovin 3y ago
        It's understandable to have that reaction to something unfamiliar. When I first encountered writing with the tone I now use, I felt offended by it--hahaha!--but then I realized I just didn't know how to respond to it. So I had to up my game! If it's very weird to emphasize clarity over conflict, deliberate expression over reflexive reaction, curious exploration over winning, nuance over binary thinking, politeness over rudeness, and formal over disrespectful, then perhaps that attitude about what is normal and what is weird is part of the problem! Hahaha! :) It may be wise to think about how your norms and expectations may be normalizing something bad, or contributing to a conflict that you wish to also avoid! Because if the norm leads to suffering, perhaps weirdness is the solution, then maybe we need more weird! :)
potatopatch 3y ago
> In general, it's hard to argue that people who condemn Mr Cosgrove's statement should be ostracized, while simultaneously claiming a lack of bias. I don't see any disconnect as I didn't claim to be a block of wood. If we are going to ostracize people for supporting things, it should be people who support crimes in the state of high emotion. I sure wish they were ostracized after September 11th.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, I now understand that you don't see a disconnect there. Ha! "block of wood" that's a good one! Thank you for sharing your real view, your courage in sharing is inspiring, and I respect your integrity! :) I read your "must equally face consequences" as promoting an admirable lack of bias. Likewise with your helpful comparison of the relative moral priorities of (war) crimes versus loyalties, which I saw as evidence of your support of impartiality and justice. I appreciate you clarifying your position and owning your bias--even if you don't state what it is!--we all have biases, but if we are primarily led by them, and not by the more objective and impartial principles you also mention, it may be difficult to arrive at a satisfactory solution, or peace.