The magazine also said in its mail that while the organisation encourages free expression and constructive political debate, it has a zero tolerance policy towards hate speech.
It might be a fact that many people see it that way, but that would just mean that many people are wrong. Many people believe all sorts of ridiculous lies and distortions of reality.
I have laid out compelling arguments based on the real world context of what’s happening, what her words are most likely to mean given that context, even explained which part was misunderstood and what the most rational explanation for that was.
I’ve done part or all of that at least a handful of times in replies throughout the comments of this post. I have also conceded that it might have been an ill-advised way of saying things because a public figure being less than 100% clear about a statement regarding anything contentious can and most often WILL open the door to misinterpretations, whether honest or wilfully manipulative.
That’s as close to “you are wrong, I am right” as a fiberglass canoe is to a shoddily made origami boat.
Did I ever mentionned “not allowed”? I said mentionning killer’s family on a victim’s funeral is A LITTLE un-diplomatic sir
Except in this instance the killer’s family is tied up in the corner of the funeral home actively being murdered by the victim’s uncle
Except that’s not in any way close to analogous to the situation.
well, that’s totally how many people see it. That’s a fact.
It might be a fact that many people see it that way, but that would just mean that many people are wrong. Many people believe all sorts of ridiculous lies and distortions of reality.
¯_(ツ)_/¯ You don’t provide compelling arguments neither, you just say “You are wrong, I am right”
I only point out that it was pretty bold tweet given the circumstances
I have laid out compelling arguments based on the real world context of what’s happening, what her words are most likely to mean given that context, even explained which part was misunderstood and what the most rational explanation for that was.
I’ve done part or all of that at least a handful of times in replies throughout the comments of this post. I have also conceded that it might have been an ill-advised way of saying things because a public figure being less than 100% clear about a statement regarding anything contentious can and most often WILL open the door to misinterpretations, whether honest or wilfully manipulative.
That’s as close to “you are wrong, I am right” as a fiberglass canoe is to a shoddily made origami boat.