to uphold a non-partisan position
There’s nothing non-partisan about cancelling someone for stating facts.
Not really.
Yes they amplified what the guy said, but they also distanced themselves from his views.
Suppose the orchestra has wealthy pro-israel benefactors. The MSO committee might agree with what piano-face said, but as an organisation they may have felt obligated to uphold a non-partisan position.
The Streisand effect is when you try to delete content. In this case they just tried to disclaim it.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 months ago
fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 2 months ago
It’s an alleged crime yet to be confirmed by a recognised court, therefore they remain “alleged” facts.
hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 months ago
And as you said , amplified it. If you think silencing criticism of a genocide to appease donors is not showing your politics, then what is?
I didn’t mean they held the same views. Rather, the opposite. Or at least indifference, which from the perspective of the performed, amounts to the same.
Holding a non partisan pisition would be saying they dont share his views nor think it was an appropriate place for it, but not try to cancel him.
fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 2 months ago
The guy engaged to make pretty noises made an allegation of a war crime.
It’s disingenuous to frame the MSOs response as “silencing criticism of genocide”. Everyone is free to criticise all they like, but if you use someone else’s platform to do so, there will be consequences.
hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 months ago
And likewise of someone is offered a platform, and uses it in a way you don’t like, if you then censure them, there will be consequences.