After receiving the text for the ad quoted above, a representative from the advertising team suggested AFSC use the word “war” instead of “genocide” – a word with an entirely different meaning both colloquially and under international law. When AFSC rejected this approach, the New York Times Ad Acceptability Team sent an email that read in part: “Various international bodies, human rights organizations, and governments have differing views on the situation. In line with our commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to legal standards, we must ensure that all advertising content complies with these widely applied definitions.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Genocide is just too strong of a word. They are just disagreeing by murdering all their population. You see, it is just a disagreement.
Removed by mod
Oh, piss off. You don’t get to lump all Americans into a single group.
Ha. I would not have seen the add or messaging from the AFSC.
By rejecting it NYT Streisanded the message they sought to silence.
My goofy ass thought it meant the oatmeal guys
I don’t think there’s anything “goofy ass” about that. Quaker Oats Company was explicitly named (and used a logo) to cause people to make that mistake.
Which is especially disheartening because Quakers are some of the most truly liberal and loving Christians you can find. The fact that they’re willing to call this a genocide evidence of that, and unsurprising since their interpretation of the bible is 100% strict non-violence to where they can’t legally be drafted into the military due to their beliefs. Some of the most truly leftist Christians you’ll find.
Some of the most truly leftist Christians you’ll find.
As long as you don’t remember that Nixon was a Quaker.
And Quaker Oats has a bit of a spotty history too… https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/spoonful-sugar-helps-radioactive-oatmeal-go-down-180962424/
Diabeetus
That guy killed Gene Hackman and then went after Tom Cruise!
And Jigsaw helped him do it!
i knew from the thread title… doesn’t mean i don’t like your idea better.
It’s the right thing to do.
Lmfao, me too.
This is a new kind of war. This is an eradication.
The only things new about this war are the weapons being used to fight it. Humans have been wiping each other out since we’ve been around.
AFSC is the American Friends Service Committee.
So, a little to unpack here. “Quaker” is the common name for what is more formally known as The Religious Society of Friends. Thus American Friends Service Committee.
Yes, the same Quakers from our history books. Actually to this day genuinely quality people and one of the few Christian groups I tend to have a decent amount of respect for.
I don’t know if I got memory holed or what, but I have a distinct memory during the Iraq War of a group of Quakers in kayaks blockading some US warships from leaving port to go to war and that was the pretense that Bush wanted to use to charge these non-violent Quaker anti-war protestors with terrorism charges. It’s been a while and I’ve not been able to dig up a link but I swear it happened, I can find ACLU documents mentioning the Bush admin targeting Quakers, but that’s about it. Interestingly enough, it included surveillance of this exact organization.
https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-report-shows-widespread-pentagon-surveillance-peace-activists (January 2007)
In response to the ACLU’s FOIA requests filed on February 1, 2006, the Defense Department has released dozens of TALON reports that were compiled on Americans. Many of the reports focus on anti-military recruitment events and protests, including activities organized by the Quaker organization American Friends Service Committee, United for Peace and Justice, Veterans for Peace, and Catholic Worker.
Far right fascist propaganda rag doesn’t want to publish the truth about a genocide it’s covered up and excused?
It’s not far right fascist. It is liberal Zionist. Liberals can and have been genocidal too. Liberal Zionism is incompatible with humanism or universal values.
you two are in agreement on everything except for what constitutes “far right”
personally, i think any public traded or billionaire owned media outlet is intrinsically far right, but i can also understand drawing the distinctions along the lines of how things compare based on their reach. comparing NYT to bellingcat can’t be fair because NYT can reach more eyes.
so basically, the distinction between you two is not who’s wrong, it’s about how you categorize who’s wrong
The US definition of liberal doesn’t have much to do with actual freedom / liberalism, it’s mostly conservatives that want free trade
USA Liberal ≡ Far Right Zionist ≡ Fascist
Imagine a carriage return in the middle there
Doesn’t this make then legally liable for content in their ads?
It’s an editorial decision like any other, it’s nothing new in legal terms
So section 230 doesn’t apply then.
Oh. Sorry.
It never did. The NY Times is a newspaper, not a social media network.
No truth in this paper of lies!
