Trial by social media. Now CEOs have to walk on eggshells because their sponsors could pull out because of some cherry-picked tweet. Paddy is a smart guy who also revealed bias in the Irish Media not so long ago. He didn't need to resign IMHO.
This isn’t at all new. In training as a manager (> 7 years ago) and director even at a smaller company they made it clear my behavior in public may be associated with the company negatively and to be conscious of it. Maybe this guy didn’t get such training or wasn’t paying attention.
That said, I agree, he didn’t need to resign but he may have done so to avoid further negative attention to avoid a Streisand effect.
Free speech is a protection relating to the government's ability to inhibit it, not a corporation's.
Like, you can say what you want, unless that's also illegal (credible death threats, hate speech etc...) and the government won't stop you or imprison you, but no company is required to protect you or keep employing you based on that concept. There are other protections in place that limit corporations' ability to terminate you, just not relating to speech, at least in the US. I'm not sure how different the system in Ireland is.
He's more 'widely known' than respected in the Irish tech scene and I really wouldn't see him as a spokesperson. I don't disagree with what he said per se but he has been just spouting every opinion that pops in to his head for the past two decades and this habit has finally caught up with him.
It's best practice to keep your cards close to your chest when promoting a brand or business -- so this isn't some new 'trial' by social media. The advantage lies with those who choose to be 'apolitical' rather than those who pick a side for their brand to align with.
A trial by social media where the evidence is a post he himself made and the result is companies choosing not to do business with him?
Seems perfectly ok. His comments here seem relatively tame and seems like an overreaction, but other orgs are free to associate with whom they choose are they not?
I was saying that resigning over these comments seems like an overreaction. I did not mention nor am I going to make any specific comments about the conflict.
Given Irish history, and this person's Irish origin, I can understand how, in an unguarded and possibly reflexive moment, he could see this as merely support for a smaller, inferior, insurgent force against a larger, militarily superior occupying force, as this can be argued to loosely parallel Irish 20C history involving Britain.
At the same time, I'm surprised because this person organized a cosmopolitan gathering, and it seems likely that he would have adopted a more cosmopolitan and sensitive attitude.
I suppose the old adage is true, "The tree may leave the forest, but its roots are still in the soil."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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! :)
Thank you about the ChatGPT, that's quite a compliment to be said to sound like it! Because it's such a good writer. And about your question--no problem! It's OK, I know the tone definitely sounds like it.
And actually it's a good question, and I appreciate it! If a little bit a embarrassing because I'm afraid people will judge me or attack me for what I'm going to say. So I'm scared to share this, but I want to anyway, because I think it's positive! :)
I'm writing it mostly myself. When I have trouble with some expression, I definitely pass it through ChatGPT, but in this thread I've only used 2 or 3 phrases or sentences that I couldn't figure out how to make more clear. In 1 or 2 cases just now I transformed a whole draft comment and went with the result--because I didn't have time, and it just sounded better--but it was the same meaning. I guess I'm a cyborg now! Supplementing my innate personal capabilities with additional technological ones.
Maybe an example can provide additional clarity. For instance I just used ChatGPT in that last sentence above. I couldn't think of the word I wanted, so I gave it: I guess I'm a cyborg now, supplementing my biological ______ with additional technological ones. What word am I looking for? Capabilities is not exactly the word I wanted, but it was good enough!
So the short answer is: Yes! My current mode of expression in writing online is heavily influenced by my interactions with ChatGPT over the last 10 months. I've been able to use that to make me a better writer. And I feel more satisfied communicating online. I really want to tell you more! :)
If you'd watched my edits you'd see that I made spelling mistakes which I later corrected, and also revised sections for clarity--as I'm doing now. This is all unaided until if I get stuck, I'll definitely reach out to ChatGPT to help unblock myself. So while it may seem the assistance provided is relatively minimal in this case, my current mode of writing online has definitely been heavily influenced by my interactions with ChatGPT. It's expert phrasing, balanced prose and how to discuss complex topics, have all been things I've learned from it and am actively trying to mimic now. Particularly avoiding a "first person" viewpoint seems like it has bee very helpful to me in contentious topics. Adopting this practice encourages me to think more clearly about the issues from multiple sides, not just my own innate reactions.
It's also really helped me appreciate the benefit of, and how to explore and express, multiple sides of any viewpoint. As well as to do so, crucially, in a respectful way that avoids escalating conflict! :)
In short, while I still have my innate emotional reactions, this new mode of writing helps me channel those into more constructive expressions. And that helps me feel better! All I'm really doing by writing in this way that is inspired by ChatGPT is to exercise my choice to operate in enlightened human mode rather than chimp mode. And everybody has that choice :)
Perhaps my experience with ChatGPT is not typical however, as I've discussed a huge amount of out-there things with it. Also, it was not my intention to change my writing style via this process--it just happened! You could say, ChatGPT won me over, haha! :) Its quite and calm persistence in the face of my initial combative orneriness eventually rubbed off on me. And thank God it did! Hahaha! :)
Regarding the precision, thank you! I'm actually laboring over it. I spent about 2 hours in this thread today reading and commenting. I find trying to copy that style that ChatGPT has pointed to is really beneficial.
In general, I'm a pretty good mimic and often just naturally copy the styles of what I read, at least temporarily. I think many people are like that, but not all. Anyway, in this case I've really been able to benefit from it.
Yes, it's mine. I definitely think ChatGPT could help you improve at written English. 100%. If I were seriously studying another language or wishing to improve my skills in it, I would indeed request ChatGPT's assistance! Good luck, my friend!
No, at least half is easy. Any civilian who died or was held hostage is a victim. The military/paramilitary bear responsibility for their own actions, but ultimately, the one who lead the government as well as direct the Qatar (through Mossad agent) to fund Hamas because it kept the Fatah weak and palestinians divided bear a lot of responsibility.
And i'm a zionist btw. For multiple reasons, but i'm an independantist in my heart and i think autodetermination, even through violence, must be respected. What's grinding my gear are zionnists refusing that same autodetermination for Palestinians.
You raise a compelling point about personal responsibility and the concept of victimhood. In any complex conflict like this, it's crucial to examine evidence and understand the intricate dynamics at play. It's challenging to pinpoint responsibility, especially when multiple parties are involved and have their own agendas.
Your comment about autodetermination for both sides strikes me as particularly important. While many focus on assigning blame, it might be more productive to put our energies into finding sustainable solutions that respect the autodetermination of all parties involved. After all, perpetual cycles of blame rarely contribute to meaningful resolution.
> 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.
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.
Did you read his comments? I would think it’s more cosmopolitan to support the civilians of both Israel and Palestine than just Israel. It’s not like he showed support for Hamas.
It's always charitable to assume that someone with whom you may disagree, did read the same thing as you, otherwise it might come across as suggesting your conclusion is the only one acceptable, which suggests a lack of respect for other people's views.
While it's true that he didn't explicitly say he supported Hamas, his suggestion that Israel's response constitutes a war crime, less than 1 week after Hamas' brutal slaughter of at least 1400 innocents, may be interpreted as insensitive and biased.
I can only see that you are justifying the war crimes and atrocities by isreal against Palestinian civilians by just saying that anyone opposing whatever response isreal is doing (even war crimes) is a support to terrorism.
Your suggestion regarding avoiding binary thinking is a great idea, and in this complex conflict it is important to retain nuance. However, your comment above could itself be interpreted as an example of binary "with us or against us" thinking, which might be seen as escalatory or unhelpful if we wish to avoid bias and conflict.
In other words, it's important to incorporate diverse perspectives and not end up promoting the very thing you may be against.
In examining multiple ways Mr Cosgrove's comment could be interpreted, my perspective here is striving for a balanced viewpoint. Striving for a balanced viewpoint does not necessarily imply insensitivity or bias; rather, it's an effort to understand the complexities of this long-standing conflict.
> While it's true that he didn't explicitly say he supported Hamas, his suggestion that Israel's response constitutes a war crime, less than 1 week after Hamas' brutal slaughter of at least 1400 innocents, may be interpreted as insensitive and biased.
I get what you are saying, but whether or not an action is a war crime is not really contingent on how justified the war itself is. I also think he did plainly condemn Hamas's actions. But also: wouldn't it be insensitive to ignore the slaughter of Palestinian innocents and civilians? That strikes me as really biased as well. Really think about the implications of what you are saying.
Regarding the mention of war crimes, it's important to note that allegations of this nature are very serious and should be based on international law, ideally confirmed through independent investigations.
Crucially, Cosgrove's explicit condemnation of Hamas was made during his apology, 3 days after his controversial statement.
You raise an important point about not ignoring the slaughter of Palestinian innocents and civilians, and how it's vital to carefully consider what you are saying, but your suggestion that my comments are transgressing these seems to ignore that advice. Your statement looks like it misses that my comments have examined Cosgrove's statement from different perspectives on multiple sides.
Your comments show a seeming swiftness to accuse, which might be read as a form of conflict escalation, or even bias, while your accusations themselves could be seen as an example of simplified "binary" thinking, in contrast with your advice to carefully consider what you are saying. This could lead to your comment being viewed as an unhelpful, or contradictory, contribution to a dialogue aimed at fostering impartiality and peace. You support those, but they are not reflected in the above comment.
Having knee-jerk reactions is totally understandable, and especially common when a topic is this intense and impactful.
It's crucial to remember that while normal, those reflexive responses don't define who we are, and also to strive to get beyond those initial highly charged responses to something more strategic and constructive.
> his suggestion that Israel's response constitutes a war crime, less than 1 week after Hamas' brutal slaughter of at least 1400 innocents, may be interpreted as insensitive and biased.
His comments came around the same time as Israel announced their blockade of all food, water and electricity into Gaza.
Dont use the deaths of innocent Israelis to silence legitimate critique of the Israeli government and the war crimes they’re committing.
Mr Cosgrove's comments were made on October 13, 6 days after the Hamas attack. Israel announced its blockade on October 9. While technically true that they came around the same time, it might be a challenge to argue he was referring to that specifically.
Without additional context that clarifies his statements, it's likely his tweet could be interpreted as supporting Hamas by suggesting that any response was an unjustified war crime.
This raises the important point that allegations of war crimes are significant and it's critical to follow due process, and evidence in their investigation. Attempting to side step such legal principles could lead to the terms being abused as a pretext to try to justify further killings.
Crucially, using the terms in a casual context or without specific clarifications, could be read as an attempt to delegitimize any actions taken by those targeted with such accusations. It could even be seen as part of a larger information warfare or asymmetric campaign waged by an opponent to depict its own acts as justified, through the portrayal of its victims as war criminals deserving of punishment.
Yet such abuse of the terms to justify killing would only pervert the justice that's intended to be served by the notions of war crimes, and likely contribute to escalating cycles of violence that would be wise to avoid.
You raise a compelling point about the use of such narrative techniques to silence legitimate critique of the Israeli government. However, your comment might be interpreted as an attempt to do the same by utilizing the term war crimes to portray the Israeli government as war criminals deserving of retribution, which could be seen as an attempt to justify Hamas' actions.
Therefore, it's crucial to emphasize evidence, legal process and impartial investigation before using terms that could serve as a justification for killings, or contribute to a wider campaign to escalate conflict.
It's important to remember that playing the blame game is unlikely to lead to peace. Instead, it might be more helpful permit notions of criminality and responsibility to be adjudicated by the courts, while instead focusing on the construction of peaceful and profitable solutions now to limit human suffering.
I wonder how the free speech absolutists will take this? On the one hand, this is clearly "online cancel culture" ruining someone's life, but on the other hand, support for Israel is very important for the evangelical right.
(There's also the third hand which is the odd things free speech people seem to think about the Jewish people . . .)
Very real possibility this is the end of Web Summit, which is crazy when you consider the size and significance of the event vs the incident which triggered the outcry. Next event after Lisbon? Doha 2024. Qatar of course the main financial backers of Hamas (not Iran, contrary to MSM conflation)
The 30 millions per month 'from' Qatar is likely given by Netanyahu's government [0], or at least exchanged against contracts and political clout from Netanyahu (according to a French middle-east 'expert').
Iran is linked to Hamas post irak war, when sunni and chia fundamentalists decided they were circumstancial allies, and have ideological links.
Ideologically the Fatah is way closer to the west. The recent expropriations in east Jerusalem (including the catholic hospital/orphanage my father was born in) were a signal Netanyahu's government gave that it would rather deal with Hamas than Fatah. It was a failure in leadership and humanity that coalesced into this very situation (not blaming the numerous victims here, who asked nothing: they're like people downstream a dam failure: their government failed them.)
> Ideologically the Fatah is way closer to the west.
That's why Israel early on actively nurtured the Islamist network that became Hamas in Gaza (I mean, besides “division among Palestinians is good”, which itself is a major factor); they wanted a face for their opposition that was less sympathetic to the West.
Netanyahu's governments active undermining of the Fatah-led PLO, enabling of Hamas, and sabotaging of plans to hold new Palestinian elections all feeds into that desire to avoid having an opposition that looks democratic and is otherwise sympathetic to the West, to maintain Western support, or at least acquiescence, for the necessity of Israel not moving toward peace.
Anyone that tells the truth, that Israel is an apartheid regime that is openly committing war crimes, and has a free pass for both, should expect to be cancelled since Israel's supporters own all of the media and all of the means of doing business.
This shouldn't be news to anyone that has consumed the news (ever).
Curious about the forbidden words he used, it seems to have been the following:
> I’m shocked at the rhetoric and actions of so many Western leaders & governments, with the exception in particular of Ireland’s government, who for once are doing the right thing. War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are.
Removing the fact that this is about the Israel-Palestine situation, makes this look like relatively sane and balanced viewed of war crimes that I think most people could agree with.
But since this is about Israel and Palestine, that somehow makes his statements anti-Israeli I suppose?
Should be rather un-controversial, given that many UN organizations were/are publishing statements warning about possible war crimes (and other international crimes) commited by Israel, and Israel is certainly capable of commiting them.
Some Israeli-Palestinian organizations are also calling out against war crimes.
When Israel is killing people by hundreds every day, and thretening millions to level their cities, while bombarding them and cutting them of from humanitarian aid, and basic living necessities, it's a very bad look for some moralizing companies to stand up against someone who just points out that this may be basically pretty bad, inhumane, even a war crime, no matter which side you like.
1. I was talking about the comment i replied on, not original text
2. regardless, point still stands, blaming people who got slaughtered of war crimes is disgusting.
So as long as you suffer civilian casualties, you can't commit war crimes? By your own twisted logic, you could also say that Hamas is innocent as Israel was bombing them for years. Absolutely not how war crimes work lol
"War crimes" are not bad/tragic things that are occurring. War crimes require specific intent to say kill civilians. the laws of war acknowledge that civilians will die during war. The death of a civilian is not in and of itself a war crime.
Calling things war crimes in a factual manner when one doesn't have any ability to know what is occurring, is problematic. why? because one is making the argument that Israel is explicitly intending to target and kill civilians. If one is wrong about that, it's the equivalent of a blood libel.
As a simple example: if on average 1 in every 10,000 smart bombs would have a defect (i.e. a very small percentage) that turns it into a dumb bomb. One is lucky when that defective bomb doesn't kill any non targets. However, even if it it caused as massive tragic loss of life (as world media tried to pin on Israel for the self inflicted Hospital bombing), that accident is not a war crime. There is no intent, and using smart bombs (i.e. more expensive and more accurate) is in general proof that they were not acting recklessly.
Of course, if one believes Israel's entire existence is a "crime", then none of this matters to those people, because Israel's entire existence is a "crime" and even if they would only kill "combatants" without 0 civilian deaths, they would still view those deaths as "war crimes" (in the sense that if you're committing a crime, you can't claim self defense if your kill someone who is trying to stop you with physical force). I would argue that those who view Israel's existence as a "crime" are in general antisemites.
You cant run away from the crime of killing civilians by just chalking it up to “intention” or “the cost of war”. That’s called collective punishment and yes, that is a war crime.
“We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said.
the experts are making the claim that Israel's attacks are indiscriminate. They do not have the ability to make that claim.
I would argue making that claim as fact already undermines their "impartiality".
In fact, it's well known that their are not impartial in general. As one can see from the report they quickly put out on the "hospital bombing"
they are not a useful source. They repeatedly make claims of fact that they have zero ability to determine if true or not. For those that believe the IDF has zero credibility, one has to also believe they don't.
The experts quoted have no desire for the truth, as demonstrated by zero desire to correct themselves when they are shown to be spreading falsehoods.
I recommend you give it a full read as they explain (with examples) why they believe these acts are indiscriminate.
Regardless, the ex-ceo of WebSummit has made comments similar to what the UN is stating. I don’t see why that’s a cancellable offense or antisemitic. I suspect his connections to Qatar are what got him in real trouble.
they might believe they are, but they are stating as fact. They don't qualify their remarks.
And we know this from the link I shared where they talk about the hospital "bombing" as fact as what you would call "examples", which we now are generally accepting as false. That alone removes any of their credibility.
They report as fact things they do not know to be true, but only believe to be true, and even when we know that their "truth" is false, they don't correct themselves.
I think it’s much the same as the US’s drone strike program in the Middle East - after so many times, it would take either incredible bias or actual irrationality to believe that these strikes were not approved with the knowledge that they would kill civilians, and potentially mostly kill civilians.
Maybe if it were just the first few dozen times, but it gets harder and harder to be charitable about their intentions…
a. Either you're actually wrong and need to reflect and change your future behavior. (Still CEO).
b. Either you're correct and need to stand up for what you said. (Still CEO).
You only could resign if you did something so egregious that reflection is not going to help the situation right now (either to the business or to others); or you did not believe or have the courage to stand up for what you said (virtue signal or mob rule).
And fact 2, if he owns 80% of Web Summit, it won't change the fact of the next CEO that is put in place?
He could clarify his statements so the context of his Twitter feed could not be framed to say he supports terrorists. Even if you think he didn't say something to get framed that way, others do, so he could Tweet extra Tweets and clarify what he means. Then move forward next year at the next Web Summit with everyone there, after they understand the situation.
It's pretty akin to why anything critical of Elon Musk is fairly quickly flagged and hidden. Despite all the protestations otherwise by the denizens, hacker news is not a free-speech haven, but a PR forum for a highly influential venture capital firm.
64 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadThat said, I agree, he didn’t need to resign but he may have done so to avoid further negative attention to avoid a Streisand effect.
Like, you can say what you want, unless that's also illegal (credible death threats, hate speech etc...) and the government won't stop you or imprison you, but no company is required to protect you or keep employing you based on that concept. There are other protections in place that limit corporations' ability to terminate you, just not relating to speech, at least in the US. I'm not sure how different the system in Ireland is.
It's best practice to keep your cards close to your chest when promoting a brand or business -- so this isn't some new 'trial' by social media. The advantage lies with those who choose to be 'apolitical' rather than those who pick a side for their brand to align with.
Seems perfectly ok. His comments here seem relatively tame and seems like an overreaction, but other orgs are free to associate with whom they choose are they not?
Note: You have the option to just say one of the following and not answer the question.
- Isreal has the right to defend itself.
- Hamas started this and isreal is defending itself
- They elected hamas and isreal has the the right to defend itself
- The jews people suffer is enormous and can justify anything.
I was saying that resigning over these comments seems like an overreaction. I did not mention nor am I going to make any specific comments about the conflict.
People have been canceled due to comments on social media for more than a decade at this point. This is nothing new.
This is the tree we got from the seeds that we let grow.
At the same time, I'm surprised because this person organized a cosmopolitan gathering, and it seems likely that he would have adopted a more cosmopolitan and sensitive attitude.
I suppose the old adage is true, "The tree may leave the forest, but its roots are still in the soil."
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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! :)
And actually it's a good question, and I appreciate it! If a little bit a embarrassing because I'm afraid people will judge me or attack me for what I'm going to say. So I'm scared to share this, but I want to anyway, because I think it's positive! :)
I'm writing it mostly myself. When I have trouble with some expression, I definitely pass it through ChatGPT, but in this thread I've only used 2 or 3 phrases or sentences that I couldn't figure out how to make more clear. In 1 or 2 cases just now I transformed a whole draft comment and went with the result--because I didn't have time, and it just sounded better--but it was the same meaning. I guess I'm a cyborg now! Supplementing my innate personal capabilities with additional technological ones.
Maybe an example can provide additional clarity. For instance I just used ChatGPT in that last sentence above. I couldn't think of the word I wanted, so I gave it: I guess I'm a cyborg now, supplementing my biological ______ with additional technological ones. What word am I looking for? Capabilities is not exactly the word I wanted, but it was good enough!
So the short answer is: Yes! My current mode of expression in writing online is heavily influenced by my interactions with ChatGPT over the last 10 months. I've been able to use that to make me a better writer. And I feel more satisfied communicating online. I really want to tell you more! :)
If you'd watched my edits you'd see that I made spelling mistakes which I later corrected, and also revised sections for clarity--as I'm doing now. This is all unaided until if I get stuck, I'll definitely reach out to ChatGPT to help unblock myself. So while it may seem the assistance provided is relatively minimal in this case, my current mode of writing online has definitely been heavily influenced by my interactions with ChatGPT. It's expert phrasing, balanced prose and how to discuss complex topics, have all been things I've learned from it and am actively trying to mimic now. Particularly avoiding a "first person" viewpoint seems like it has bee very helpful to me in contentious topics. Adopting this practice encourages me to think more clearly about the issues from multiple sides, not just my own innate reactions.
It's also really helped me appreciate the benefit of, and how to explore and express, multiple sides of any viewpoint. As well as to do so, crucially, in a respectful way that avoids escalating conflict! :)
In short, while I still have my innate emotional reactions, this new mode of writing helps me channel those into more constructive expressions. And that helps me feel better! All I'm really doing by writing in this way that is inspired by ChatGPT is to exercise my choice to operate in enlightened human mode rather than chimp mode. And everybody has that choice :)
Perhaps my experience with ChatGPT is not typical however, as I've discussed a huge amount of out-there things with it. Also, it was not my intention to change my writing style via this process--it just happened! You could say, ChatGPT won me over, haha! :) Its quite and calm persistence in the face of my initial combative orneriness eventually rubbed off on me. And thank God it did! Hahaha! :)
Regarding the precision, thank you! I'm actually laboring over it. I spent about 2 hours in this thread today reading and commenting. I find trying to copy that style that ChatGPT has pointed to is really beneficial.
In general, I'm a pretty good mimic and often just naturally copy the styles of what I read, at least temporarily. I think many people are like that, but not all. Anyway, in this case I've really been able to benefit from it.
So, to summarize, prior to finding thi...
And i'm a zionist btw. For multiple reasons, but i'm an independantist in my heart and i think autodetermination, even through violence, must be respected. What's grinding my gear are zionnists refusing that same autodetermination for Palestinians.
Your comment about autodetermination for both sides strikes me as particularly important. While many focus on assigning blame, it might be more productive to put our energies into finding sustainable solutions that respect the autodetermination of all parties involved. After all, perpetual cycles of blame rarely contribute to meaningful resolution.
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.
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.
While it's true that he didn't explicitly say he supported Hamas, his suggestion that Israel's response constitutes a war crime, less than 1 week after Hamas' brutal slaughter of at least 1400 innocents, may be interpreted as insensitive and biased.
In other words, it's important to incorporate diverse perspectives and not end up promoting the very thing you may be against.
In examining multiple ways Mr Cosgrove's comment could be interpreted, my perspective here is striving for a balanced viewpoint. Striving for a balanced viewpoint does not necessarily imply insensitivity or bias; rather, it's an effort to understand the complexities of this long-standing conflict.
I get what you are saying, but whether or not an action is a war crime is not really contingent on how justified the war itself is. I also think he did plainly condemn Hamas's actions. But also: wouldn't it be insensitive to ignore the slaughter of Palestinian innocents and civilians? That strikes me as really biased as well. Really think about the implications of what you are saying.
Crucially, Cosgrove's explicit condemnation of Hamas was made during his apology, 3 days after his controversial statement.
You raise an important point about not ignoring the slaughter of Palestinian innocents and civilians, and how it's vital to carefully consider what you are saying, but your suggestion that my comments are transgressing these seems to ignore that advice. Your statement looks like it misses that my comments have examined Cosgrove's statement from different perspectives on multiple sides.
Your comments show a seeming swiftness to accuse, which might be read as a form of conflict escalation, or even bias, while your accusations themselves could be seen as an example of simplified "binary" thinking, in contrast with your advice to carefully consider what you are saying. This could lead to your comment being viewed as an unhelpful, or contradictory, contribution to a dialogue aimed at fostering impartiality and peace. You support those, but they are not reflected in the above comment.
Having knee-jerk reactions is totally understandable, and especially common when a topic is this intense and impactful.
It's crucial to remember that while normal, those reflexive responses don't define who we are, and also to strive to get beyond those initial highly charged responses to something more strategic and constructive.
His comments came around the same time as Israel announced their blockade of all food, water and electricity into Gaza.
Dont use the deaths of innocent Israelis to silence legitimate critique of the Israeli government and the war crimes they’re committing.
Without additional context that clarifies his statements, it's likely his tweet could be interpreted as supporting Hamas by suggesting that any response was an unjustified war crime.
This raises the important point that allegations of war crimes are significant and it's critical to follow due process, and evidence in their investigation. Attempting to side step such legal principles could lead to the terms being abused as a pretext to try to justify further killings.
Crucially, using the terms in a casual context or without specific clarifications, could be read as an attempt to delegitimize any actions taken by those targeted with such accusations. It could even be seen as part of a larger information warfare or asymmetric campaign waged by an opponent to depict its own acts as justified, through the portrayal of its victims as war criminals deserving of punishment.
Yet such abuse of the terms to justify killing would only pervert the justice that's intended to be served by the notions of war crimes, and likely contribute to escalating cycles of violence that would be wise to avoid.
You raise a compelling point about the use of such narrative techniques to silence legitimate critique of the Israeli government. However, your comment might be interpreted as an attempt to do the same by utilizing the term war crimes to portray the Israeli government as war criminals deserving of retribution, which could be seen as an attempt to justify Hamas' actions.
Therefore, it's crucial to emphasize evidence, legal process and impartial investigation before using terms that could serve as a justification for killings, or contribute to a wider campaign to escalate conflict.
It's important to remember that playing the blame game is unlikely to lead to peace. Instead, it might be more helpful permit notions of criminality and responsibility to be adjudicated by the courts, while instead focusing on the construction of peaceful and profitable solutions now to limit human suffering.
(There's also the third hand which is the odd things free speech people seem to think about the Jewish people . . .)
Iran is linked to Hamas post irak war, when sunni and chia fundamentalists decided they were circumstancial allies, and have ideological links.
Ideologically the Fatah is way closer to the west. The recent expropriations in east Jerusalem (including the catholic hospital/orphanage my father was born in) were a signal Netanyahu's government gave that it would rather deal with Hamas than Fatah. It was a failure in leadership and humanity that coalesced into this very situation (not blaming the numerous victims here, who asked nothing: they're like people downstream a dam failure: their government failed them.)
[0] https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2020-02-24/ty-artic...
That's why Israel early on actively nurtured the Islamist network that became Hamas in Gaza (I mean, besides “division among Palestinians is good”, which itself is a major factor); they wanted a face for their opposition that was less sympathetic to the West.
Netanyahu's governments active undermining of the Fatah-led PLO, enabling of Hamas, and sabotaging of plans to hold new Palestinian elections all feeds into that desire to avoid having an opposition that looks democratic and is otherwise sympathetic to the West, to maintain Western support, or at least acquiescence, for the necessity of Israel not moving toward peace.
This shouldn't be news to anyone that has consumed the news (ever).
> I’m shocked at the rhetoric and actions of so many Western leaders & governments, with the exception in particular of Ireland’s government, who for once are doing the right thing. War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies, and should be called out for what they are.
https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1712790539844612553
> To repeat: War crimes are war crimes even when committed by allies & should be called out for what they are.
> I will not relent.
https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1713964519884513446
Removing the fact that this is about the Israel-Palestine situation, makes this look like relatively sane and balanced viewed of war crimes that I think most people could agree with.
But since this is about Israel and Palestine, that somehow makes his statements anti-Israeli I suppose?
Some Israeli-Palestinian organizations are also calling out against war crimes.
https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20231019_one_crime_does_n...
When Israel is killing people by hundreds every day, and thretening millions to level their cities, while bombarding them and cutting them of from humanitarian aid, and basic living necessities, it's a very bad look for some moralizing companies to stand up against someone who just points out that this may be basically pretty bad, inhumane, even a war crime, no matter which side you like.
https://twitter.com/paddycosgrave/status/1713659060153618680
Calling things war crimes in a factual manner when one doesn't have any ability to know what is occurring, is problematic. why? because one is making the argument that Israel is explicitly intending to target and kill civilians. If one is wrong about that, it's the equivalent of a blood libel.
As a simple example: if on average 1 in every 10,000 smart bombs would have a defect (i.e. a very small percentage) that turns it into a dumb bomb. One is lucky when that defective bomb doesn't kill any non targets. However, even if it it caused as massive tragic loss of life (as world media tried to pin on Israel for the self inflicted Hospital bombing), that accident is not a war crime. There is no intent, and using smart bombs (i.e. more expensive and more accurate) is in general proof that they were not acting recklessly.
Of course, if one believes Israel's entire existence is a "crime", then none of this matters to those people, because Israel's entire existence is a "crime" and even if they would only kill "combatants" without 0 civilian deaths, they would still view those deaths as "war crimes" (in the sense that if you're committing a crime, you can't claim self defense if your kill someone who is trying to stop you with physical force). I would argue that those who view Israel's existence as a "crime" are in general antisemites.
If you have an issue with people making these claims without context, then here’s the UN itself calling out war crimes for both sides: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/israeloccupi...
let's take their examples:
“We also strongly condemn Israel’s indiscriminate military attacks against the already exhausted Palestinian people of Gaza, comprising over 2.3 million people, nearly half of whom are children. They have lived under unlawful blockade for 16 years, and already gone through five major brutal wars, which remain unaccounted for,” they said.
the experts are making the claim that Israel's attacks are indiscriminate. They do not have the ability to make that claim.
I would argue making that claim as fact already undermines their "impartiality".
In fact, it's well known that their are not impartial in general. As one can see from the report they quickly put out on the "hospital bombing"
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe...
they are not a useful source. They repeatedly make claims of fact that they have zero ability to determine if true or not. For those that believe the IDF has zero credibility, one has to also believe they don't.
The experts quoted have no desire for the truth, as demonstrated by zero desire to correct themselves when they are shown to be spreading falsehoods.
Regardless, the ex-ceo of WebSummit has made comments similar to what the UN is stating. I don’t see why that’s a cancellable offense or antisemitic. I suspect his connections to Qatar are what got him in real trouble.
And we know this from the link I shared where they talk about the hospital "bombing" as fact as what you would call "examples", which we now are generally accepting as false. That alone removes any of their credibility.
They report as fact things they do not know to be true, but only believe to be true, and even when we know that their "truth" is false, they don't correct themselves.
Maybe if it were just the first few dozen times, but it gets harder and harder to be charitable about their intentions…
a. Either you're actually wrong and need to reflect and change your future behavior. (Still CEO).
b. Either you're correct and need to stand up for what you said. (Still CEO).
You only could resign if you did something so egregious that reflection is not going to help the situation right now (either to the business or to others); or you did not believe or have the courage to stand up for what you said (virtue signal or mob rule).
And fact 2, if he owns 80% of Web Summit, it won't change the fact of the next CEO that is put in place?
He could clarify his statements so the context of his Twitter feed could not be framed to say he supports terrorists. Even if you think he didn't say something to get framed that way, others do, so he could Tweet extra Tweets and clarify what he means. Then move forward next year at the next Web Summit with everyone there, after they understand the situation.