Ukrainians are killed, Palestinians die
When you so badly want to outrage others, you can find things to cause others to be so badly be outraged.
This meme is as bad as the “man in the street” interviews that only show you the side they want you to see.
https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/eight-palestinian-children-killed-gaza-strip-last-night
https://www.savethechildren.net/news/least-101-children-killed-west-bank-year
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/gallery/2023/12/28/photos-gaza-children
https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-11-1-2023-children-killed-4a352398b32887e60a658e0270f0a021
EDIT: there’s tons of more articles just like this one.
You’re the one doing the man in street thing though. The post’s point holds up statistically yours doesn’t https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/
Removed by mod
One of your examples was from 2021, before the current conflict. It doesn’t help your argument that you have to go back so far to find examples.
Removed by mod
Hope’s the only thing that keeps me going. Thanks for helping me raise awareness about the genocide in Gaza.
You’re too ignorant to discuss this shit with. Go away.
It’s my post. Kinda difficult to leave.
Proceeds to show international news wires and international sources to show neutrality, thus steel manning the outrageous meme.
Edit: Find a NY Times or Washington Post next time to invalidate the meme.
Here’s my list:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/us-media-bias-palestinians
EDIT: there’s tons of more articles just like this these.
You asked me to show a NYT article, I did- and now you don’t like it.
My god this is so embarrassing for you.
One of them was really good. The Wash. Post article was great too. Thanks for taking the time.
ROFL! Not a single unbiased source among them. But it’s a good insight into where you get your programming from.
no such thing as an unbiased news source. if you think there is, they are fooling you.
So… now you’re going to children’s education sources? Are you 12?
I thought you could use a basic understanding.
Ap and Reuters are more reputable journalists, but most of the ““news”” is broadcast by spin sites like CNN/fox/MSNBC/whatever crap
No you don’t understand. Israel brutally barraged the car with bullets and murdered her entire family.
Then the 6 year old girl begged for her life on the phone so the khamass Palestinians sent an ambulance. Then israel shot the ambulance that was supposed to rescue her with a tank.
Then israel let this 6 year old girl which was begging for her life on the phone die a slow and painful agonizing death trapped in a car with her dead family members for at least multiple hours before dying from either an infection, being shot again, or a panic attack.
This clearly means that she died of natural causes so israel didn’t kill her directly and they aren’t responsive for this. Do you see how stupid you are sounding now?
By the way you forgot to condemn Hamas.
How much longer can we tolerate this as Americans? This evil committed in our name while the domestic situation and infrastructure crumbles while we see disaster on the horizon …
Arnt they supposed to at least keep us distracted with bread and circus? It’s like they think so little of us anymore they don’t even need to try.
Were all gonna die, arent we?
There will just be a small subset that remain to work on the Boston Dynamics Slave-O-Matics that the ruling elite use for all their daily needs
Get ready for the soylent green…
deleted by creator
Yeah, because that’s stupid. Not voting for Biden makes a Trump win that much more likely and if you think he’s not gonna fund genocide, you might actually be living in an alternate reality. He’ll also do his level best to ensure Russia takes over Ukraine, hurt women domestically, do as much damage to the LGBTQ+ community as possible, trash the economy for anyone not ultra wealthy, and so on. It’s not an exaggeration to say that a second Trump presidency would be catastrophic, but hey, you show Biden on this one issue, buddy. Good for you for not being able to see the bigger picture and sticking to your principles at the expense of a lot of other people.
Trump would 1000% be worse, but the silver lining of him becoming president is that liberals would suddenly have enough of a spine to say that genocide is a bad thing since trump would be at the helm instead of biden.
If you’re American you have to vote for either Trump or Biden though, you don’t have the luxury of voting neither… in a two party system an abstention equals a vote for the winner.
Yeah, Biden funds a genocide in Palestine. Trump would do the same (he did move the embassy to Jerusalem…) plus ALSO aiding the genocide in Ukraine as he is already doing with his aid cockblock policy.
There are times when the genocide supporter is the lesser evil. I don’t envy your country one bit.
i fully expect to have other options on my ballot
That’s cope though… as they are not going to get nearly enough votes to win, those candidates are irrelevant. It’s stupid but that is how it is. A vote for them is functionally speaking the same as not voting. Like yeah sure you’ll have “sent a message”, but it’s still a virtual vote for the winner. And you don’t get to complain about him: you could have helped by voting for the other one.
It sucks that you have to choose the lesser of only two evils (assuming your vote even counts, because lol electoral college) but that is the American way.
> you don’t get to complain
stop me
a vote for them is not functionally the same as not-voting. it counts for them. suggesting it doesn’t is just more election misinformation.
>you’ll have “sent a message”
the only message sent by a vote is “this is who I want to win”. if you want the genocide enablers to win, you can vote for them. if you want the law and order candidates to win, vote for them.
You are right about supporting the lesser evil. Even so not voting literally does not tally your vote for any candidate. In a metaphoric sense, it could be interpreted that way by media outlets and others with a political agenda.
Yeah of course it does not actually tally +1.
But in a two party system the winner is decided by the difference between the two parties’ votes, so if A gets 20 and B gets 25 those 5 votes were decisive.
Not voting, in this system, equals to voting for B: had you voted for A, the advantage would have been 4 instead of 5. By not voting as opposed to voting A, the advantage is 5 rather than 4 - that is, by not voting you effectively gave one vote of advantage to B.
Again, not because your abstinence was actually counted for B, but because your lack of vote helped the advantage grow bigger. If Trump wins it will be also because of you.
I’m voting for Genocide Joe. I’ve entertained voting for third party, but the the threat of fascism under Trump is real . I understand the sentiment, and can’t fault those who choose to abstain or vote third party. But a Trump presidency would effect the entire world and lead to more deaths.
It’s probably because it’s hard to take them seriously when they’re supporting Russia perpetrating a genocide on Ukraine
no one is supporting that
There’s too much money involved for our overlords to stop. The Israeli aid lobby is massive and feeds the war machine that our politicians personally profit from. Then there’s money that comes from Jewish donors and other interests that hate Muslims. It’s all about the money.
Superbowl’s tonight, eh? He gets us. I wonder if he’ll smite that devil woman for fixing the big game. If I lose my bet I’m not paying up because she RIGGED it. This is a fight between our LORD and EVIL.
…what’s a “Gaza” anyway? Like Lady Gaza or whatever?
(/s in case anyone needed it)
Then, tomorrow, back to work. Company downsized and I do three people’s jobs now for same pay. CEO says I work much harder in the office than from home.
News radio is sad, and I’m already sad, so I’ll listen to a funny podcast in traffic.
Get home exhausted. Maybe do a good deed by up voting the stories people need to hear. Count down to weekend.
Watched this doc earlier, The Sign: Is the Apocalypse Coming?
If I wasn’t an atheist, I’d be freaking out right now.
Damn. It’s sad how hard it can be to tell when people are being serious or not when it comes to this stuff.
“What made you so radicalized?”
You did, Israel.
I think your comparison is bullshit. Argument is not without merit but you chose a shit example that doesn’t make that argument
US corporate media lean in favor of Israel. As Abeer Al-Najjar (New Arab, 7/28/22) noted: “The framing, sourcing, selection of facts, and language choices used to report on Palestine…often reveal systematic biases which distort the Palestinian struggle.”
Maybe this will help.
3 of your examples are not American though, but British. The BBC and The Guardian certainly aren’t skimping on reporting facts about genocide in Gaza. This, and the fact that the context of the Gazan story is quite different, is why your argument has merit but this specific comparison isn’t particularly fitting.
You’re right. The meme could be better. I didn’t make it. I found it.
fked up society we live in…
I’m confused. What is this trying to say?
That the little girl just “died” and wasn’t “killed” by Israelis. “Baby killed by Russians” “baby died because we didn’t get there fast enough”
Well, the second part is true, but they couldn’t get there fast enough because the Israelis killed the EMTs too.
I‘m not sure if you interpret more into the words than there is. If you read the articles text thoroughly you’ll find a difference in those deads.
-
The dies-articles: „after phone calls“ , „after x days in car“, „days after cry for help“ and others. Those are all after some time.
-
The killed-articles: „in a air strike/ rocket attack“ which is immediately.
This sounds quite correct from a grammar point of view. Still, it’s sad for the kids and family.
-
That our media has a double standard, a bias for supporting Israel. Russia killed children in Ukraine, they say “killed”. Israel killed children in Palestine, but they won’t say that - instead, those children are just “dead”.
Very little difference in practice because the killing by IDF is implied or deducted anyway - but it’s a difference in rhetoric.
That six year old child was not “dead”, she was killed by Israel. Her relatives, whose corpses she spent her last days surrounded by, were killed by Israel.
I would say " found dead days after" sounds better then “killed by Israeli and found days after”.
It’s a common propaganda tactic to use slightly different terms for the same thing, depending on how the victims are viewed by a country and its media. Some people die, as if they were doomed anyway, or as if they were just statistics in a paper. Some others are killed, like actively by the hand of the enemy, which makes it tragic and sad.
It’s one of the differences between unworthy and worthy (of media coverage, or consideration by the public) victims.
deleted by creator
