The government should be ashamed? How would that look or work in your mind?
The government is just a theoretical framework we invented to organize society. It can’t feel shame or really anything since it isn’t sentient
Also, I know you were just hating but your question’s answered in like the first two paragraphs. It’s a super easy read and pretty well contextualized - in case anyone else is curious, I mean
Thanks for taking time to reply. I did read the article, my argument wasn’t that the information isn’t there. It’s that a headline of this type indicates the article isn’t worth reading. If the intention was to convey information, the headline wouldn’t be obfuscating important details. It’s meant to drive clicks.
About my first sentence, please feel welcome to read it more broadly, I mostly wanted to highlight I’m not here to defend America’s involvement.
I see. I guess I was confused. Thanks for clarifying you read the article, at least. I thought you were just making a low effort comment hating on a random title you disliked from an article you didn’t even care to read
I personally thought it was a decent article and provided worthwhile context, however can we totally disagree on that
That said, I still see your first statement as a bit silly, kinda like saying a corporation should be ashamed of its behavior, and not it’s board of directors, or even shareholders or something (they’re at least capable of feeling shame)
The US government should be ashamed for it’s role in genocide in Gaza and should get off its ass and do something.
That said, this is a limp post. Blinken condemned by who? These non-headlines with passive verbs are a sure sign you don’t need to read the article.
Blinken was condemned by Rashida Tlaib and Assal Rad according to the article.
The government should be ashamed? How would that look or work in your mind?
The government is just a theoretical framework we invented to organize society. It can’t feel shame or really anything since it isn’t sentient
Also, I know you were just hating but your question’s answered in like the first two paragraphs. It’s a super easy read and pretty well contextualized - in case anyone else is curious, I mean
Thanks for taking time to reply. I did read the article, my argument wasn’t that the information isn’t there. It’s that a headline of this type indicates the article isn’t worth reading. If the intention was to convey information, the headline wouldn’t be obfuscating important details. It’s meant to drive clicks.
About my first sentence, please feel welcome to read it more broadly, I mostly wanted to highlight I’m not here to defend America’s involvement.
I see. I guess I was confused. Thanks for clarifying you read the article, at least. I thought you were just making a low effort comment hating on a random title you disliked from an article you didn’t even care to read
I personally thought it was a decent article and provided worthwhile context, however can we totally disagree on that
That said, I still see your first statement as a bit silly, kinda like saying a corporation should be ashamed of its behavior, and not it’s board of directors, or even shareholders or something (they’re at least capable of feeling shame)