Hate is hate. Morality is absolute, not relative.
But the regulations apply to "Russians and Russian soldiers", not just the invaders. Would you be okay with calls of violence against saudi civilians because of their government's involvement in the 9/11 attacks?
Again, this is deliberate obtuseness. If a pack of grizzly bears break into my house and I scream "Kill the bears!" I'm obviously not calling for genocide against ursus arctos horribilis.
They said the calls for violence against Russian soldiers were allowed because this was being used as a proxy for the Russian military, and said it would not apply to prisoners of war.
It's not permissible when referring to anyone but Russian soldiers actively involved in the invasion, not even ones who were involved but are no longer. I don't know how the meaning could be any more explicit.
The exact wording in the first paragraph was:
>Meta Platforms (FB.O) will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion
Which would suggest call for violence towards "Russians" (presumably all russians, not just russian military personnel) would be allowed. That said, the article was later edited and clarified that the exemption did not apply to russian civilians, so the question is largely moot.
Hating someone also doesn't mean they are worth the jail time from a violent act.
There are already multiple car accidents caused by Ukrainian refuges in Romania because they're too distraught due to what they've suffered so far. And you want them to not hate Russians? You can't be rational when you see your battered 5 year old in the morgue.
Further, I wouldn't judge harshly anyone that exacted revenge though I would remind anyone that "revenge is a dish best served cold."
-- Hypocrite Valley
Seems to be a common response: if it’s not big tech it’s automatically 4chan.
> Based on Chicago principles, less virtue signaling and more doing, apolitical and completely ruthlessly neutral (like Switzerland), highly capitalistic but also with strong integrity, protect the interest of United States and its allies, straightforward CEOs that don’t speak corporate lingo, work with DoD and DARPA, unwavering support for human rights. Above all, have conviction of their own and not buckle under pressure, and won’t sell out to questionable labor practices in China. 100% domestic.
> Seems to be a common response: if it’s not big tech it’s automatically 4chan.
That seems like a lot of oxymorons - what are they doing that is apolitical, but also happily involved in defense, but also interested in human rights? And neutral like Switzerland but only in regards to America?
If they enable the air force to better bomb civilians in a foreign country is that still apolitical and for human rights? How does it approach the knowledge that those agencies are doing their best to do questionable things to its own citizens rights? What happens in 4 years if domestic policy changes? Do they not lobby? And they never leave the United States? Can you have a Facebook/Google/Amazon and be exclusively in America?
Oxymorons are currently present in the way Apple does its PR - no problem with sweatshop labor in China, but they'll never miss a chance to have a political opinion about other things - diversity, BLM, Ukraine, etc. Whatever aligns with their audience.
Yes, but as noted by Scott Alexander:
The moral of the story is: if you’re against witch-hunts, and you promise to found your own little utopian community where witch-hunts will never happen, your new society will end up consisting of approximately three principled civil libertarians and seven zillion witches. It will be a terrible place to live even if witch-hunts are genuinely wrong.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...