I feel like I understand the existence of this show more when I think about the children who have to see their friends and neighbors murdered by colonists. Even the host herself was injured in a bombing. They were striving to do what every children’s show does: Help children navigate an often difficult and confusing reality.
I’ll accept your colonist line once your white ass leaves my continent that you stole
Both of these things were atrocious, I agree
Programming fundamentalism into kids should be criminal like this show. Kids need to learn critical thinking and emotional intelligence.
You know what else is illegal? Evicting people from their own land, then carpet bombing them when they refuse to leave.
Another wiki article for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin ‘you too’, term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one’s own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: “Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany.” B: “And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?”). Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood. Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.Both whataboutism and the accusation of it are forms of strategic framing and have a framing effect.
How does one thing excuse the other?
As a woman I feel obligated to point out that, although palestinias are indeed being victimized they are also extremist muslins. So yeah, they are all (muslins, jewish, christians, hindu…whatever) fucked in the head. Just not the kids, the kids can still be saved from religious fuckers. Religion is the root of all evil
Would you say the same about Zionist indoctrination?
This comment section is likely to be a huge shitshow. I’m just glad I was able to get in early.
Seems the link presents a debate not unlike (or even noticeably apart from) the Israel/Hamas one.
Is a costumed character grooming little Jihadists, or letting them express their feelings about their reality?
Not creepy; political
Edit: not trying to wade into the debate
I want to add to this that Nick Crowley covers this topic pretty well on youtube.
