Comment by sundarurfriend
5 years ago
So in "the Russian regime's war crimes and human rights violations in Ukraine", the "in Ukraine" is the important part.
The actual message is "you are our enemy and we don't want to provide services for you" - which is fair enough, but not palatable by current business standards, so they instead couch it in moralistic high-ground terms that they can selectively apply.
It doesn't seem productive to attack the wording. A substantive objection would be more meaningful.
This isn't about some nuance of wording at all. They are claiming A when they actually mean B, and my comment spells that out. Framing it as some trivial attack on wording is disingenuous. By that measure, any criticism of lies, misinformation, false messaging, etc. would become a quibble over wording.
I hope there's some substantive response to my original comment's content too, one that could lead to productive discussion.
They didn't lie or mislead. You misread their original message. You uncharitably assumed they were a bunch of nasty internet SJWs. You then called them disingenuous when that didn't turn out to be the case.
Sorry if that isn't accurate, I know it sucks when people misrepresent your words.
1 reply →