Where in the article does it say she gave testimony herself? Also it isn’t that much of a niche news site, it’s one of the biggest left wing news outlets in the UK, probably the second biggest after Novara
I’m not a chatbot, you can read the article yourself and find out these things. I haven’t insisted the article is credible. Go back and read what I wrote and you’ll see that
If you can’t understand why someone wouldn’t go out in front of the world and make big statements in line with these claims, or any statement at all, immediately after a very traumatising experience then you really need to work on your empathy and understanding of basic human emotion. I understand your skepticism, to a point. I just gave a very obvious reason why she hasn’t talked about the harrowing things she went through in detail to the public straight away, whether they are as is said in this article or not. Even thinking about them is going to be very difficult for her, nevermind doing what you’re expecting
Edit: Taken out a sentence that isn’t relevant, as I thought you were the OP of this comment thread before
I don’t disagree with the sentiment at all, I just think when you report news like this, you do it responsibly. One of the reasons we’re in the situation that we’re in with massive distrust of institutions on the one hand, but widespread believe in conspiracy theories on the other is because fact checking has fled a lot of buildings, and depending on your biases people either doubt everything or believe everything dogmatically. There are other reasons of course, and root causes. But it sucks and is tearing us apart.
The Guardian article is worded much more equivocally. “Another detainee” claims she had to kiss the flag. She has given statements herself, but hasn’t corroborated the other claims including of her own having been forced to do so. Heresay in general and limited sources.
All I’m asking is that articles make this obvious and don’t sensationalize, like the article posted by OP. Whatever the case, the abuses by Israel we have solid evidence for are bad enough.
Mate can you actually read? I replied to your comment to push back against you expecting Greta to be standing up on a platform and immediately talking about all of this stuff to the world when she’s going to be very traumatised. And that she would be whether what the article says is true or not. That’s it. Nothing else
My whole point has been about that, not about the article and it’s accuracy. The only times I’ve said anything about the latter is cos you keep somehow not understanding that I’m not talking about the accuracy of the article and bringing it back up again. And even then the only thing I really said in response to that was pushing back against you saying The Canary is niche when it actually isn’t really. And also telling you to read it, seeing as you clearly hadn’t from what you’ve said in replies. You didn’t understand entirely what you were arguing against in the article and now you’re not understanding my point at all and have somehow gone off thinking I’m saying things that I’m not
Where in the article does it say she gave testimony herself? Also it isn’t that much of a niche news site, it’s one of the biggest left wing news outlets in the UK, probably the second biggest after Novara
If she didn’t give testimony, who did? Why do you insist the article is credible?
I’m not a chatbot, you can read the article yourself and find out these things. I haven’t insisted the article is credible. Go back and read what I wrote and you’ll see that
I don’t understand your objection then, sorry.
If you can’t understand why someone wouldn’t go out in front of the world and make big statements in line with these claims, or any statement at all, immediately after a very traumatising experience then you really need to work on your empathy and understanding of basic human emotion. I understand your skepticism, to a point. I just gave a very obvious reason why she hasn’t talked about the harrowing things she went through in detail to the public straight away, whether they are as is said in this article or not. Even thinking about them is going to be very difficult for her, nevermind doing what you’re expecting
Edit: Taken out a sentence that isn’t relevant, as I thought you were the OP of this comment thread before
I don’t disagree with the sentiment at all, I just think when you report news like this, you do it responsibly. One of the reasons we’re in the situation that we’re in with massive distrust of institutions on the one hand, but widespread believe in conspiracy theories on the other is because fact checking has fled a lot of buildings, and depending on your biases people either doubt everything or believe everything dogmatically. There are other reasons of course, and root causes. But it sucks and is tearing us apart.
The Guardian article is worded much more equivocally. “Another detainee” claims she had to kiss the flag. She has given statements herself, but hasn’t corroborated the other claims including of her own having been forced to do so. Heresay in general and limited sources.
All I’m asking is that articles make this obvious and don’t sensationalize, like the article posted by OP. Whatever the case, the abuses by Israel we have solid evidence for are bad enough.
Mate can you actually read? I replied to your comment to push back against you expecting Greta to be standing up on a platform and immediately talking about all of this stuff to the world when she’s going to be very traumatised. And that she would be whether what the article says is true or not. That’s it. Nothing else
My whole point has been about that, not about the article and it’s accuracy. The only times I’ve said anything about the latter is cos you keep somehow not understanding that I’m not talking about the accuracy of the article and bringing it back up again. And even then the only thing I really said in response to that was pushing back against you saying The Canary is niche when it actually isn’t really. And also telling you to read it, seeing as you clearly hadn’t from what you’ve said in replies. You didn’t understand entirely what you were arguing against in the article and now you’re not understanding my point at all and have somehow gone off thinking I’m saying things that I’m not