What has changed since then? I’d understand your point completely if Biden was no longer supporting genocide of Palestinians.
When someone is being consistent with something they said years ago, it adds nothing to say, “but context”.
If I posted about how Biden supported racially segregated busing, and was against gay marriage, then you might have a point in claiming context, since the democratic party has opportunistically changed its mind on those.
Context matters in this case not because his stance has changed or not, but because current events have changed. The post comes off as if Biden said it today. I doubt he would’ve said that out loud in 1986 if Israel was doing what it’s doing now back then, just as he won’t be saying that today with what’s happening. If the post said “Biden on Israel in 1986” or something similar, then it gives a frame of reference to the reader on the context that he didn’t say that while Israel was actively mounting a full scale invasion of Palestine, especially here where it’s posted in c/worldnews. I wouldn’t mind if this was posted in c/politics or something.
Again, I am not disagreeing with you that what he said was deplorable.
The fact that Biden wouldn’t say the quiet part out loud today, just shows the opportunism of the democratic party.
Exactly, that’s why it’s important to point out he didn’t say that today. His stance is bad even 37 years ago, but it doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t say it today.
Re: Obama and drones - I think you’re digging too deep into this. The same thing applies. If Obama said something (you didn’t point out an exact quote) before he started bombing, I would still say that context should be provided on when he said it if you posted it today in relation to current events in the middle east and north Africa.
What has changed since then? I’d understand your point completely if Biden was no longer supporting genocide of Palestinians.
When someone is being consistent with something they said years ago, it adds nothing to say, “but context”.
If I posted about how Biden supported racially segregated busing, and was against gay marriage, then you might have a point in claiming context, since the democratic party has opportunistically changed its mind on those.
Context matters in this case not because his stance has changed or not, but because current events have changed. The post comes off as if Biden said it today. I doubt he would’ve said that out loud in 1986 if Israel was doing what it’s doing now back then, just as he won’t be saying that today with what’s happening. If the post said “Biden on Israel in 1986” or something similar, then it gives a frame of reference to the reader on the context that he didn’t say that while Israel was actively mounting a full scale invasion of Palestine, especially here where it’s posted in c/worldnews. I wouldn’t mind if this was posted in c/politics or something.
Again, I am not disagreeing with you that what he said was deplorable.
The fact that Biden wouldn’t say the quiet part out loud today, just shows the opportunism of the democratic party.
In 2016 for example, Obama dropped 26,171 bombs in the Middle East and North Africa, ~3 bombs per hour. Which is more important, the people killed, or Obama’s statements?
Exactly, that’s why it’s important to point out he didn’t say that today. His stance is bad even 37 years ago, but it doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t say it today.
Re: Obama and drones - I think you’re digging too deep into this. The same thing applies. If Obama said something (you didn’t point out an exact quote) before he started bombing, I would still say that context should be provided on when he said it if you posted it today in relation to current events in the middle east and north Africa.