[hajile]

Ad Hominem

It doesn't matter who reported it if it's true.

You can literally still read the blog post on his blog.

The real question should be why other media would see a verifiably true story and refuse to cover it. It wouldn't be news if it were about the guy serving burgers down the street, but it is certainly newsworthy when it's the anti-racist head of one of the largest companies on the planet being explicitly racist.

[happytoexplain]

While obviously a whole topic should not be disregarded because of one source reporting on it, this doesn't make sense:

>It doesn't matter who reported it if it's true.

The entity reporting on a topic absolutely matters. Trust matters, and history matters. It's unrealistic to say an entire article "is true". That's not a reflection of reality. E.g. a headline or a sentence may be objectively true or false, or subjectively true or false, or misleading, or omitting context, or cherry-picking, etc.

Yes, we should mostly pay attention to the more salient things we have access to, in this case the actual blog post, but the act of criticizing an article is absolutely valid regardless of that.

[zonnard]

True, if it's true we cannot deny it. I agree with you, that he used the wrong and generalised the jews but most of what he said is still correct in essence apart generalising. You cannot label all his talk antisemetic. He generalised them with saying if I were a x. But apart of that everything else he said sounds right to me, the violence, the history, the apartheid , it's just people who focus on one thing. And then change it into a click bait title, then reports it in a way that makes all xxx sound bad. He asked for compassion if I'm not wrong?