Melbourne Symphony Orchestra cancels pianist’s performance after dedication to journalists killed in Gaza
Melbourne Symphony Orchestra cancels pianist’s performance after dedication to journalists killed in Gaza
Jayson Gillham was scheduled to perform at Melbourne Town Hall on Thursday but he was dropped for going ‘beyond the remit of his contract’
You're viewing a single thread.
The article goes into depth with the artists remarks. Its nowhere close to something like: "This next piece is dedicated to the journalists killed in Gaza" which is what I would have assumed.
He provided context as to why that piece would be performed. I don't think he went over the top at all.
Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza? Do you support the use of this platform because you agree with the position or because you believe he should be able to voice whatever position he wants? Would you be in support if his opinions were on White nationalism?
edit: Calm down people, I don't support Israel nor white nationalism. I'm probing where @T00l_shed@lemmy.world 's limits are for what they a believe is acceptable. I'm not advocating for any political position with my questions.
Denouncing violence is very different than supporting or inciting violence, fwiw.
Denouncing violence is very different than supporting or inciting violence, fwiw.
I completely agree. You can see that in the first question I asked in that post: "Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza? "
The followup questions were probing if that poster was simply against violence or simply a pure free speech advocate.
No, he is providing factual context about a situation, denouncing violence. Your examples aren't comparable.
No, he is providing factual context about a situation, denouncing violence. Your examples aren’t comparable.
So your position is that as long as context about the situation is factual, you would not have a problem with any commentary he'd give on any subject?
Sure, you could say that that is my position if you ignore everything else I said.
This doesn't sound like we're communicating then. Thank you for taking the time to converse up to now. Have a great day!
You too.
It seems I may have misread your statement. I apologize.
No worries. Text is an imperfect medium.
The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible. Your questions detract from that & minimize the problems to a matter of personal opinion
The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible.
The violence began before israel even existed. Israel is not responsible for violence against jews.
Violence has existed for all of human history. Doesn’t excuse Israel’s bombing of journalists.
Hamas issues press passes to its military spotters. The transmission of military intel makes people valid targets under the laws of war. That is a valid excuse for bombing journalists.
The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible. Your questions detract from that & minimize the problems to a matter of personal opinion
Isn't that what I said in the very first line of my post you're replying to? I'll quote myself:
"Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza?"
"I feel his comments were appropriate"
"Would you feel the same if they were different comments?"
You're getting closer to where I was going:
“I feel his comments were appropriate”
"How different would his comments have to be to be not appropriate?"
This isn't a binary state, its a scale. I was asking questions of scale.