She left Oxfam (the human rights charity) after they criticized her for working with a company that set up illegal factories in the West Bank. She fully stood by her decision and said there’s no right or wrong side of the issue.
It’s ok to not know about something, but it’s certainly a take to act holier than thou about not knowing it. Most people on Lemmy seem to be pretty aware of the genocide in Gaza and the celebrities that have worked with companies perpetuating it. Her and Paltrow are some pretty mainstream high profile ones that generally come up often because of their involvement with Marvel, especially in contrast to other Marvel actors who have actively campaigned for a ceasefire and more aid (Ruffalo, Hiddleston, Comberbatch, some spideys, Olsen).
There are obviously a bunch of other celebs that have supported the genocide, and others that stand against it, but I’m just listing some off the top of my head.
I appreciate you highlighting that there are issues with Oxfam, but I don’t think my statements are really contradictory there.
Per the wiki page you linked:
Working with thousands of local partner organizations, we work with people living in poverty striving to exercise their human rights, assert their dignity as full citizens and take control of their lives
I’m not saying it’s the worlds best charity, or even a good one, and I’m not the one who decided to be an ambassador for it. I just noted that they are a human rights charity and apparently she aligned with them enough to want to be their ambassador, but was no longer interested when she faced criticism from them over a brand deal with a BDS company.
If their controversy section makes you believe they should not be referred to as a human rights charity, please let me know what you feel would be more appropriate in this context.
It was less the contradiction and more the calling out of an “holier than thou” attitude while also holding up oxfam as a foil,
Though on a more thorough read it seems more like i misunderstood why the reference was there, so i rescind my reply , with apologies.
I’m not saying it’s the worlds best charity, or even a good one, and I’m not the one who decided to be an ambassador for it. I just noted that they are a human rights charity and apparently she aligned with them enough to want to be their ambassador, but was no longer interested when she faced criticism from them over a brand deal with a BDS company.
Fair
If their controversy section makes you believe they should not be referred to as a human rights charity, please let me know what you feel would be more appropriate in this context.
I’m not the arbiter of what people are allowed to call something, i personally consider oxfam to be a corporation disguised as a charity but i wouldn’t try and force anyone to adhere to my opinion on that.
I would however use what i consider supporting evidence of my opinion as a foundation for an argument, as it evident.
Ultimately “charity” is technically correct, i can’t think of a more appropriate title that isn’t forcing my opinion.
SodaStream, a company headquartered in Israel, with a controversial factory in a settlement on the West Bank.
The actress stepped down from her role with Oxfam a month ago, when the international relief organisation wrote to her criticising her decision to sign a contract with the maker of carbonated drink machines.
I think that’s something that’s very easily debatable … And there’s no right side or wrong side leaning on this issue.
Says the woman who said yes to being the face of genocide soda?
No one knows wtf you’re talking about.
Cruise on, Internet warrior.
She left Oxfam (the human rights charity) after they criticized her for working with a company that set up illegal factories in the West Bank. She fully stood by her decision and said there’s no right or wrong side of the issue.
It’s ok to not know about something, but it’s certainly a take to act holier than thou about not knowing it. Most people on Lemmy seem to be pretty aware of the genocide in Gaza and the celebrities that have worked with companies perpetuating it. Her and Paltrow are some pretty mainstream high profile ones that generally come up often because of their involvement with Marvel, especially in contrast to other Marvel actors who have actively campaigned for a ceasefire and more aid (Ruffalo, Hiddleston, Comberbatch, some spideys, Olsen).
There are obviously a bunch of other celebs that have supported the genocide, and others that stand against it, but I’m just listing some off the top of my head.
Ok. What’s the genocide soda?
SodaStream
Eh, I’m a cherry Pepsi guy. No idea what stream soda is.
PepsiCo own Sodastream, https://www.voanews.com/a/pepsico-buys-israel-s-sodastream-for-3-2-billion/4536177.html
So wait. People are actually mad about a soda product? This is the Budweiser thing all over again lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxfam#Criticism
I appreciate you highlighting that there are issues with Oxfam, but I don’t think my statements are really contradictory there.
Per the wiki page you linked:
I’m not saying it’s the worlds best charity, or even a good one, and I’m not the one who decided to be an ambassador for it. I just noted that they are a human rights charity and apparently she aligned with them enough to want to be their ambassador, but was no longer interested when she faced criticism from them over a brand deal with a BDS company.
If their controversy section makes you believe they should not be referred to as a human rights charity, please let me know what you feel would be more appropriate in this context.
It was less the contradiction and more the calling out of an “holier than thou” attitude while also holding up oxfam as a foil,
Though on a more thorough read it seems more like i misunderstood why the reference was there, so i rescind my reply , with apologies.
Fair
I’m not the arbiter of what people are allowed to call something, i personally consider oxfam to be a corporation disguised as a charity but i wouldn’t try and force anyone to adhere to my opinion on that.
I would however use what i consider supporting evidence of my opinion as a foundation for an argument, as it evident.
Ultimately “charity” is technically correct, i can’t think of a more appropriate title that isn’t forcing my opinion.
Wolf Cola?
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/mar/16/scarlett-johansson-stands-by-sodastream-deal
Owned by Pepsico. I guess they were jealous of Coca cola buying the nazi soda (fanta)