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.
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.