After receiving the text for the ad quoted above, a representative from the advertising team suggested AFSC use the word “war” instead of “genocide” – a word with an entirely different meaning both colloquially and under international law. When AFSC rejected this approach, the New York Times Ad Acceptability Team sent an email that read in part: “Various international bodies, human rights organizations, and governments have differing views on the situation. In line with our commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to legal standards, we must ensure that all advertising content complies with these widely applied definitions.”

  • Reyali@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    You and I may know some of the same people! Does the name Max Carter mean anything to you?

    Small correction though: the taxes thing isn’t actually true… there were (probably still are, but I’ve not been actively involved in enough years to feel justified making the claim) Quakers who chose to hold a percent of their income tax in escrow rather than give it to the government under the argument that their conscientious objector status should keep their money from going to the military.

    It is not a legally recognized stance, and these people risk fees, interest, and legal action for their withholdings. And yet they choose to risk that as a form of peaceful protest.

    Your comment dredged up all the memories of a workshop/talk I attended by one of these folks when I was in probably high school? It was not something done lightly or without effort.

    • jagged_circle@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      One of the volunteers that I met said they have a dedicated day at the church to help church members file their taxes correctly (she was the one that organized it and helped other church members do it correctly). She said it was recognized, but only a very few sects qualified.

      She didn’t mention anything about consequences.

      • Reyali@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        I’m wondering if that may be the Mennonites? Like the Amish, they don’t have social security numbers so the tax code is definitely different for them. I can say with confidence that Quakers don’t have that exclusion.