U2 posted a statement expressing horror at the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and set out the individual views of the four band members. The statement condemned Hamas and criticised the Israeli government for their roles in the unfolding events. The band received intense online backlash for offering a balanced, nuanced position that criticised both sides. Public reactions penalised measured responses, perceived slowness, expressions of sadness rather than anger, and the appearance of privilege. The episode illustrates an online environment where nuance provokes hostility and balanced opinions risk severe condemnation. The backlash resembled extreme vitriol reserved for highly polarising subjects, highlighting deep polarisation.
I know I am slow to react to U2's statement on the horrendous situation in Gaza, and apparently being slow to react is a terrible thing. But I was thinking about it before I said anything - which is also bad it seems. As is being sad instead of angry, and measured as opposed to vitriolic. I suspect it's also bad to have the temerity to be rich while offering
I'd wager that U2 didn't expect the backlash that they received when they put up a statement on social media outlining the views of the four individual band members on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. If they had, they might have thought twice about it, or realised they were better off saying nothing at all. Because the band posting that it's horrified by what's unfolding there
Collection
[
|
...
]