HR readers outraged by the LA Times’s cycle of violence mentality got the paper’s attention. Here’s the editorial staff’s lame response.
You can argue forever about who is right and who is wrong. Or how far back to go to determine who started the hostilities. Or how much worse it is or isn’t to kill civilians on purpose than it is to kill them as collateral damage. Those are questions for philosophers to wrestle with. But to deny that there’s a cycle of violence seems pointless.
No, these are legitimate questions for editors to weigh. Ducking the question by saying its beyond their pay grade doesn’t wash.
