- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/24068509
Jadi had gone to al-Awda Hospital with his wife, who was giving birth to their first child.
According to the Wafa news agency, while waiting for his wife, he decided to check in on his colleagues who were outside the hospital in the vehicle.
His brother, photographer Omar al-Jadi, documented the moments after the Israeli strike hit the vehicle.
“Guys, Ayman is inside. Ayman, my brother, is martyred,” he shouted in the video as he helplessly filmed the burning van.
By Rayhan Uddin
Published date: 26 December 2024 10:50 GMT
Right, you gave up. Implying that you did hold the opinion that there should be a special word for anti-jewish, and likely still do hold that position, but the meaning of the word has changed from your desired definition. I’m asking why you did, and maybe still do, believe anti-jewish should have its own unique word in the first place.
ETA: I’m asking legitimately. I’ve never understood why anti-jewish hate is so much more special than anti-muslim, anti-black, or any other sort of bigotry. I understand the persecution of Jews throughout history, but I also understand the persecution of Muslims, black people, etc. throughout history.
It’s not “more special”, it’s different. Context matters, and there are centuries of context. Anti Muslim slurs point to different stereotypes and belittle people in different ways than anti Jewish slurs. Why not have different words for the sake of accuracy? Most other categories of things have this linguistic construction, so why not bigotry?
I don’t really give a shit whether or not there is a unique word, but since there is a unique word, why let Israel get to define it and why let bigots get to agree with them?
If you don’t like the word, the solution is to stop using it and get others to also stop using it, not to use it sarcastically or ironically.
Pretty sure most people I know would see an obvious sarcastic like this as actively de-legitimising Israel’s attempt to broaden the term. Maybe that’s because I generally hang out with people who are fairly well educated, but I think most people are smart enough to understand the intention here. Do you have any evidence/logic to back your claim that it legitimises?
Of course, sarcasm is difficult to convey with text, so there’s a risk that people will read it as intended unironically… But I don’t think that’s happened here.
Do I have evidence other than my seeing it here on Lemmy and having it said to my face? No. And I’m not really going to take the time to search through god knows how many Lemmy comments to prove it to you if you don’t want to believe me.
Like 99% of Lemmy is opposed to Israel’s genocide. The OP has 78 upvotes (100%). I don’t think anyone is misunderstanding the sarcasm. Unless there’s one really dumb zionist among those 78.
You know, I knew this was going to still be argued, then this conversation happened soon after I posted that- we’re talking within an hour, so I kept a link handy.
I’m sure you’ll find some way to handwave it away:
https://lemmy.world/comment/14149539
I absolutely agree with what you said over there. That person is a fuckwit.
If your point is that some of the people opposed to Israel’s genocide are using it as a reason (intentional or not) to be antisemitic, I also agree, but I think those people are a fairly small fraction of the total opposition (and that they are playing into Israel’s hands).
But that seems like the opposite of what the original comment in this thread is saying. It’s parodying that opinion.
My point is that even saying it sarcastically legitimizes the concept as a line of thinking which can influence others. As I said to someone else, it’s an “any publicity is bad publicity” situation. And it’s really not hard to misunderstand sarcasm on the internet.
I also do not think you should ever give Israel an inch with their attempts at redefining terms.