Oh by calling Israeli government nazis I’m am right now deciding that a specific word has a specific meaning. I AM doing that. Right now? Not something that has been sculpted by the use of billions of speakers for decades and decades? Something which might have been, idk, so common that it’s been recorded as a secondary meaning for the word “nazi” for longer than you’ve been alive…?
Because every single dictionary I can find has that a secondary meaning.
One who subscribes to or advocates (neo-)Nazism, or a similarly fascist, racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, ethnic supremacist, or ultranationalist ideology; a neo-Nazi.
On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:
You don’t care for the definitions of words. You just ignore whatever doesn’t suite you. Like the fact that it is in fact accurate and within common use of language to say that Netanyahu is a nazi. All the definitions agree, all the evidence agrees, everything agrees with me and all you have is pathetic strawmen like “that’s like white people trying to justify using the r-word. calling ANY jew EVER a nazi in any form is wide-scale antisemitism!”
Oh so it would be antisemitic of me to call these people nazis? They’re not antisemites for the virtue of having Jewish descent, but I’m an antisemite for calling them nazis, despite what they are? What are you, 12, honestly? I genuinely like long conversations online but the quality on your comments is just absolute garbage.
Again, the fact that secondary meanings for words exist doesn’t make you right to call Jewish people nazis. It is an antisemitic thing to do. That doesn’t mean that you are or aren’t that but the action itself.
Why are you so married to calling Jewish people a term that will ensure that anyone outside of cliques like this will automatically dismiss anything else you have to say?
I’m not so keen on them myself. I’m just fascinated to what someone attempt and fail spectacularly to justify calling Jewish people nazis. I mean, if you are using in the way that people would call someone a grammar nazi or just generally nasty, why do you have to use that specific word and not any of the others that would work just as well.
You’re the only one who who’s talking about the Jewish people.
We’re calling Israelis nazis, because nazi is a synonym for a fascist, and the holocaust going on in Palestine is definitely one fascist clusterfuck and worse than a lot of things rhe actual historical Nazis did.
Netanyahu and his friends are worse than a lot of actual, literal, Nazi party members.
On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:
We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.
My Office submits that the evidence we have collected, including interviews with survivors and eyewitnesses, authenticated video, photo and audio material, satellite imagery and statements from the alleged perpetrator group, shows that Israel has intentionally and systematically deprived the civilian population in all parts of Gaza of objects indispensable to human survival.
“Fail spectacularly”? Like someone who gets downvoted to shit and who has several people replying to him how he’s wrong and I’m right and that you don’t understand the very basics of linguistics and that the “arguments” they’re making are asinine as hell, such as “using colloquial language to describe the fascist actions of Israel is 100% antisemitic” ? That kind of a spectacular fail…? ;>
No-one else is saying “the Jewish people”. We’re calling Israeli soldiers and their leaders nazis. Because it’s linguistically correct.
Its an antisemitic action. If you don’t intend on doing antisemitic things, do something else. It doesn’t mean that genocide isn’t happening in Palestine. It doesn’t mean that words don’t have secondary meanings either.
I’m ok for ad. populums but thanks all the same. Its a very sad reflection on you that you would think it would bother someone.
If I didn’t understand "the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.
Again, why do you HAVE to use that one word. Why can’t it be replaced by fascist, genocidal facsist or whatever? Why do you refuse to back down over using the one word that makes people dismiss what people say about Palestine?
Its almost as if you care more for calling Jewish people nazis than you do raising awareness of the genocide going on in gaza.
If I didn’t understand "the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.
Hahahahahhahahaha. I can’t believe you wrote that. This is THE most hilarious and ironic thing I’ve read in weeks. Your understanding of linguistics is so bad, that you’re using it in place of “language”, thinking they are synonyms, which they are NOT. That is. BRILLIANT. Fking saved. :D Thank you.
Again, what’s with the obsession to make this about Judaism? Why do you constantly try to shift discussion from Israel to Jewish people in general? Why?
If one chooses on purpose to call Israelis Nazis, perhaps it’s because it’s extremely ironic the #neveragain people are committing a holocaust themselves. Since you accept that Israel is genociding Palestinians, do you not find it ironic?
So here are the facts: Israel is doing heinous fascist shit. “Nazi” is a synonym for fascist.
You don’t disagree with the first fact. You don’t disagree with the second fact. But you’re still not ready to accept, even in part, that you didn’t understand what “prescriptive” and “descriptive” meant before this thread and now you’re DESPERATELY trying to save your spectacular fail, by trying somehow to ignore your own errors.
Yeah, not knowing the very basics would preclude someone from reading. Your unhinged reply was very funny though. The more "haha"s you write, the more believable and less desperate it sounds…
Its very ironic yes. Still doesn’t make it ok or not OK though does it? Its so sad to see someone who thinks they’re so much smarter than they actually are have to resort to this kind of thing, to maintain their delusion.
The point is, it doesn’t matter if the use here prescriptive or not. It would still fall under the definition of an antisemitic thing to do. It bizzare that you ever convinced yourself that it would change anything. If you reject the EHRC definition of antisemitism, then thats one thing but to think you can get around it with something like that is just tragic.
Yeah, not knowing the very basics would preclude someone from reading. Your unhinged reply was very funny though. The more "haha"s you write, the more believable and less desperate it sounds…
No. Fucking. Way. This is comedy gold and you’re genuinely making my sides hurt, as I broke a rib on the weekend and I can’t help laughing. Even though I explicitly explained your last mistake, you made it again, digging in your heels to your stupidity, when I gave you an out from that shame? ABsolutely brilliant. :D
LINGUISTICS
/lɪŋˈɡwɪstɪks/
noun
noun: linguistics
the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of grammar, syntax, and phonetics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, comparative linguistics, and structural linguistics.
as opposed to “LANGUAGE”
LANGUAGE
/ˈlaŋɡwɪdʒ/
noun
noun: language; plural noun: languages
>the principal method of human communication, consisting of words used in a structured and conventional way and conveyed by speech, writing, or gesture.
Not knowing THE LANGUAGE would preclude you from reading. Not knowing linguistics doesn’t. That’s like saying that if you haven’t studied psychology, that you can’t have emotions. Or that you can’t drive a car if you’re not a mechanic. Or that you can’t vote if you’re not a politician.
Absolutely HILARIOUS of a reply, which makes it very clear for anyone reading this just how valid your opinions on language use are. :D
Oh, so maybe you could explain how someone could read without any knowledge of even basic grammar or knowledge of the structure of the language they’re reading?
So, are you saying you reject their definition of antisemitism or not? I must have missed it in amongst all of your maturity in dealing with opposing opinions.
Perhaps you can explain how people can manage to drive cars without understanding the basics of mechanical engineering? HOW? Perhaps because driving a car and building one is different?
Just like using language and studying it? Humans have something called language acquisition. It’s a term you’d definitely hear in any sort of a beginner linguistics class, probably on the first lesson. There’s also a very strong reason why it’s not called “linguistics acquisition”. Can you perhaps already piece it together from all the things I’ve explicitly tought you? (And you don’t understand how hard you’re projecting when you write things like “maybe you should’ve googled a few things before replying”?)
See the thing I said about you being literally unable to accept mistakes? This is one of them. And you won’t be able to accept the fact that you confused “linguistics” with “language”. When it’s right there, for all to see.
Oh by calling Israeli government nazis I’m am right now deciding that a specific word has a specific meaning. I AM doing that. Right now? Not something that has been sculpted by the use of billions of speakers for decades and decades? Something which might have been, idk, so common that it’s been recorded as a secondary meaning for the word “nazi” for longer than you’ve been alive…?
Because every single dictionary I can find has that a secondary meaning.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi#Noun
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Nazi
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/nazi_2
Or are you going to argue that Netanyahu and his ilk aren’t being “especially hateful” towards Palestinians? Because the ICC disagrees.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
You don’t care for the definitions of words. You just ignore whatever doesn’t suite you. Like the fact that it is in fact accurate and within common use of language to say that Netanyahu is a nazi. All the definitions agree, all the evidence agrees, everything agrees with me and all you have is pathetic strawmen like “that’s like white people trying to justify using the r-word. calling ANY jew EVER a nazi in any form is wide-scale antisemitism!”
Oh so it would be antisemitic of me to call these people nazis? They’re not antisemites for the virtue of having Jewish descent, but I’m an antisemite for calling them nazis, despite what they are? What are you, 12, honestly? I genuinely like long conversations online but the quality on your comments is just absolute garbage.
Again, the fact that secondary meanings for words exist doesn’t make you right to call Jewish people nazis. It is an antisemitic thing to do. That doesn’t mean that you are or aren’t that but the action itself.
Why are you so married to calling Jewish people a term that will ensure that anyone outside of cliques like this will automatically dismiss anything else you have to say?
I’m not so keen on them myself. I’m just fascinated to what someone attempt and fail spectacularly to justify calling Jewish people nazis. I mean, if you are using in the way that people would call someone a grammar nazi or just generally nasty, why do you have to use that specific word and not any of the others that would work just as well.
It jut doesn’t add up does it?
You’re the only one who who’s talking about the Jewish people.
We’re calling Israelis nazis, because nazi is a synonym for a fascist, and the holocaust going on in Palestine is definitely one fascist clusterfuck and worse than a lot of things rhe actual historical Nazis did.
Netanyahu and his friends are worse than a lot of actual, literal, Nazi party members.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
“Fail spectacularly”? Like someone who gets downvoted to shit and who has several people replying to him how he’s wrong and I’m right and that you don’t understand the very basics of linguistics and that the “arguments” they’re making are asinine as hell, such as “using colloquial language to describe the fascist actions of Israel is 100% antisemitic” ? That kind of a spectacular fail…? ;>
No-one else is saying “the Jewish people”. We’re calling Israeli soldiers and their leaders nazis. Because it’s linguistically correct.
Its an antisemitic action. If you don’t intend on doing antisemitic things, do something else. It doesn’t mean that genocide isn’t happening in Palestine. It doesn’t mean that words don’t have secondary meanings either.
I’m ok for ad. populums but thanks all the same. Its a very sad reflection on you that you would think it would bother someone.
If I didn’t understand "the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.
Again, why do you HAVE to use that one word. Why can’t it be replaced by fascist, genocidal facsist or whatever? Why do you refuse to back down over using the one word that makes people dismiss what people say about Palestine?
Its almost as if you care more for calling Jewish people nazis than you do raising awareness of the genocide going on in gaza.
It’s not action, it’s expression.
Hahahahahhahahaha. I can’t believe you wrote that. This is THE most hilarious and ironic thing I’ve read in weeks. Your understanding of linguistics is so bad, that you’re using it in place of “language”, thinking they are synonyms, which they are NOT. That is. BRILLIANT. Fking saved. :D Thank you.
Again, what’s with the obsession to make this about Judaism? Why do you constantly try to shift discussion from Israel to Jewish people in general? Why?
If one chooses on purpose to call Israelis Nazis, perhaps it’s because it’s extremely ironic the #neveragain people are committing a holocaust themselves. Since you accept that Israel is genociding Palestinians, do you not find it ironic?
So here are the facts: Israel is doing heinous fascist shit. “Nazi” is a synonym for fascist.
You don’t disagree with the first fact. You don’t disagree with the second fact. But you’re still not ready to accept, even in part, that you didn’t understand what “prescriptive” and “descriptive” meant before this thread and now you’re DESPERATELY trying to save your spectacular fail, by trying somehow to ignore your own errors.
“The very basics of linguistics”
Yeah, not knowing the very basics would preclude someone from reading. Your unhinged reply was very funny though. The more "haha"s you write, the more believable and less desperate it sounds…
Its very ironic yes. Still doesn’t make it ok or not OK though does it? Its so sad to see someone who thinks they’re so much smarter than they actually are have to resort to this kind of thing, to maintain their delusion.
The point is, it doesn’t matter if the use here prescriptive or not. It would still fall under the definition of an antisemitic thing to do. It bizzare that you ever convinced yourself that it would change anything. If you reject the EHRC definition of antisemitism, then thats one thing but to think you can get around it with something like that is just tragic.
No. Fucking. Way. This is comedy gold and you’re genuinely making my sides hurt, as I broke a rib on the weekend and I can’t help laughing. Even though I explicitly explained your last mistake, you made it again, digging in your heels to your stupidity, when I gave you an out from that shame? ABsolutely brilliant. :D
as opposed to “LANGUAGE”
Not knowing THE LANGUAGE would preclude you from reading. Not knowing linguistics doesn’t. That’s like saying that if you haven’t studied psychology, that you can’t have emotions. Or that you can’t drive a car if you’re not a mechanic. Or that you can’t vote if you’re not a politician.
Absolutely HILARIOUS of a reply, which makes it very clear for anyone reading this just how valid your opinions on language use are. :D
Oh, so maybe you could explain how someone could read without any knowledge of even basic grammar or knowledge of the structure of the language they’re reading?
So, are you saying you reject their definition of antisemitism or not? I must have missed it in amongst all of your maturity in dealing with opposing opinions.
Perhaps you can explain how people can manage to drive cars without understanding the basics of mechanical engineering? HOW? Perhaps because driving a car and building one is different?
Just like using language and studying it? Humans have something called language acquisition. It’s a term you’d definitely hear in any sort of a beginner linguistics class, probably on the first lesson. There’s also a very strong reason why it’s not called “linguistics acquisition”. Can you perhaps already piece it together from all the things I’ve explicitly tought you? (And you don’t understand how hard you’re projecting when you write things like “maybe you should’ve googled a few things before replying”?)
See the thing I said about you being literally unable to accept mistakes? This is one of them. And you won’t be able to accept the fact that you confused “linguistics” with “language”. When it’s right there, for all to see.
#HI-LA-RI-OUS