- 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
Can you please not do that? All you’re doing is using Israel’s definition of antisemitism and so whenever real antisemitism comes up, people can hide behind saying things like “antisemitism has lost its meaning now.”
Honestly, I’ve given up and just started calling people being antisemitic “bigots,” but you’re still not helping by using Israel’s terminology, even in a sarcastic way. Because you’re still helping to normalize it in a way that it can be dismissed.
(I expect to get heavily downvoted for this, but I don’t care.)
I think your point about sarcastic use of a statement to make fun of it being the same as saying it genuinely is nonsense.
The comment clearly makes fun of Israel’s misuse of the term, which is basically in agreement with your point that it should be differentiated from real antisemitism.
Your comment basically means the famous onion headline published about mass shootings contributes to people ignoring gun violence because they say there’s nothing you can do about it. which is completely false. that goes against the entire concept of sarcasm and satire.
They destroyed our ability to even use language effectively. Someone certainly read Orwell, and learned well.
Others are making sarcastic use of the same statement to make bigoted comments. That’s a big difference from the Onion headline.
Thanks for this comment. I’m not sure where I stand on the topic, but it’s a good point and worth considering.
I understand your concern. The current Israeli cabinet uses that word to anything that opposes the government’s actions and it makes the word lose its real meaning.
However, I think that mocking the way Israel labels everything opposing the war as “antisemitic” does not undermine its real meaning but undermines the reputation of Israel using it inappropriately.
It normalizes the concept. Which is what Israel wants. They want ‘antisemitism’ and ‘Israel criticism’ associated with it.
But more importantly, I have literally seen that sort of sarcastic comment about things that are actually bigoted now because people think that all they have to do is say, “I guess X is antisemitism now…” and suddenly it shifts to how Israel is co-opting the term- by co-opting the term.
Does that make sense? It’s an “any publicity is good publicity” situation.
Why do you require your own special word that’s exclusive to one particular religion? Why not just use bigot like every other situation?
Literally one post before this I said:
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.