You're viewing part of a thread.
Nope, nazi is a specific term for a specific kind of fascist. Dont get me wrong, there are plenty of people who don't understand the words that they use but thats not the same things as them being correct.
So no, the Israeli government are not nazis and only a moron would think that they were.
The word "fascism" comes from Mussolini's ideas and was later used to denote any political system with similar ideas. I think the use of the word "nazism" has been generalized in the same way.
Nazi = National Socialist even though they weren’t socialists. Go figure.
Yup, facsism is the umbrella term under which the different facsist groups, like the nazis, fall under which is what I said already.
I know people who think god is real. They too are mistaken.
Are the Israelis murdering Jewish people on mass? If not, they're not nazis.
Are the Israelis murdering Jewish people on mass?
I mean, sort of by proxy they might be inspiring a bunch of hate crimes, and I wouldn't be surprised if their actions on sort of a broader geopolitical scale are inspiring a kind of antisemitic cycle of violence, but I dunno if I'd say that makes them more specifically "nazis", in like, the 20th century hitler ideology sense.
In any case, don't be a linguistic prescriptivist, it's cringe.
Lol what you mean is "no, they're not killing Jewish people on mass that way that nazis do." Don't worry, anyone reading your comment will sew thats what you said.
No, words mean what they mean. They dont mean whatever the hell you feel they should whenever you feel like it. Its also antisemitic as fuck to call Jewish people nazis, due to the specific nature of nazis.
We can descend into literary anarchy, if you like but I think you'll find it quite to be quite chocolately and up side down very quickly. BTW, I've just decided that chocolately and up side down now means frustrating and tedious. You must accept this or youre a cringy linguistic prescriptivist. Or is it only OK when you do it?
No, words mean what they mean. They dont mean whatever the hell you feel they should whenever you feel like it.
Like he said, don't be a linguistic prescriptivist. Until you understand what that means, you can't discuss this further.
Its also antisemitic as fuck to call Jewish people nazis, due to the specific nature of nazis.
Oh no, no-one's talking about Jews. Jews are a lovely people. We're talking about Israelis and their government. The Israeli people do not own the Jewish religion. Saying that calling Israeli fascist nazis is antisemitic is beyond pathetic.
No, Israel can't hide behind the "but but the Jews suffered so in WWII". No, it's not an excuse to commit a genocide.
Yes, the Israeli government are nazis. Small n.
BTW, I've just decided that chocolately and up side down now means frustrating and tedious.
Get millions of people to actually use that as a phrase, and it is what it will mean. That's how language works.
"Rizz" is a correct word already. As is using "literally" for emphasis. Just because you're still stuck in your "but I'm 13 and don't know how to google 'prescriptive'" ways doesn't mean language isn't constantly evolving and that this evolving can be whatever. And that whatever has been documented a lot of times.
I understand it just fine. You just don't like having your bullshit called out.
Saying that calling Israeli fascist nazis is antisemitic is beyond pathetic
Calling any Jewish person, be it Israeli or otherwise, a nazi is antisemitic, per pretty much every definition of antisemitism in the English speaking world. I know, I know, you like making up your own meaning for words but the rest of us need don't do that.
Yes language is always evolving. That doesn't mean words mean whatever you want them to mean and it doesn't mean that calling Jewish people nazis isn't antisemitic.
"My use is correct, as prescriptive words exist"
Well, you can't argue with that kind of "logic."
Why are you so married to calling the israeli government nazis? You could just call them facsists which would be correct and not fall under most people's understanding of antisemitism but you refuse. Why is this?
Calling any Jewish person, be it Israeli or otherwise, a nazi is antisemitic, per pretty much every definition of antisemitism in the English speaking world.
Then you don't understand the definition in the slightest, nor have you looked at the several ones I've shown that conform to the exact meaning that's been explained to you over and over and again.
First off, it's beyond a ridiculous statement to say that "calling any jewish person a nazi is antisemitic", because antisemitism is towards a group, whereas calling someone personally a nazi, isn't a thing you're directing at a group.
So you're definition is "anything that's even remotely hostile to anyone who's Jewish, be it related in any way to them being Jewish or not"?
So if a Jewish person rapes someone, and you accuse them of being a rapist, you're being antisemitic? That's your definition of antisemitism? Literally anyone calling out your bullshit. Ironic, isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Neo-Nazis_of_Jewish_descent
So guess those people weren't antisemites, but the people who wrote that article calling them neonazis are antisemites. Because that is literally what you said. ANY Jewish person in ANY context. See what kind of moronic logic you're putting out? Where's your intellectual rigor? Have you ever had any?
Yes language is always evolving. That doesn’t mean words mean whatever you want them to mean and it doesn’t mean that calling Jewish people nazis isn’t antisemitic.
“My use is correct, as prescriptive words exist”
You still don't seem to understand how to use "presriptive" and "descriptive" correctly. So are you denying that "nazi" is often used as a synonym for "fascist"? Are you saying that you truly think that does not happen? If so, welcome, how's your first day on the internet? Or are you saying common usage doesn't define what is acceptable? Because... that would be... erroneous.
Literally ALL the dictionaries I can look up mention this use for "nazi." Weird how you can't link anything to support your garbage, isn't it?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi#Noun
One who subscribes to or advocates (neo-)Nazism, or a similarly fascist, racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, ethnic supremacist, or ultranationalist ideology; a neo-Nazi.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Nazi
disapproving : an evil person who wants to use power to control and harm other people especially because of their race, religion, etc.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nazi
Nazi in the extended sense of “a fanatical or domineering person” has existed at least since 1980
So yeah. Show me a dictionary which doesn't have that meaning for it?
Why are you so married to calling the israeli government nazis?
Because it's extremely ironic that the #neveragain people are literally #doingitrightnowthemselves and the fact that you refuse to see this hints that you're on the side which keeps frantically denying they're not committing the genocide they're very much committing.
You can't have looked very hard.
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism^___^
Lol at you attempting to paint me as someone denying israels genocide in palestine. Sheer desperation from you here.
Lol at you attempting to paint me as someone denying israels genocide in palestine. Sheer desperation from you here.
Ah, so you accept the reality, which is that Israel is committing a genocide? You'll readily accept that fact, and won't try to dodge the question or pretend there isn't a genocide?
Good.
I'd tell you you need to watch your projection. Youre feeling extremely ashamed, that's why you're talking about desperation. Because you despaired when you realised how wrong you are, from the votes and everyone explaining to you what "prescriptive" and "descriptive" mean. You didn't understand it.
So now you're trying to appeal to authority while not even making an argument. Desperately. You think that link seems authoritative. The EU discussing how antisemitism is defined doesn't change that using nazi doesn't make you antisemitic, and it doesn't change the fact that "nazi" is synonymous with "fascist", so calling Israeli soldiers nazis is not linguistically erroneous.
Defining "nazi" prescriptively as having one single meaning would be linguistically erroneus. Which you will never admit to.
So which part in this EU link which I did actually read through is supposed to say that descriptive rules for a language have gone out the window?
Or is it now the comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany policies that you're saying is antisemitic, and not the colloquial use of "nazi"? Because those aren't the same thing?
Don't be so desperate, you can get out of all this shame simply by not replying. No more humiliation for you, it can all be over. Just lie back and take it.
Wow, you really have some issues you need to work out there. You really went and rage typed all that didn't you?
No, I don't care that I get downvoted for saying that people shouldn't call Jewish people, regardless of whether they're referred to as Israelis or, not nazis. I also didn't say that you or anyone here is an antisemitic person. My point is that the action of doing so is. If I thought you genuinely wanted to be antisemitic, I wouldn't bother telling you now would I?
I love, love how you start off taking about projection and then lost a whole load of emotions that you feel I'm feeling, without a hint of irony.
The part of the equality and human rights commission that says:
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
Specifically.
Again, if you're just referring to them in the way you would call someone, say, a grammar nazi, why do you HAVE to keep saying it? Why do you feel the need to defend it so vigorously?
Come one now, grow a spine and answer.
They are zionist facists.
100%!
Yes, prescriptively, it's a very certain type. You'll notice how for instance in Wikipedia they'd capitalise the n in "Nazi", while on forums you might see people using just "nazi". Is there a difference? Yes. The same way "literally" means literally, but it can also be used just as emphasis. And that's the opposite of it's meaning.
Yet because some people like to use it that way, it's accepted as a colloquialism into the language.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism
Just like that wasn't the first definition of nazi, so too "literally" has a several definitions.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/literally
Literally is also used to emphasize a statement and suggest that it is surprising:
See how that works?
You're using the non capitalised version as well. So you're incorrect. The Israeli government are nazis. They might not be Nazis, but they are nazis.
Thats actually a hilarious attempt at squaring this little antisemitic circle people where keep drawing.
Its funny that you provide links to everything but the part that could prove your nonsense to be true (that the meaning of nazi changes when a capital letter is used). Its literally something you just made up now, then claimed that (as colloquiums exist) the thing i just made up must be true.
How about you attempt to prove that the capitalisation of the "N" changes the meaning to not being nazis but, instead, "Jewish people we don't like."
There's nothing you'll ever accept as enough evidence that this is how language works and go "oh, okay, I think I was wrong." That's not even on the table. You're literally not capable of even writing those words.
When you're reading text, and it has the word "coke" in it, do you read it differently than "Coke"?
Could you perhaps take a guess at what's the difference?
First one stands for (depending on the place of usage), any type of cola, cocaine or even any type of soda drink. that's valid usage in the Southern US, calling a can of any carbonated sugary drink "coke" is perfectly fine. Whereas "Coke" is short for "Coca-Cola" and refers to the actual Coke.
Now unless I'm speaking to a second grader or something, you should be able to grasp the meaning of that. It works just like it does with "Nazi", "nazi."
No, I didn't invent the rules of capitalisation
How about you attempt to prove that the capitalisation of the "N" changes the meaning to not being nazis but, instead, "Jewish people we don't like."
This has nothing to do with being a Jew and everything to do with being a small-minded, brainwashed, fascist genocide supporting piece of shit. In other words a nazi, as is the accepted colloquial usage.
Israeli government are despicable nazis.
Why would you make this about being Jewish?
Jewish people are great. Nazis fucking suck dick. Israeli government is full of nazis. Israeli government isn't the same as Jewish people. That's like saying that if I call Putler a fucking nazi, that I'm "just referring to Christians you don't like".
Like how fucking thick do you have to be to make that argument?
Israeli government are scum. Jewish people are lovely. And the true people of God are against this sort of nazi bullshit and would seek to make Israel face it's sins.
Also, coke is a type of treated coal that produces much more heat, it's used in steel manufacturing.
Yes, crossed my mind, thought not to confuse them more.
Ty for pointing it out tho.
Its literally like listening to white people claiming they weren't being racist because they didn't use a hard R.
Man those arguments keep getting worse, eh?
How about grab yourself by the neck and actually Google some of these words so you don't have to keep publicly humiliating yourself like that.
Strawmen worse than what my niece comes up with, and she doesn't even speak well yet.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Nazi
1 : a member of a German political party that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler
2 disapproving : an evil person who wants to use power to control and harm other people especially because of their race, religion, etc.
Now you can try to make the argument that we've all been brainwashed by the media and that that these people wouldn't fit into the description of "an evil person harming other people for their race religion etc" :
Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant
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:
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel. 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.
So I really don't know what you're disagreeing with here, since none of these are my opinions, or shitty examples I've made up. They're definitions in such common usage you can find them listed on big linguistic organisations.
You're just offended that people are justifiably horrified by the nazi shit Israel is doing and wish to pretend it isn't happening.
Descriptive language is a thing even if you pretend it isn't. So are Israeli war crimes.
Then why couldn't you just use another word?
Lol, I'm kidding, we both know why you HAVE to use that one.
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
Yeah, we both do know why. It's not because anyone is being antisemitic, as explained several times.
You're ashamed that you didn't understand what "colloquial" and "prescriptive" meant.
"Nazi" as a colloquialism means "horrible fascist". It is literally synonymous with it, as I've shown several times with several links to several different dictionaries, even explaining what "common usage" is and what linguists call an error and what not.
The reason the Israelis are being called nazis is that Israel is acting worse than historical Nazis, raping, pillaging, attacking hospitals, torturing prisoners, destroying aid convoys on purpose. And the leaders of Israel are worse than a lot of actual Nazi leaders.
Do you think your "you're just using Nazi because you hate Jews" rhetoric will work? No-one else has your magical powers to ignore an actual holocaust going on.
Now I suppose you'll protest the use of "holocaust", and that makes me antisemitic, because you don't understand the difference between "holocaust" and "the Holocaust".
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:
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel. 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.
People who stuff like that are rightfully called nazis, and your lame protestations definitely won't make calling Israel's genocidal fascist leaders nazis any less common or any more anysemitic.
No-one is talking about the Jewish people here except you. Is there a reason you're trying to equate Israel and Judaism? Perhaps something like... this word which apparently can't be used either, as it's "antisemitic" as well, according to some.
Tldr you didn't read that anyway. You're angry you didn't understand basic linguistics so now you're trying super hard to pretend Israeli leaders aren't horrible fascists, because you can't pretend anymore that you don't understand what "colloquial" and "prescriptive" mean, because several commenters beat it into your low brow.
Its either antisemitism or ignorance. Take your pick.
So now you're trying super hard to pretend Israeli leaders aren’t horrible fascists
Thats specifically the exact opposite of what I've been saying to you. The IDF are lead by and is full of fascsists.
You'll have to try again there.
Your refusal to acknowledge that descriptive language exists doesn't make you right. In fact, it makes you wrong. Trying to give out some ultimatums comes across as a six-year old stomping their foot and saying "no no no no no no no no"
Thats specifically the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying to you. The IDF are lead by and is full of fascsists.
Ah, so you're not denying the genocide Israel is committing? (Provably so.) Ah, so this is literally actually only about you being so ashamed that you were caught saying something stupid by people smarter than you that you're desperately trying to get the last word.
No, using "nazi" in colloquial parliance as synonym for "fascist" isn't antisemitic. Even suggesting that means you still don't understand what "prescriptive" and "descriptive" actually mean.
You're wrong, but you'll never be able to admit to it. So just stop replying, it'll be easier for you that way and maybe next time you'll do some Googling before commenting on linguistics you don't understand.
I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said its existence doesn't make you right, as only an idiot would think that. That people can be called nazis in a non literal way doesn't make calling Jewish people nazis right or wrong. Its a non sequitur, invalid argument that only an idiot would make.
No, in never denied it or came even close to it at any point. You were just kitchen sinking.
Bless you for thinking that you're smarter than anyone, after your little outbursts.
Again, grow a spine, stop being a pathetic little coward, and let me know why you HAVE to use that word to describe Jewish people who happen to also be Israeli?
Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. Word meanings can change over time, the only thing that makes a word's definition "correct" is if it successfully communicates information.
I'm not saying that to castigate you but to make your point bullet proof.
I actually agree with your definition, but arguing that a word's definition is wrong simply because "thats not how it's defined" ignores the way that real people actually use words today
Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. Word >meanings can change over time
While true, actually, it doesn't mean "words can mean whatever the hell i want them to whenever I feel like it." As crazy as it might seems, its actually not the same thing.
It does successfully communicate information. That much is the. Unfortunately though, it communicates that certain people choose antisemitism over accurately describing the thing they're talking about. If that's what they want to communicate, then yes, it was successfully communicated. If that wasn't the intention, it fails the condition you listed.
While true, actually, it doesn't mean "words can mean whatever the hell i want them to whenever I feel like it." As crazy as it might seems, its actually not the same thing.
And who tried that?
We're not talking about whether "rizz" is acceptable to use instead of "charisma", (which would also constitute common usage), but something that's been going on for more than 80 years.
Using "nazi" as a generalised term for fascists.
It's accurate. It's very accurate. Because what the Israeli are doing to Palestinians is very related to what the Nazis (notice the capital N) did to Jews during the Holocaust.
#neveragain
Israeli government are nazis. Pure and simple. You can keep crying over what you feel is an offensive and "inaccurate" term. Unfortunately for you it's common usage no matter how badly you want to be blissfully ignorant of Israeli atrocities.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Nazi
disapproving : an evil person who wants to use power to control and harm other people especially because of their race, religion, etc.
That's literally the common use. Argue that away with your asinine examples, go ahead, I'll wait.
And who tried that?
You, just now. Try and keep up.
No, nazi, even by the definition you provided, is an evil person colloquially.
The israeli government are facsists and pretending anyone could cry over your ignorance is pathetic, even by your standards. Just so you know, your mask slips when you have to pretend I want ignorant of the evil things the Israeli government is doing. Its just empty rhetoric designed to silence people who disagree with you, as you haven't got a leg to stand on.
However, as were on the subject of definitions, why are you so married to calling Jewish people a term that falls under the EHRC definition of antisemitism?
Let me guess, suddenly you don't care for the definition of words anymore? Go ahead, attempt to argue that away with your baseless, asinine declarations about the use of capital letters. Please do, its hilarious.
Literally, its like listening to white guys claiming it wasn't racist, as they didn't use a hard "R."
"But how hard was the capitalisation?" 😂
You, just now.
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
One who subscribes to or advocates (neo-)Nazism, or a similarly fascist, racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, ethnic supremacist, or ultranationalist ideology; a neo-Nazi.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Nazi
disapproving : an evil person who wants to use power to control and harm other people especially because of their race, religion, etc.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/nazi_2
a person who uses their power in a cruel way; a person with extreme and unreasonable views (especially racist)
Or are you going to argue that Netanyahu and his ilk aren't being "especially hateful" towards Palestinians? Because the ICC disagrees.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Gallant
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:
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
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.
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:
Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Statute; Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health contrary to article 8(2)(a)(iii), or cruel treatment as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Wilful killing contrary to article 8(2)(a)(i), or Murder as a war crime contrary to article 8(2)(c)(i); Intentionally directing attacks against a civilian population as a war crime contrary to articles 8(2)(b)(i), or 8(2)(e)(i); Extermination and/or murder contrary to articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(a), including in the context of deaths caused by starvation, as a crime against humanity; Persecution as a crime against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(h); Other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity contrary to article 7(1)(k).
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.
It's not action, it's expression.
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.
"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.
I think it's a neurodivergent thing. When Steve says "Israeli's are a bunch of Nazis" you're supposed to pass through the words and see what Steve is expressing. Steve didn't couch his statement in a clinical, "these be the facts" tone, it's obvious what Steve meant. He's calling out Israel for abhorrent behavior
The "this means X so if you say that it means Y" things is the way some neurodivergents slice up the world. Like we live in a videogame or something. They will literally tell you what you meant by attaching arbitrary rules to your words.
Anyways, Israeli's are definitely Nazis. (They are not literally Nazis) Their war is soulless, evil. (Evil does not literally exist, soulless is elegant shorthand for morality, how one feels about actions, how deep one feels those patterns are embedded, etc.)
Israeli's are a bunch of Nazis"
Steve didn't though. Steve didn't say they are Nazis. Steve said they are nazis.