You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
Still, so much projection. You're just so angry at being publicly shamed for not knowing the basics of linguistics, even basic terminology such as "prescriptive" and "descriptive". This means that more than likely, you're not highly educated. That's okay, because you're online and you can teach yourself, but it shows just on what level you're discussing this.
Because you were wrong and because everyone pointed it out, you got this tantrum. You were in error, but can never admit that publicly. So you'll dig deeper and more desperate to try and save yourself from this spectacular fail, as you so eloquently put it.
"Defend it so vigorously"? Defend what? How languages work? Again, they don't care for my OPINION. I don't make the rules for the languages. Not prescriptive nor descriptive. Nothing I think will make you be less in error.
You're just not man enough to say "oh I didn't understand the terms you were using as I don't understand language-a-logics at all, thanks for teaching me."
No, instead you at first started arguing as if you understood the subject, DESPERATELY googling things to support you. I'm not Googling shit because I know what I'm talking about. Maybe next time, you'll THINK before you press "reply" or "post" to comments with words which you don't actually understand the meaning of?
I love how you're the one going on about emotions and I'm, apparently, also the one projecting. Its like you don't understand the meaning of the word.
Disagreeing with you isn't a tantrum.
I'm man enough to know the definition of antisemitism and what it includes. One of those things is:
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
If you reject that definition then thats your choice to make but to pretend the only reason someone would think differently is due to a lack of basic linguistic knowledge is just bizzare and shows that maybe you should have googled some stuff before writing.
You projected all your emotions with words like "desperate" and "spectacular fail". Because you know it's you who failed. Now you're just desperately trying to pretend the spectacular fail didn't happen.
To pretend that you even saw that bit there before I pointed it out to you is ridiculous. And yes, that contention is ridiculous and I personally reject it, because comparisons can be drawn in between anything. Elon Musk and Jesus? Sure thing. Not a flattering comparison for Musk, but that can definitely be made. But we won't even get into the actual politics of this, which you weren't into.
Netanyahu is basically trying to push the agenda that anyone criticising his warcrimes is antisemitic. I would like you to understand how antisemitic pushing that is. Do you now understand how much the global Jewish population is suffering for Netanyahu's nazism? (That's a rhetoric question, I don't think you've the capacity.)
We are talking about the colloquial use of the word "nazi". You don't understand basic linguistics which again, is different from the basics of language (this has to be specified because you thought lacking the basics of linguistics would mean one can't speak the language, not understanding the difference between the terms), and you made an error. That error being corrected by at least half a dozen people each with a half a dozen upvotes at least on them, made you angry. You don't like admitting that you're wrong. You're not trying to convince me now, you know I see through your bullshit. You're trying to convince yourself of it.
"Spectacular fail" isn't an emotion now is it?
Explain how someone can read without knowing the basics of grammar and the structure of the language they're trying to read.
On what basis do you reject the EHRC definition of antisemitism?
Be a man and explain your positions.
The shame you feel from having spectacularly failed certainly is, yes.
Explain how someone can read without knowing the basics of grammar and the structure of the language they’re trying to read.
So now you're honestly trying to argue that "language" and "linguistics" are synonyms, because you're INCAPABLE of admitting to having been wrong?
Perhaps you can explain how people can manage to drive cars without understanding the basics of mechanical engineering? You can drive a car without understanding even what Newtons measure or even how to weld a basic seam or without understanding how to make petrol out of crude oil. HOW? Perhaps because driving a car and building one are two different things?
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”.
Linguistics is the STUDY OF LANGUAGE. Would you call anyone who's ever had a few emotions to be a studier of emotions? Because if so, then all humans everywhere practice psychology. I'm sure you know how silly that sounds, don't you?
On what basis do you reject the EHRC definition of antisemitism?
You still don't understand what "prescriptive" means. Are you just honestly incapable of understanding it, or are you just so intellectually lazy you haven't read about it for the few minutes it might take for even someone like you to learn it?
The shame you feel from having spectacularly failed certainly is, yes.
Jesus christ you have some real problems.
You still don’t understand what “prescriptive” means
I do but even if I didn't, their definition includes all uses of the word, due to their being no caveat excluding them.
I do but even if I didn’t, their definition includes all uses of the word, due to their being no caveat excluding them.
7/5 for irony, once again
"Spectacular fail" isn't an emotion now is it?
Again with the ad populums. I suppose its the best you've got but still, have some intellectual integrity.
How can someone read without knowledge of basic grammar and the structure of the language they're reading?
OK, so now we're getting somewhere. You think you know better than the European equality and rights commission. More people agree with that definition that your "not a hard N" argument. By your own "logic" wouldn't that make you wrong?
.>That error being corrected by at least half a dozen people each with a half a dozen upvotes at least on them, made you angry. You don’t like admitting that you’re wrong. You’re not trying to convince me now, you know I see through your bullshit. You’re trying to convince yourself of it.
Sorry, what was that you were saying about projection?