You're viewing part of a thread.
Due to the definition of antisemitism, in the country I live in. Its also the most widely accepted definition, as far as im aware.
I mean, don't get me wrong, you're clearly a very unpleasant person with some appalling social skills but my emotional well being is fine. Thanks all the same though. Also, let's not pretend you have the empathy or emotional range necessary to care about someone else's wellbeing.
What makes you think you know better than the European equality and rights commission? Are they all idiots who don't understand "the very basics of linguistics" too?
I am standing by that and the EHRC definition of antisemitism. I reject your "not a hard N" argument. Nothing has changed here. I'm not sure what you're pretending its changed to.
Its also the most widely accepted definition, as far as im aware.
Why would anyone give literally any credibility to any of your brainfarts, when you won't accept your mistakes despite several people explaining in detail how you made them and why?
No, it's not the most "widely accepted definition" and in what context would that even be?
We're talking about colloquial use of language, which you now want to redirect this conversation from, because again, you're just seething over having made an error and being physically unable to accept it.
What makes you think you know better than the European equality and rights commission?
At NO POINT ANYWHERE do they EVER claim that using "nazi" colloquially is remotely antisemitic. NOWHERE.
You're just sad and mad that you're wrong and that people online — the one place where you felt comfortable — told you as much. You're trying to cover up your ignorance with pathetic equivocation. (Yes, I know you need to check what that word means. Maybe stay on Wikipedia a year or two and well see about having a new conversation when you can actually understand at least half the terms used.)
Its not a mistake to use an accurate definition of a term. Why would I admit a mistake for that?
I see, so because it doesn't specifically say
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, even colloquial usage with a soft "n"
They didnt mean all comparisons, per the words they used. I hope you stretched before those gymnastics.
You’re just sad and mad that you’re wrong and that people online — the one place where you felt comfortable — told you as much. You’re trying to cover up your ignorance with pathetic equivocation. (Yes, I know you need to check what that word means. Maybe stay on Wikipedia a year or two and well see about having a new conversation when you can actually understand at least half the terms used.)
Sorry, what was that you were saying about projecting again? Don't worry, your antisocial outbursts aren't definitely confirming anything. So, you just carry on, even if only one of us has had to lower themselves to an outburst like that.
Its not a mistake to use an accurate definition of a term. Why would I admit a mistake for that?
Oh like confusing "language" and "linguistics"? That sort of an ACCURATE definition, eh?
You still don't understand that there are no "correct definitions" in colloquial language, that's why it's called colloquial. You're again, being 100% prescriptive, because you're some ignorant fool who's too intellectually lazy to educate themselves, so you still don't even understand the BASIC LINGUISTIC TERMS DOZENS OF PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TEACHING YOU.
You're loaning half a sentence from an authority, removing it completely from context and trying to cover up your childish mistakes. This isn't about antisemitism, this isn't about Israel. This is about you, personally, not being big enough to be able to accept having made mistakes, having been stupid publicly. I know a lot of people like that. Most grew out of that by the time we left grade school, but a minority didn't, and never will. So I really hope you're still of the age to be in grade school.
You're literally trying to argue that "linguistics" is synonymous with "language", because you can't accept your own mistakes. You'll never grow or learn like that.
Oh like confusing “language” and “linguistics”
No, that was you trying to slip out of explaining why you would write to someone with no knowledge of grammar.
You still don’t understand that there are no “correct definitions” in colloquial language
You don't understand that there being none doesn't lend wight to you "not a hard N" argument.
I disagree with you but that doesn't mean I care if my username became associated with getting something wrong on an Internet forum with like 20 people on it.
Talking to you was a mistake, as you're clearly a deeply unpleasant person who can't handle somone politely disagreeing with you. Now that I've admitted a mistake I've made, how do we reconcile that with what you say here?
This isn’t about antisemitism, this isn’t about Israel. This is about you, personally, not being big enough to be able to accept having made mistakes, having been stupid publicly. I know a lot of people like that. Most grew out of that by the time we left grade school, but a minority didn’t, and never will. So I really hope you’re still of the age to be in grade school.
I admitted the same mistake before already. So, despite admitting as mistake to you already, you still said all of that.
And you just went on and on and on
explaining why you would write to someone with no knowledge of grammar.
This is the third time I've said this. You acquire the rules of grammar through language acquisition, which is an inherent property in humans. Just like you don't need to study medicine to be able to know how to breathe, you don't need to study linguistics to be able to understand grammar. This is stated very clearly in the very simply written Wikipedia article, which you refuse to read, because you're a willfully ignorant dolt. You're afraid of looking dumb, so you double down and look even dumber.
You've admitted to no mistakes. You can't say "I was wrong". You can't. You can't say that. You're unable to.
You wrote "If I didn’t understand "the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk." What you meant is "If I don't understand the language we're using, how are you able to communicate to me", thinking you have some sort of gotcha. Then I point out that linguistics and language are nowhere near synonyms. You get ashamed that you've been stupid and double down. And now there's three replies from you again, because you're being emotional, because you can't admit to not understanding linguistics.
Come on now. Think before you write. Please.
I was wrong to talk to you, as you seem to be a deeply unpleasant person with severe social problems.
See, that was easy.
I'm good to be honest. I was using it colloquially. So, I used it correctly.
I wish I could see your face right now
"Colloquially" doesn't mean "it's to be taken however I later decide it will".
Why won't you just google these terms you CLEARLY do not understand? It's beyond incredible to me that someone who knows they're completely unaware of a thing starts arguing over it as if they actually were an expert.
The fact that this is an informal conversation doesn't change the meaning of your sentence in the slightest, nor the mistake you made.
You said: "If I didn’t understand “the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.”
Do you deny saying that, or do you just deny that it’s in any way wrong? Because it’s either or.
Oh really? About things meaning whatever we want, tell me again about how the ECHR definition of antisemitism not including colloquialisms. Id love yo heat all about that.
"not including colloquialisms"
It's like watching a six year old talk about car parts. They think they're making valid, adult sentences with meaning, and are completely oblivious to the adults laughing at them.
You're simply raging that you can't admit to having publicly humiliated yourself with your own stupidity. You can't walk back on it, and removing the comments at this point would be ridiculous by any standards. So you obsess over this "conversation", you have to reply, but you simply can't address the fact that for the entire thread, it's been about linguistics, and you don't even understand what the term means.
##You said: "If I didn’t understand “the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.”
##Do you deny saying that, or do you just deny that it’s in any way wrong? Because it’s either or. I guess you deny there’s anything wrong with it. When there is. Very clearly. Almost as if you had some sort of inability to admit when you’re wrong. ;)