491
submitted 1 year ago by pete_link@lemmy.ml to c/news@lemmy.world

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Why do you require your own special word that's exclusive to one particular religion? Why not just use bigot like every other situation?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Literally one post before this I said:

Honestly, I’ve given up and just started calling people being antisemitic “bigots,”

[-] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

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.

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Like 99% of Lemmy is opposed to Israel's genocide. The OP has 78 upvotes (100%). I don't think anyone is misunderstanding the sarcasm. Unless there's one really dumb zionist among those 78.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You know, I knew this was going to still be argued, then this conversation happened soon after I posted that- we're talking within an hour, so I kept a link handy.

I'm sure you'll find some way to handwave it away:

https://lemmy.world/comment/14149539

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I absolutely agree with what you said over there. That person is a fuckwit.

If your point is that some of the people opposed to Israel's genocide are using it as a reason (intentional or not) to be antisemitic, I also agree, but I think those people are a fairly small fraction of the total opposition (and that they are playing into Israel's hands).

But that seems like the opposite of what the original comment in this thread is saying. It's parodying that opinion.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

My point is that even saying it sarcastically legitimizes the concept as a line of thinking which can influence others. As I said to someone else, it's an "any publicity is bad publicity" situation. And it's really not hard to misunderstand sarcasm on the internet.

I also do not think you should ever give Israel an inch with their attempts at redefining terms.

[-] crapwittyname@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

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?

this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2024
491 points (97.9% liked)

News

36063 readers
3004 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS