Exactly! Individuals don’t get to decide the meanings of words. Only all the users of that word, collectively, decide, by their common usages.
That’s how language works!
Nope.
You and your buds don’t get to reinvent language based on your feels.
Exactly! No one and their buds gets to decide. Only all users collectively. That’s how language works! If, say, 500 million speakers of that language use a particular word in a particular way, guess what? That’s now one of the definitions of that word!
Was Humpty Dumpty the world’s first post-modernist?
Hey @Babale, how’s the Iran war going? Still think it was a good move to trust that a war decided by Trump and Hegseth would go well? Or are you still so cowardly that you refuse to even talk about it?
So here we go round again … I am generally a descriptivist but it is not always so -
Even a majority of other people say that Catholic means X, the Catholic Church still gets to define it.
“Allergic to [insert food here]” is used by possibly a majority of people to mean any food intolerance; it still has a very specific meaning regarding mechanism.
I personally accept that “Zionism” is understood to mean different things to different people but there really is greater weight given regarding what it means to the group who have used the word as their identity for a century, than to others.
Unfortunately I also have to accept that that group, by the actions of using the word to justify horrific actions, is the one doing the heavy lifting in changing the word’s meaning.
There are definitely Zionists who believe that ethnic cleansing and even genocide are permissible or even required to support their philosophy. Some are in the Israeli government. That’s one of the definitions of Zionism.
You don’t have to use that word, but it is the single most effective word you can use to make it clear that you oppose what’s going on, and it is both factually and legally accurate. Using the same terminology as the people you are saying you agree with is generally the most effective.
Thing.Fish uses “ethnic cleansing,” which is almost as good, and then adds “systemic slaughter” and “innocent civilians.” I have not seen people treat that as insufficient.
What I do see are negative reactions to people who specifically argue against the term “genocide” or, worse, act like using that term is wrong. Because that is a politicalized statement that is factually inaccurate. It would be like saying “oh, I agree that there were 6 million Jews who were killed by Nazism, but it’s wrong to call it a Holocaust.”
That feels like you’re trying to leave room for Holocaust deniers. Same thing for Gazan genocide deniers.
To be fair, he made that comment after using “glory” to mean “a nice knockdown argument” - and if you squint just right, “glory” can mean “victory,” which is at least in the same ballpark semantically (a “knockdown argument” being one that’s immune to defeat).
I am confident that you have no clue how deeply offensive this is to many Jews who wholeheartedly condemn Israel’s actions.
I mean, I didn’t say there weren’t. Your quote leaves off the context.
What I do see are negative reactions to people who specifically argue against the term “genocide” or, worse, act like using that term is wrong. Because that is a politicalized statement that is factually inaccurate. It would be like saying “oh, I agree that there were 6 million Jews who were killed by Nazism, but it’s wrong to call it a Holocaust.”
That feels like you’re trying to leave room for Holocaust deniers. Same thing for Gazan genocide deniers.
In other words, I pointed out that that acknowledging the Gazan issue while claiming it’s wrong to call it a genocide is seen as the same as acknowledging Nazi deaths but saying it’s wrong to call it a Holocaust. Both suggest the goal is to carry water for for deniers.
I don’t see anything where I even implied that Jewish people couldn’t condemn the Gazan genocide. I know you do. I believe Thing.Fish is also Jewish. I don’t remember all the others right now, but I think of this board when I tell people that not all Jewish people are pro-Israel.
I even first learned that over 50% of Jewish people agree that the Gazan situation is a genocide from this board. So why would I think that Jewish people couldn’t be pro-Palestinian?
@Thing.Fish - the expected complete cluelessness above about why making Nazi and Holocaust allusions is so deeply offensive and hurtful, and even scary, to many Jews who otherwise agree that what the Israeli government has been doing and enabling is simply wrong, must be constrained, forces a moment of self reflection beyond my initial impulse to just ignore and engage no further:
Am I and the others for whom that conflation crosses a line being guilty of the same getting hung up on specific words?
I don’t think so. But I do wonder what your thoughts are? The emotional response to that conflation, the knowledge that conflation is most commonly made by those with pretty Jew hating beliefs (whether or not that poster is it is quacking like a duck) is visceral. The knee jerk response that I have to control is the us vs the world response, and certainly wouldn’t want to support anyone who supports those words used in this context. An emotional threat response but one very deeply felt.
A good time to engage in self-critical reflection right now of course! L Shana Tova to any who observe the holiday in any way!
Clearly not debating that.
And it is also true that to most of us who grew up as Jews in the ‘60 to aughts Zionism is defined simply as “Israel has a right to exist.” and an overwhelming majority of American Jew will perceive a statement that “Israel has no right to exist.” as antisemitic.
Hence the power of words to divide when people mean different things with the same words.
One can talk about the Israeli government being far-right and criminal without mentioning the Nazi party. I cannot think of any reason why Nazis would be remotely relevant. Nor in Sudan, etc.
Sure. But can one condemn the unnecessary death and destruction in Gaza while not calling it a genocide?
It’s (not at all) surprising to me how people insist on policing language and insisting on meaning of words by appealing to majorities (expressing opinions they like) when it suits their narrative.
@Babale refuses to do even this.
Focus on things you can control. Do you think it’s a genocide?
Yes (though I’m not remotely an expert on genocide). I don’t care that much about definitions, though - if someone calls it ethnic cleansing, I’m not going to quibble. Very clearly, the Israeli government has no regard for the lives and rights of Palestinian people, includes multiple high ranking officials who are on record in support of or indifferent to genocide and ethnic cleansing, and has killed tens of thousands of Gazans.
I personally don’t care what it’s called, on it’s face, it’s disgusting. I do think there’s legal implications in what it’s officially called, and people I wouldn’t have expected to call it that lightly, on a whim, have called it that.
Okay, well, if we insist on words having meanings, “genocide” is certainly one of those words loaded with meaning and legal context.
People throwing it around casually, and very often intentionally to get a reaction, should be called on to explain what they mean and why.
Saying you don’t care about definitions of “genocide” because you’re not remotely an expert, but taking pains to define the meaning of “zionist” seems intellectually dishonest, at the very least.