It’s like in Polish - the word “żyd” (jew) has negative connotations, and maybe it becomes rare in usage these days, but the negative meaning sticks. It’s still an offense to call somebody that.
We have more words like this (cygan, rumun) that on its own are official words for etnicity or nationality, but carry some negative meaning. We also have dedicated words to call many different groups in offensive ways.
However languages happen organically and they reflect how people speak, not the other way that there’s some sort of entity that dictates how the entire population should speak (although reformations are possible).
Funny how people try to regulate that by law. We had such case in Polish when few years ago feminists tried to change how we call professions that are typically assigned with men, but some women are also performing them (police officer, firefigter, ministry etc). Some of those forms didn’t make sense completely due to semantics, some were dropped from the language decades ago and sound archaic or unnatural, the lobby lead to memes at the very most.
Fireman and policeman in English are also not offensive because they aren’t referring to gender or sex.
Human - Group
Humans - Collective Individuals
Man - Individual
Men - Collective Individuals (Non-sexed)
Not to be conflated with
Men - Collective (Sex Male)
Women - Collective (Sex Female) Wo - Female, men - collective individuals (non-sexed).
Keep in mind these are all traditional definitions and were constructed before sex and gender were determined to be separate and before intersex was a classification.
We now often conflate those in common English with human and man and person being interchangeable. As man (individual) with man (sex). And many others conflate sex and gender.
The arguments for removing gender from professions is based on the misapprehension that the professions were ever related to gender and as a result mass illiteracy has made it an “issue”.
I am asking why you are talking about Zionism on a post that isn’t about Zionism. If you do not think all Jews and Zionists are the same then why are you bringing it up here and now?
Ambassador to Brussels calls comments on settler harassment of Palestinians ‘libelous and defamatory,’ sends letter to foreign ministry as counterpart called for dressing-down
The actual procedure is actually calling the suspect to stop, first in Hebrew, then in Arabic, if the suspect does not stop then the soldier loads a round in the chamber, next a warning shot to the air, and then shooting at the suspect’s legs, all the while calling for the suspect to stop. IDF has a tendency to… Expedite this procedure.
It doesn’t help that the ultra-religious, which makes up 99% of settlers, hate the IDF almost as much as Palestinians. The fact they weren’t throwing rocks at the troops surprised me the most.
The IDF represent an armed faction of the secular Jews of Israel. They will make a distinction of Israelis and Israelites, with the Orthodox being the latter. Before the Romans, there were the states of Israel (Tel Aviv) and Judea (Jerusalem), so that separation continues in their mind.
If their kids were conscripted, they fear the secular influences upon them and it is a driving factor in their opposition to conscription.
Surprisingly, there are factions of Orthodox who don’t believe the state of Israel should exist, at least until the Messiah returns. So they oppose the armed faction of the illegitimate state.
There is so much I can’t even begin to explain, and I’m sure some Israelis would even have corrections from what I learned over there. The Orthodox live a decent lifestyle which is 100% paid for by the Secular community, so they can spend their days studying and causing trouble for others. When you hear about armed groups shooting at Palestinians and burning down homes, you’re making a safe bet if you assume they’re Orthodox.
90 percent of war crimes and abuses that I hear about tend to be idf related. Whenever I hear about settlers, it’s normally about them stealing a house or occupying.
They always have, and there is an Orthodox unit with special rules. The community doesn’t like it though. As for birth rate, that’s strictly for the Secular side. Orthodox women are, to put it bluntly, giving birth as a job. This is part of the issue between them and the Secular Jews that fund their lifestyle. Who the hell wants to pay high taxes so someone else’s family of 10 can live without working?
But if not for Israel and their insanely good battlefield record/nukes, these settlers would be dead within a few days for sure. There are lots of Muslims who are really pissed off at Jews generally and the settlers specifically in the region.
Some of you seem to have trouble staying on topic. This was a discussion on why the Orthodox don’t like the IDF. If you’d like to discuss other issues, make a new post and I’ll see you there.
Without opening a discussion about the conflict itself or justifying anything in the article, I will say that as someone who’s been on the receiving end of an adult throwing 5-10 pounds rocks at full strength at them, I truly think you’re underestimating the deadly damage it can cause.
This isn’t a toddler throwing pebbles, such a rock hitting a human will break bones on contact and can absolutely kill of it hits someone’s head
Civilians walking around or driving in cars? No they don’t.
Even for the army with gear on, it will generally save their lives when hit in the right spot, but the stones will still cause injuries wherever they hit.
Oh I know rocks CAN be deadly. But so can lots of things. From the info in the article they were throwing rocks at cars, not IDF forces who are undoubtedly armoured to the teeth for greater stopping power than rocks.
Just seems strange to shoot someone for not obeying when they aren’t directly threatening you, but the article is a bit light on actual details. Being the source that it is, I don’t think they would hesitate to highlight the IDF were defending themselves if they actually were.
Using a deadly weapon in a manner that can cause death is much worse than possessing a deadly weapon. You think people in cars haven’t died from stone throwers before?
I don’t understand this logic. IDF literally shooting someone is somehow less of a “use of a deadly weapon in a manner that can cause death” than throwing a stone at a car?
I get that they deemed the person dangerous, but shooting someone for throwing a stone is a slippery slope to all sorts of things, eg. Kettled protesters who start throwing stones at riot police. Should the police just mow them all down because rocks can be deadly?
Me move the goalposts? What are you talking about? I’ve been maintaining the whole time that it’s potentially over the top to shoot someone with a gun when they are throwing rocks at cars, while admitting we don’t have all the facts om how it went down.
You on the other hand, keep coming back to me about different rock related dangers and vaguely alluding that shooting someone throwing rocks is fine whatever the scenario because rocks can be hand wavy amounts of dangerous.
You asked me if I knew the stats on rock throwing deaths. I don’t, but I assumed you would enlighten me seeing as you brought it up. Instead you accuse me of moving the goalposts when I’m still taking about the case in point.
timesofisrael.com
Active