Ambassador to Brussels calls comments on settler harassment of Palestinians ‘libelous and defamatory,’ sends letter to foreign ministry as counterpart called for dressing-down
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?
This, especially since dictionaries (at least Spanish ones) have a lot of abbreviations to indicate when a term is archaic, deprecated, rude, etc. Even if nobody uses it in such way today, considering it was used not so long ago, it should remain. It’s history and evidence of the discrimination, I get that it’s offensive but erasing it from the dictionary doesn’t do anything for their cause.
Fairy is a homophobic term. You may think it’s acceptable, but I’ve lived through homophobic abuse, so have many others but there is a very good reason I’m offended by the term.
Homophobia has no place in modern society, and no amount of nihilistic sophistry will change my mind.
I so I will be offended by you calling me a fairy, fag/faggot, shirt lifter, battyboy, fudgepacker…
I’m two generations removed and on the wrong side of the family try to be considered jewish, but close enough that some living relatives are practicing Jews. I will also take offense at you using the word Jew and you using it in the way the post intends.
Not because I’m a sissy fairy fag cocksucker, which I am, but because I’m big enough and ugly enough to tell you to go fuck yourself with your pseduo-intellectual circumlocution.
You say yourself, “it’s not the word but how you use it” and then go on to use it as an epithet. There is nothing wrong with using the word fairy to describe Tinkerbell, or the mascot of absinthe, but when you proudly use it as an insult you’re being a hypocrite, you are using it exactly in an offensive way.
If you still don’t get it let me know what you don’t understand and I’ll bust out the crayons and we can get to figuring out which ones you like the taste of. (Clue: This is offensive but uses no offensive words, because context)
German gays call use the term “Tunte” quite a bit, somewhere in between “faggot” and “fruit”. And yes they mean it as an insult – not for being gay, but for sticking out your little finger when drinking prosecco, approximately. The polar opposite of flannel shirt.
I am one of the dozens of people in the world who wasn’t educated in America, so you know what they say about assuming.
Your first paragraph repeats my point so I’m glad we agree, and your second paragraph also mostly agrees with me. What I would say you haven’t understood is that you said you call people fairies, and indeed “r/tards”, in an offensive manner and demand we’re not offended. You can’t police other people’s reactions. What’s the difference from saying “ah yes, but when I rob a bank it shouldn’t be illegal because I’m special!”
I see your point - again - about how it’s the usage - yes, but I’ll say, also again, that my issue is with your usage.
It’s ironic you would complain about my education and accuse me of missing the point when it’s your comprehension that’s at issue here.
Finally, I’d like you to explain how “r/tard” can be used in a non-offensice context.
Finally, I’d like you to explain how “r/tard” can be used in a non-offensice context.
“This new extinguisher excells at retarding a fire.”
“The silencer retarded the sound of the firearm.”
Its pretty damn easy to use words inoffensively if you know the definition of them. Retarded isn’t just a description of the mentally handicapped; it means to be held back, slowed down, or restrained.
Yes. We can talk about racial slurs without directing them at anyone. We can talk about the history and origin or racial slurs like spic and wog and (dare I say it in the hopes that people actually understand my point) removed. (edit: Lol, fuck censorship, but this helps prove my point below because you don’t even need to see the word but you know what it was and what it represents due to context)
We can talk about these words, the concepts and hate they represent, the pain they are meant to inflict and all of that context without being offensive or using those words in an offensive manner.
Here’s a little secret to offensive words, you can make any word offensive because as stated in my previous comment, it’s not the word itself that’s offensive it’s the intent it’s used with.
Fairy princess is offensive if it’s used to derogatively represent someone, and endearing when your 3 year old daughter wants to be one. Does that mean ‘fairy princess’ is a slur? Yes, but only when it’s used that way.
The difference that racial slurs have over other offensive language is that they are specifically created words for being derogative, unlike other derogative speech which reappropriates existing words and medical terms as insulting metaphor. But even then you can talk about racial slurs without being offensive as previously explained. Like we’re doing right now.
Ask yourself, is there anything in this comment you find “offensive”? Or maybe offensive words just make you uncomfortable. I’m comfortable around offensive language because I understand it and can recognise the difference between objective use of language and directed insults.
Hey, I took some time to see things from your perspective, but I need to make something very clear.
We have a firm policy against racial slurs, even when discussing them. This is because these words are weaponized to dehumanize people and create a sense that some people are not equal to others. This also includes when they are not used with malicious intent. We want to create a space where everyone feels safe and respected, and that includes avoiding the use of racial slurs at all times under any circumstance.
If you want to talk about racial slurs, you must self-censor and avoid using these words. If you do not, your comments will be removed. If you are unable to abide by the rules on the sidebar, then let us know.
I’ve heard this argument more times than I would like to admit. The idea that people who are uncomfortable with offensive language are simply uncomfortable with themselves is a blunt and overplayed strawman.
Your arguments are ones of bad faith. For example, the word “f**ry princess” may not be offensive when used to describe a young girl who wants to be one. However, you, I, and everyone reading this very well knows it is used to belittle women and LGBTQ+ people alike. By your logic, you are clearly ignoring the fact that language can be harmful even when it is not intended to.
The same is true for racial slurs. These words were created to dehumanize and denigrate people of color. Even when they are not used with malicious intent, they can still be harmful because they can trigger generational trauma and pain. If that was not the case, people who use the word would not still use the very word that was used while black men, women, and children met their ends hanging from a tree.
I honestly don’t think you are frustrated but just pandering to justify the use of hateful language. I could be wrong however it makes no difference.
Please remember as I stated in the beginning:
Such language will not be tolerated under any circumstances and will be promptly removed. It is important to remember that these words have a real and harmful impact on people. We want to create a space where everyone feels safe and respected, and that includes avoiding the use of racial slurs.
This is language theory not pandering or looking to excuse the use of deliberately discriminatory language or racial epithets, but a master class on understanding the nuance between offensive language and inoffensive language and the damage that disingenuously taking offense at inoffensive language does in stifling legitimate discussion of the topics and the disingenuous censorship of legitimate inoffensive language at the behest of a failed education system.
You’re clearly not qualified to be giving any type of “master class” on anything. Your comments are:
Harmful
Offensive
In bad faith
You are clearly unwilling to contribute to a productive discussion that follows the community guidelines. If you want to have a legitimate discussion about the topics, then you need to start by being respectful of others. That means abiding by the community guidelines. If you can’t do that, then I suggest you find a different forum to participate in."
Just a heads up, this person is a known troll across lemmy they’re well known for their hostile and inflammatory content and just saying things to get a rise out of people, this person also isn’t exactly receptive to feedback. Just wanted to let you know since trying to talk with someone like this is like talking to a brick wall.
The word is ugly with and without the “a”. It is a word that was used to terrorize enslaved people and is still used to this day to dehumanize black people. Anyone especially black people should not be using that word.
It’s still a word like any other. How it is used is what matters, not the word itself; and saying black people should also not use that word is pretty racist, unless you’re also black…
Also looking at the decimation of the comments in here, the mods and users are overly sensitive over words. Fucking pathetic.
I’m black and I don’t use the n-word. It’s a word of hate and oppression, and I don’t want to be associated with it. I don’t think it’s possible to “repurpose” the word, and it should be buried in the footnotes of history. That being said there is a side bar with clear rules if you have any difficulty abiding by them please let us know.
Please; tell me what rules were violated with the comments that were removed, other than you disagreed with the opinions expressed. It’s also a shame you’re a mod when you had such a hard time even understanding simple definitions.
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’m saddened to hear that there are still an appreciable amount of Spanish people talking about us that way, but I’m not upset at the dictionary for recording the way the language is used.
I’m guessing it’s approached in something of a similar way to how English language dictionaries handle the word gyp, which is to give its definition and note that it is offensive.
Not necessarily, just not fucking stupid enough to say otherwise while his own country is also fighting a defensive war against what might be considered russian terror. 101 public relations
His own country could also be considered to fight against illegal occupants violating their territorial integrity. I really feel like you got the sides switched on this one, chief.
Im not sure what this is trying to say. Obviously the Ukraine is fighting a defensive war, which I rephrased a bit so the statement regarding Israel might fit on their situation as well. What sides did I get supposedly switched here?
Palestinians are fighting a defensive war against the occupation of their territory that has been steadily progressing since 1948.
Ukrainians are (reportedly) fighting a defensive war against the occupation of their territory. (I would dispute that fact somewhat, but that s a whole another can of worms).
That’s the reason for me saying you got the sides switched.
I read like like he can’t say that Ukranians vs Russians is like Palestinians vs Israelis because if he did it, he would be losing military support from several countries for his defense of Ukraine (namelly the US, where there is a massive and well-entrenched pro-Israel lobby which would quite likely fuck up any further funding and military help from the US to Ukraine), so he has to choose his words and say what’s best for Ukraine.
For the good of Ukraine there is really only one thing he can say, and that’s what he said.
Yes, I can fully agree with that. However, with these and other incidents by now, can we stop acting like Zelensky possesses some kind of intrinsic moral high ground? He’s doing his best to secure further military and economic support for the war, and he’s implicitly or openly supporting genocidal regimes in order to do so. As you said, he’s trying to achieve his goals through whatever means are necessary. I’m just tired of pretending that he’s some sort of saint.
I also take issue with your implication that further arms deals and military funding = best for Ukraine. I really cannot see a world where continuing to fight on (with no clear end in sight) is better than making territorial concessions and beginning to rebuild the wrecked nation.
The solution of territorial concessions was the one tried between Ukraine and Russia after the latter took over Ukranian territory in the form of Crimea and the occupation of part of the Dombas by proxy forces, and the result was, some years later, a new and far more aggressive and deadly invasion by Russia to get more territory.
Add to that the very openly repeated desires of the russian leadership - to conquer Ukraine and beyond - and it’s not in any way form or shape logic to assume that repeating the very same “solution” of territorial concessions to Russia and the exact same leadership would result in anything but a new attempt by Russia in a few years - after they had time to rebuilt their military power - to take over Ukraine, destroying all that “rebuilding of the wrecked nation” you claim your “peace through concessions” would yield.
Your suggestion would make sense at the time of the Crimean invasion and in fact was what was done back then, but given that now we have seen that the result over the medium/long term of giving such concessions to Russia is more and more deadly invasions by them, trying it again at this moment and with the knowledge of the results of that from last time around, and expecting a different result, is the very definition of Insanity.
You want to trade the current situation conquered by Ukranians at great cost, of a limited front were 2 armies fight each other and thus the death and destruction happens almost entirely there and almost entirelly between military forces, for a future replay of massacres of civilians like the ones the Russians did in Bucha, Irpin and Melitopol when the Ukranian military was not yet in a position to stop them.
Given all that has been going on since 2014 and especially all that the Russian leadership did and said since this invasion started, such a “territorial concession to Russia” suggestion is at best insane or idiotic, and quite possibly just plain evil.
And I haven’t even gone into the Morality of rewarding mass murder with land, and I’m not so sure “insanity” or “idiocy” explain wanting a mass murderer to be rewarded for it.
For him to point out the similarity of being faced with a much large occupier nation than themselves between the position of Ukranians and Palestinians, would pretty much guarantee the end of US military support to Ukraine as the US Congress has several “Friends of other country” groups of parliamentarians (how exactly is being in the parliament of one country defending the interests of a different country not treason?) for various countries, the largest of which is “Friends of Israel” and that group probably controls more than enough members of Congress to stop any future funding of military help to Ukraine.
So yeah, Zelenswky is doing the correct thing in diplomatic terms for his country, unlike many other politicians who don’t act for the good of their own country.
Also lets not forget Hamas is supported by Iran, who has provided drones to Russia to kill Ukranians for over a year now, so yeah, even if he empathises with the plight of Palestinians that’s a whole different thing from agreeing with Hamas.
It’s a stupid article that didn’t deserve reposting.
Zelensky is obviously going to take Israel’s side, since Israel might actually provide Ukraine with weapons, aid, or intelligence, whereas Hamas will provide Ukraine with nothing and is aligned with Iran who are actively supplying Russia with the drones that are murdering them.
But yeah, from an analagous standpoint, Israel would be Russia who has illegally occupied the land of Palestine, and this is roughly the equivalent of Ukraine striking back at Russia in Russia’s territory, though there certainly seem like far far more civilian casualties than in any of Ukraine’s operations, at the same time Palestinians are also far more desperate and have face decades and decades of oppression, conditions likely to foster extremism.
Idk I feel like the autocorrect on the iPhone with iOS 17 has gotten much better and apparently it gets even better with time as it learns your words and other aspects of how you wrote.
Ok, I swiped the above as fast as I could without corrections. Only issue is I didn’t put any punctuation, bc I’m not use to typing that way. Usually a two thumbed, tapping typer.
There’s another way to spin the analogy, and I believe that’s closer to what Zelensky had in mind.
Both Russia and Hamas target civilian buildings with rockets. Both recently advanced in a military invasion into the sovereign territory of Ukraine / Israel. Both kidnapped and murdered citizencs. So the analogy is Russia / Hamas vs Ukraine / Israel.
I think it’s a bit weird Zelensky would ally with a country which behaves like Russia from his point of view. I agree he probably might still do it, since he needs the weapons. But given this incentive, I think the alternative analogy becomes far more appealing and convincing.
Eh, that alternative analogy is a worse one though, since it falls apart the minute you look at Israel’s past indiscriminate killing of civilians and current unilateral and internationally condemned occupation of Palestinian territory.
Both Russia and Hamas target civilian buildings with rockets
Thats disingenuous. While im sure Hamas would have 0 problem with targeting civilians if they could, the reality is their rockers are far too primitive to target much of anything.
gunning civilians down during a music festival is “defending themselves” now? God I’m sick of people outright defending literal monsters. IDF and Hamas are both evil organisations. the people being killed on both sides are not. I cannot understand how anyone can sit here and justify killing civilians on any side for any reason.
Thats kind of my point. Im pointing out the absurdity of claiming Israels actions are “self defence” by comparing them to Hamas’ actions which are just as clearly not self defence.
My dude, for your own sake get a hobby or something. Spending your time being a troll on lemmy is just about the most wasteful thing you can do with you life. When youre old you dont want to look back on your life and realise then how much time you wasted on this nonsense.
Of course it does, just like any other nation. In this case, the extreme islamists don’t care about geopolitical resources like land or oil. They care about exterminating Jews. Plain and simple. If Hamas had free reign, they would execute every last person on planet earth, including you, unless you converted to Islam. It’s in their ideology–dying in a holy war against non-muslims is the ticket to eternal life. That’s literally what they believe. And because of that, they sew chaos and terror wherever they go.
Clearly the large majority of muslims do not believe this way. But the extremists do, and that’s how history is made. The peaceful, normal civilians who’d rather just live their lives, aren’t the decision makers. And of course this all traces back to a long series of stupid decisions and badly drawn maps after the world wars. But make no mistake, Hamas is no different than Nazi Germany in their desire to exterminate Jews, and eventually they will need to be dealt with in exactly the same way.
Exactly. No issues with moderates, but moderates aren’t the ones suicide-bombing and throwing suspected gays off the top of buildings. An Islamic society creates safe spaces for the extremists, and the extremists will do whatever they can to take power.
Other Muslims are the ones targeted most by Islamist extremists. It’s in the Muslims’ best interest that they be kept a minority and out of power. There is insurmountable evidence that when the majority is Muslim, life gets worse for everyone, women’s rights are stripped away, and freedom of thought and religion is gone.
Quite similar to how if Scientology became mainstream we would all be worse off.
There is insurmountable evidence that when the majority is Muslim, life gets worse for everyone, women’s rights are stripped away, and freedom of thought and religion is gone.
Quite similar to how if Scientology became mainstream we would all be worse off.
The last sentence hints both might have a common cause whis is not “being Muslim”. I think it might be “being extremist”. The opposite would be a pluralist society, which embraces diversity and encourages respectful coexistence and exchange.
This then also includes the rise of right-wing populists in democracies all over the world, with exactly the same consequences as you said.
My friend, these anti-Israel zealots won’t be happy unless Israel just rolls over and lets Hamas kill Jews without consequence.
The anti-Israel crowd thinkd Israel is the devil of it fights back.
They think Israel is the devil, if, as you mentioned, they call buildings ahead of time, and give people time to evacuate, before Israel bombs terrorist. Headquarters, because I guess they think Palestinian buildings are more important than Israeli lives.
They think Israel is the devil if they build a security fence to keep our suicide bombers.
Mostly they think Israel is the devil because Israel offered the most general peace deal in history, but refuse to give Palestinian’s the Right of Return, which would have allowed Palestinians to claim voting rights, and literally vote to turn Israel into an anti-Jewish theocracy.
Now… Most of the people HERE haven’t the foggiest clue about any of that. And if you talked them through the situation and the options, they’d understand that Israel does not now, nor have they ever had a partner on the Palestinian side with which to make peace. They want Israel gone, full stop. And you can’t make peace with people who believe in literally no situations in which you still exist at the end.
Israel, on the other hand has showed throughout it’s history that it will do extraordinary things for peace. They gave up land for peace with Egypt. They have offered extraordinary concessions.
But the people who really needed to read this downvoted me in the first paragraph and are already typing a rant.
yup precisely. well, im with you, and so is more than 50% of the internet i think lemmy.world world news sub seems to have a particularly high proportion of 23 year old basement dwellers who’ve never suffered a day in their lives
timesofisrael.com
Oldest