Red line - eviltoast
  • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I love how you’re the one going on about emotions and I’m, apparently, also the one projecting. Its like you don’t understand the meaning of the word.

    Disagreeing with you isn’t a tantrum.

    I’m man enough to know the definition of antisemitism and what it includes. One of those things is:

    Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

    If you reject that definition then thats your choice to make but to pretend the only reason someone would think differently is due to a lack of basic linguistic knowledge is just bizzare and shows that maybe you should have googled some stuff before writing.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      You projected all your emotions with words like “desperate” and “spectacular fail”. Because you know it’s you who failed. Now you’re just desperately trying to pretend the spectacular fail didn’t happen.

      To pretend that you even saw that bit there before I pointed it out to you is ridiculous. And yes, that contention is ridiculous and I personally reject it, because comparisons can be drawn in between anything. Elon Musk and Jesus? Sure thing. Not a flattering comparison for Musk, but that can definitely be made. But we won’t even get into the actual politics of this, which you weren’t into.

      Netanyahu is basically trying to push the agenda that anyone criticising his warcrimes is antisemitic. I would like you to understand how antisemitic pushing that is. Do you now understand how much the global Jewish population is suffering for Netanyahu’s nazism? (That’s a rhetoric question, I don’t think you’ve the capacity.)

      We are talking about the colloquial use of the word “nazi”. You don’t understand basic linguistics which again, is different from the basics of language (this has to be specified because you thought lacking the basics of linguistics would mean one can’t speak the language, not understanding the difference between the terms), and you made an error. That error being corrected by at least half a dozen people each with a half a dozen upvotes at least on them, made you angry. You don’t like admitting that you’re wrong. You’re not trying to convince me now, you know I see through your bullshit. You’re trying to convince yourself of it.

      • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        “Spectacular fail” isn’t an emotion now is it?

        Explain how someone can read without knowing the basics of grammar and the structure of the language they’re trying to read.

        On what basis do you reject the EHRC definition of antisemitism?

        Be a man and explain your positions.

        • Dasus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The shame you feel from having spectacularly failed certainly is, yes.

          Explain how someone can read without knowing the basics of grammar and the structure of the language they’re trying to read.

          So now you’re honestly trying to argue that “language” and “linguistics” are synonyms, because you’re INCAPABLE of admitting to having been wrong?

          Perhaps you can explain how people can manage to drive cars without understanding the basics of mechanical engineering? You can drive a car without understanding even what Newtons measure or even how to weld a basic seam or without understanding how to make petrol out of crude oil. HOW? Perhaps because driving a car and building one are two different things?

          Just like using language and studying it? Humans have something called language acquisition. It’s a term you’d definitely hear in any sort of a beginner linguistics class, probably on the first lesson. There’s also a very strong reason why it’s not called “linguistics acquisition”.

          Linguistics is the STUDY OF LANGUAGE. Would you call anyone who’s ever had a few emotions to be a studier of emotions? Because if so, then all humans everywhere practice psychology. I’m sure you know how silly that sounds, don’t you?

          On what basis do you reject the EHRC definition of antisemitism?

          You still don’t understand what “prescriptive” means. Are you just honestly incapable of understanding it, or are you just so intellectually lazy you haven’t read about it for the few minutes it might take for even someone like you to learn it?

          • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            The shame you feel from having spectacularly failed certainly is, yes.

            Jesus christ you have some real problems.

            You still don’t understand what “prescriptive” means

            I do but even if I didn’t, their definition includes all uses of the word, due to their being no caveat excluding them.

            • Dasus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              I do but even if I didn’t, their definition includes all uses of the word, due to their being no caveat excluding them.

              7/5 for irony, once again

              • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                It’s all uses of it. I know you want to but you can’t just declare it not included because you feel like it and you just really wanna call Jewish people nazis.

                • Dasus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You’re trying to get out of admitting that you publicly humiliated yourself with your own stupidity by trying to imply I’m an antisemite. Do you know what you’ve not asked a single time during this childish tantrum you’ve been having? My ethnicity or religion.

                  Israelis are nazis. “Hard n” or no. Btw, hilarious that you keep using the phrase “hard N”. oh, like… “the N-word”? “Yeah man, the N word with the HARD N. You know… NAZI!”

                  I’m pretty sure that’s not the N-word bro.

                  ##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. ;)

                  Take your own advice. THINK.

                  • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    You still can’t admit that calling Jewish people nazis is wrong huh? As if you spent all that time writing that bullshit out that no one will read, not even me, to attempt to justify being antisemitic is just tragic.

                    Its almost as if you have an inability to admit when you’re wrong.

      • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        “Spectacular fail” isn’t an emotion now is it?

        Again with the ad populums. I suppose its the best you’ve got but still, have some intellectual integrity.

        How can someone read without knowledge of basic grammar and the structure of the language they’re reading?

        OK, so now we’re getting somewhere. You think you know better than the European equality and rights commission. More people agree with that definition that your “not a hard N” argument. By your own “logic” wouldn’t that make you wrong?

        .>That error being corrected by at least half a dozen people each with a half a dozen upvotes at least on them, made you angry. You don’t like admitting that you’re wrong. You’re not trying to convince me now, you know I see through your bullshit. You’re trying to convince yourself of it.

        Sorry, what was that you were saying about projection?