TheDankHold

Like you said, language evolves. People are deciding that the definition you follow is very limited and constrains dialogue by being needlessly exclusionary. So they’re seeking to expand the definition to its logical conclusion.

You can throw a fit about other Semitic people being recognized or you can accept that language changes to fit our current understanding of the world.

Antisemitism still refers to prejudice against Jewish people. It’s also being extended to all Semitic people as to disallow them the ability to categorize prejudice against them is to obfuscate and to an extent even deny their own reality.

That’s not an answer to the question.

Interesting that you use the idea that English is a living language to push back against people using a term in a way you’ve decided is incorrect. Seems like you don’t think English is that alive after all if you refuse to incorporate all Semitic people into the concept of antisemitism.

You can’t cite descriptivist arguments to defend your prescriptivist attitude towards the term antisemitism. It betrays your own bias and deflates your argument.

Language evolves, just like you said. Which is why people are realizing the double speak nature of this idea that antisemitism is only when you’re prejudiced against a specific Semitic people group and the others don’t get a term to describe prejudice against them. Your position is an Orwellian attempt to deny a group of people the ability to specifically identify their oppression and it’s sad.

I mistook you for the original commenter, I apologize.

With that out of the way. You’re right that people who murder innocents don’t deserve support, which is why I condemn Hamas and the Israeli government. Good attempt at conflating my criticism with Israel as a whole but that’s manipulative framing. The Israeli government has taken plenty of actions that directly prop up Hamas and even share responsibility for its initial rise.

As an American, the Israeli government caused this in a similar way that the American government caused 9/11. Much like Israel and Hamas, American government invested in Al Qaeda in the 80s to accomplish a selfish geopolitical goal and it ended up with a massive terrorist attack on their home soil.

It’s awful and reprehensible that innocent people are being killed, no caveat. I’m just not so easily blinded by shock and emotion that I can’t identify the underlying causes that drive this inhumane clusterfuck forward.

I’m willing to keep talking if you’re willing to not assume the worst of my position instead of seeking clarification. What Hamas did was disgusting.

So if the Israeli military hadn’t funneled resources to Hamas in the 80s and 90s it’d be pretty different, good point. Maybe the moderate coalition would’ve been comparatively powerful enough to gain leadership instead of literal terrorists.

And that’s how Palestinians feel about the decades of reprisals Israel has inflicted upon them because of Hamas.

It doesn’t give them the right to bomb hospitals and apartment buildings. It doesn’t give them the right to gun down journalists and children. It doesn’t give them the right to evict Palestinians from their homes to send in colonists for replacement. It doesn’t give them the right to turn what should be a separate country like Gaza into a literal open air prison where they can cut their power and water and they need to have Israel approve an exit pass to leave their homes and go anywhere else in the world.

Neither average citizen wants this bullshit to happen. But it’s not up to them, it’s up to a terrorist organization and a government that literally funded Hamas in the 80s and 90s so that the moderate coalition didn’t win. The one going into mosques to rough up and arrest random practitioners. I feel for every citizen in both territories, just know that war mongers in your government have contributed massively to these tragedies.

The extremists in your government had a large hand in creating the group that’s now slaughtering innocents and giving them an excuse to glass the people they look down on.

Because that’s always what Joe wants to do. Maher bringing up Trump was a breath of fresh air and a conversation Joe has tried to avoid.

Big old rant that addresses nothing I’ve said and makes up different arguments to win. Not sure what you’re going for here.

You dance around the real facts that he has consistently downplayed the crimes of the Trump administration and argues that one of the biggest conservative propagandists, Tucker Carlson, had journalistic integrity. All this while constantly attacking democrats for any perceived misstep and obsessing over CNN. He’s given tons of airtime to Hunter Bidens laptop but seemingly can’t tell you a single thing Trump was charged with.

You also pretend that I’ve said anything about “silencing” anyone so you can clutch your pearls and act persecuted but that’s not what I’d happening. I’m not censoring or advocating censorship. I’m using real world examples of someone’s public behavior to understand them better.

The grandest irony is you calling me a reactionary when all I did was point out examples of Joe espousing reactionary rhetoric and giving examples of conservative politicians he’s close with. Not to mention he has on so many conservative pundits he doesn’t need to have the politicians on. He’s already boosting their narratives.

Also, just to remind you since you said this:

Are you guys so void of critical thoughts that you can’t listen to someone you disagree with? Even for a few minutes?

I do follow the show. That’s why I’ve been citing moments from the show to back up my position. I directly referenced events from the past two podcasts. If you can’t accept this then I don’t think you’re intellectually capable of an actual discussion. If you make this empty accusation again I’m not going to respond.

It’s okay for Joe to be right wing. He’s allowed to change his perspective and think whatever he wants. It’s very telling however the length’s people will go to deny and obfuscate this reality.

Notice how this person ignored all the listed reasons I gave to hyperfocus on something from 2016.

“But he said he’d vote Bernie” is a literal meme from how often that tired talking point has been thrown out.

If he held any true convictions that weren’t conservative he wouldn’t play defense for Jan 6th and pal around with reactionary ghouls like Abbot and DeSantis. He also wouldn’t be trying so hard to downplay the crimes of the Trump administration and defend the “journalistic integrity” of Tucker Carlson like he had any.

Oh and while we’re bringing up stuff, you missed his recent climate change denial rant on the PoP episode? Because despite your insistence otherwise I do follow JRE. It’s why I know how empty your counter argument is.

So centrist that he supports DeSantis, has dinner with Greg Abbot, thinks Jan 6 was a false flag, and still claims Trump facing prosecution is evidence that the US is a banana republic despite the episode immediately before having the guest lay out in irrefutable detail the real crimes DJT is standing trial for.

If he isn’t right wing then the only other viable explanation is that he’s an empty bobble head that invites on as many conservatives voices to nod along with as they can.

I mean before COVID there was also that time he furiously berated a primatologist for telling him he was mistaken for thinking Bondo Apes were a unique species.

He’s always been an angry meathead when facts make him feel stupid. He’s just doing it in more mainstream ways now so he gets more exposure.

Corporations don’t deserve that right. His stance on this is directly related to corporate abuse of the system. Nuance is difficult though so I understand why it’s easy for you to feel like you made a good point.

You have, LLMs don’t read because they aren’t intelligent or alive. They aren’t comparable to humans.

I like that the total values of both votes are shown. It’s better than the way reddit has it at least.