6 ms·

That's not exactly what happened though https://x.com/billackman/status/1725898682438979972?s=46&t=Kaob3YzifQURZEWiVpyhaA https://x.com/billackman/status/172589

• kstrauser 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • davidw 3y ago
    [flagged]
  • rpmisms 3y ago
    "Jewish Communities" doesn't mean "All Jews", and that's obvious to anyone not looking for a reason to be angry. Muslim communities just bombed the hell out of Israel, and that's not islamophobic to say, because it doesn't implicate all Muslims.
    • Yoric 3y ago
      I don't know about that. As a reader, I find that "Jewish Communities" very much sounds like "All Jews" and "Muslim Communities" very much sounds like "All Muslims". If that's not what the authors mean, I'm sure that there are much, much better phrasings.
      • rpmisms 3y ago
        That may very well be your own bias. If I say "Christian Communities hate gays", you'll probably think of one or two specific communities. When I saw "Jewish Communities" in gp's headline, I immediately thought "oh, the ADL", because they're bigots and don't really hide it.
        • vacuity 3y ago
          Everyone has biases, and you're not exempt. If you know that your language might be grossly misinterpreted, consider changing it, if only for your own image. > If I say "Christian Communities hate gays", you'll probably think of one or two specific communities. That might be true for me, but I'm thinking of "Protestant Christian evangelicals and co." as one community, so...
          • rpmisms 3y ago
            > If you know that your language might be grossly misinterpreted, consider changing it, if only for your own image. No, if only to make a point. > That might be true for me, but I'm thinking of "Protestant Christian evangelicals and co." as one community, so... Yup. What I expected. I'm positively full of bias, and happy to admit it.
            • vacuity 3y ago
              And my point is that "Muslim communities bombed Israel" is not an obviously reasonable statement. If Reuters or AP posted an article with that phrasing, I'd wonder if some party other than Hamas was fighting Israel now. At that point, why not just say "Muslims bombed Israel"? It's technically true but also wildly disingenuous. You'd have to qualify it with a bunch of details in order to make it an honest, good-faith statement.
              • rpmisms 3y ago
                But it's the literal truth, and using a descriptor on a group of people acting does not attribute the action to all people who fit the descriptor. Not all mammals are dogs, and that shouldn't need to be said.
                • Yoric 3y ago
                  You're confusing semantics and subtext. The clear subtext in your examples is "Jews" (not "some Jews"), "Muslims" (not "some Muslims"), "Christians" (not "some Christians"). A racist (or variant thereof) will not say "all Jews"/"all Muslims"/"all Gays"/... , they'll just casually namedrop "Jews" (or even a single Jewish personality), "Muslims" (or even a single Muslim personality), "Gays" (or even a single Gay personality), and use this as a dogwhistle.
    • vacuity 3y ago
      You say "that's obvious" but your terminology is ambiguous. I wouldn't say "Muslim communities bombed Israel". To me, that sounds something along the lines of "the predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East teamed up and bombed Israel".
      • rpmisms 3y ago
        And that's your bias speaking, since my statement is factual. It's perfectly normal, and you can accept that my meaning and your interpretation can be wildly different, therefore accusing me of the worst possible interpretation is unfair.
        • Falmarri 3y ago
          It's totally fair. If you're going to be intentionally ambiguous just because it's technically correct, we can just assume you're an asshole and extrapolate from there