• [deleted]@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        But I am saying death to the party, not members of the party. Calling for the Republican party to end doesn’t mean that the members of the Republican party need to end.

        ‘Death to Israel’ is not the same as ‘death to Israelis’.

        • goat@sh.itjust.worksOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          2 days ago

          No, you didn’t. Death to X is always ambiguous and can refer to anything, that’s why extremists use it. If you don’t want people to interpret Death to X as violent extremism, then you need to specify

          Like how you already specified.

          • ramble81@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            So when you agreed to him saying the Republican Party, and before his clarification, which way were you interpreting it?

              • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                If you believe this, why then do you have a problem with the phrase “death to Israel?” Zionism is a fascist ideology, and Israel is an ethno-supremacist project of Zionists.

                I should note that I disagree with you. Calling for the death of all Republicans is just as wrong as calling for the death of all Israelis. I despise fascists, but I don’t want them all dead, I want them to face justice. Though the ambiguity of the phrase “death to Israel” does not bother me, as I think the context is usually more than enough to resolve that ambiguity.

                • goat@sh.itjust.worksOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Because there are innocent people in Israel

                  When you have an instance that actively allows antisemitism, such as users using zio- as a pejorative, or repeating antisemitic conspiracy theories such as zog, then the context doesn’t help solve ambiguity.

                  • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    I agree with you partially about zog, as it’s an embellishment of the truth (that being that zionists excercise significant influence in US politics, but not a total occupation), but zio is just short for zionist. Using zio as a pejorative is no different from something like MAGAt. Sure, nazis use it as a pejorative against Jews, but it has a more narrow meaning. Nazis who use zio as a pejorative are engaging in the conflation of zionism and judaism, which you are aiding in when you accept the nazi premise that zio is a pejorative for jews, and which Israel benefits from as it enables them to weaponize antisemitism against critics of genocide.