xor @ xor @lemmy.blahaj.zone

Posts

0

Comments

530

Joined

2 yr. ago

But your sources have multiple flaws:

• firstly, they're all American, and so have no relevance to European English dialects
• secondly, they did not say "Caucasian does not mean white European", they say variations on "it is not the best term to use in academic literature"

So my source - despite being a highly reputable entity whose entire reason to exist is to define words - is "incorrect"?

"Could of" is different, because the social consensus is that it's grammatically incorrect. Your argument is more like arguing that antisemitic refers to Arabs as well, just because Semitic includes Arabic peoples. Just because a term is derived from another doesn't mean that it permanently must only be understood by its etymological roots.

What happened to "show me one dictionary"?

Looks like your goalposts have grown legs.

So, the common usage in both the country with the greatest number of English speakers AND the country the language originated in is incorrect? Because crispy_kilt says so?

Language is a socially negotiated system, so what the word means to the people who use it is what the words mean.

That paper is about what terminology should be used in academic work, who gives a fuck for people talking on lemmy?

The scale of annoyingness:

Pedants -> incorrect pedants -> incorrect pedants who insist they're right, regardless of the evidence in front of them

----------------------------------------------------| you are here

I additionally linked to the specifically British edition of Collins as well for your benefit, which is, in fact, a dictionary. Seriously, trust me, if you go up to 5 Brits and ask them what Caucasian means, they will almost certainly all answer "white".

Wikipedia, also, is not a dictionary.

It's also pretty damn rude to classify the American usage as "incorrect", you're not the arbiter of what "real" English is.

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=caucasian+meaning

Oh wow, that first result sure does say exactly that

Edit: interestingly, lmgtfy actually gets a different response to googling it directly in the UK for me 🤔

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/caucasian#:~:text=Caucasian%20in%20British%20English&text=adjective-,1.,noun

Thank you for your assumption that I am not, in fact, European.

However, given I'm from one of the few European countries that speak English as their primary language, I can categorically say you're wrong.

You're right about where the Caucasus is, but the generally accepted meaning - both in the US and Europe - is white European ancestry, not just those from the Caucasus.

https://www.theonion.com/dying-gazans-criticized-for-not-using-last-words-to-con-1850925657

Does it behave the same if you refer to it as "the war in Gaza"/"Israel-Palestine conflict" or similar?

I wouldn't be surprised if it trips up on making the inference from Oct 7th to the (implicit) war.

Edit: I tested it out, and it's not that - formatting the question the same for Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Palestine respectively does still yield those results. Horrifying.

So, are we now agreed that one can criticise the houthis without being a "supporter of genocide"?

If so, I'll take that apology now, please.

If I remember correctly, hospitals in that state had to stop performing IVF as a consequence in order to avoid being at risk of violating the law. Classifying embryos as children has really important consequences.

It's not unusual for Japanese companies that trade internationally to have English names that sound strange.

So it's a joint venture between two Japanese companies, meaning it is not a valid target - in fact Japan has been highly critical of Israel iirc.

42% is not a majority - and it's most certainly nowhere near your initial description of "almost all" except for that one mistake.

And yet you still consider me a supporter of genocide for criticising the targeting of innocent civilians.

I understand that sanctions can be effective but they must be appropriately targeted.

As sad as it may be, it's very common for nations to act in their own interest under the guise of doing something noble. Assuming that all countries that side with an oppressed party are acting purely out of the goodness of their heart is an easy way to find yourself supporting a country doing appalling things for their own benefit. A broken clock etc.

While this is still a big number, Russia's oil revenue both from the EU and in total has been massively reduced.

I think it's hard to argue reducing dependency on resources from a frequently hostile country is "harming themselves", especially since Russia has intentionally interrupted supply as leverage.

What are you quoting? All sources I've read concur that it's Japanese owned (it is owned by Kyowa Shipping, based in Tokyo).

What happened to "I'll tell you how they're secretly linked"? That was the entire purpose of this exercise. You had clearly accepted that targeting unrelated ships is unacceptable, yet failed to actually provide any evidence that the ships, which make up the majority of those attacked, were legitimate targets.

If the houthis were consistently actually targeting Israeli ships then my stance would be different.

Apartheid was not defeated by attacking Japanese ships for a bit of banter, was it, though?

It turns out, entities can claim a different reason for taking an action to their actual goals.

Saying that what the Houthi's is doing is wrong is actively defending Genocide

I've made it extraordinarily clear that my issue is not with the goal of blockading Israeli ships, but with the fact that this is not actually what is happening. If you're not even going to pretend to debate in good faith, then we're done here.

Edit: You know I absolutely do not support Israel's genocide, and actively support BDS actions against it. To argue I'm defending their genocide is what we in the business call "a dick move".

Presumably they're referring to baby formula and/or imported (human) milk. This would be necessary if there isn't a parent who can breastfeed, or they can't produce enough to meet the baby's needs.

Sophie II, Japanese, flying Panamanian flag.

Ardmore Encounter, Bermudan, Marshall islands flag. An Israeli previously held shares of the company that owns this one, but had divested months before.

Maersk Gibraltar, Danish, Hong Kong flag.

Al Jasrah, German, Liberian flag.

MSC Palatium III, Swiss, Liberian flag. The company that owns this one had "cooperated with Israel" in the past, though I don't know the extent of this cooperation.

Swan Atlantic, Norwegian, Cayman Islands flag.

MSC Clara, Swiss, Panamanian flag.

Blaamanen, Norwegian owner & flag. This ship was carrying vegetable oil, which would have been an environmental crisis if damaged, and is critical to food supply.

Saibaba, Indian, Gabonese flag.

MSC United VIII, Swiss, Liberian flag.

Maersk Hangzhou, Danish, Singaporean flag. The Israeli "link" for this one is that it has shipped to Israel before, last in October 2023.

These are just the non-israeli-linked ships attacked in Nov/Dec 2023 alone. I can't be arsed to go through Jan and Feb 24 because I'm deeply bored.

In the window I covered, 19 ships were attacked. Assuming I haven't missed any connections for the ones above, that makes a total of 11 non-Israeli-linked and 8 Israeli-linked ships. I'm including US ships as Israeli-linked as an upper bound.

Giving us a total percentage of 42% of ships being Israeli-linked.

Thanks for the praise, but frankly I'm not looking for it. I'm still not super pleased you played the "genocide supporter" card. I would much prefer an apology for that uncalled for statement.

I'm aware of why they continue the strikes - but I take issue with the strikes themselves.

The problem is the ships targeted are frequently not linked whatsoever to Israel, or its supporters. The houthis are attacking ships far outside the entire Yemeni exclusive economic zone, so no, the ships in international waters are not trespassing.

Targeting civilian ships, especially those unrelated to the conflict, is absolutely unacceptable. Additionally, their approach directly drives up food prices, which disproportionately affects those most affected by food scarcity, including but not limited to the Palestinians themselves.

you are here advocating for genocide

Oh get the fuck out of it. I directly oppose Israel's war on Gaza, and frequently attend protests against my own country's support of them.

Fascists use absurd hairstyles to visibly differentiate themselves from the very formal, well groomed style that most politicians use.

It's a way for them to push their image as being anti-establishment.

But the houthis continue to attack civilian vessels again.

One can both oppose the US' (horrifying) support of Israel's genocide, and also criticise the indiscriminate targeting of civilian vessels by the houthis.

I'm not saying you should uncritically accept the statement of whoever you're referring to (presumably biden)

But that is equally true for the houthis as well