• Philo
    link
    English
    -13
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Removed by mod

    • @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      84 months ago

      Look, man. Obviously not every Israeli tourist is bad. However, the article is specifically about a response to Israeli tourists being bad, and protests by Jews calling the (obviously inappropriate) response anti-Semitism. If you read that, and your first thought is, “Well, the sign didn’t specifically say it was an Israeli tourist who stole the bike… clearly everyone is just jumping to conclusions because they’re racist!”, I think you need to take a step back and look at the whole situation.

      What makes more sense? 1) Israeli tourists cause problems in shop, including stealing a sled. Shop owner posts sign banning Israeli tourists from the shop. Or 2) Some random non-Israeli causes problems in the shop, shop owner bans Israeli tourists because for unrelated reasons?

      Obviously we don’t know, because the shop owner didn’t respond to their request for comment. However, based on the information we’ve been given, elementary school level reading comprehension suggests that situation (1) is the correct one.

      Pointing that out isn’t anti-Semitism, but if you come into a thread specifically expecting and searching for anti-Semitism, you’re going to see it everywhere, and I think that’s what’s happening here.

        • @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          The term ‘Jewish’ referring to both the followers of the religion and people of Hebrew descent in general makes it very hard (for me, at least) to keep track of a conversation like this, and any inaccuracies in usage of any related terms is a product of personal ignorance about the nuances of the words, not an attempt at veiled racism.

          That said, the sign said ‘our Jewish brothers’, and didn’t actually mention Israel at all; the presumption that it’s referring to Israeli tourists is only mentioned later. Whether it was referring to Israelis in general, or orthodox jews as mentioned later in the article, we can only guess, but I don’t think it really matters, as either way, it’s discriminatory. I’m certainly not defending his response to the situation.

      • Philo
        link
        English
        -4
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Removed by mod

        • @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Given the owner could not be reached for comment, all the article has to go on is his sign. I’m choosing to assume he experienced a sleight that prompted (inappropriate) action on his part, and you’re (apparently) choosing to assume he made the whole thing up just because he hates Jews and wanted to ban them from his shop.

          I’m perfectly happy to change my view on this when the shop owner’s account comes out if it proves warranted, but I’ll point out that the article did not comment on the veracity of the claim at all, and if it could have been reasonably proven illegitimate, I assume it would have.

          I don’t think either of our positions here are wholly unreasonable, but I do think that trying to claim anti-Semitism any time anyone has a critical opinion of anyone from Israel, you’re diluting the term and generally making it meaningless.

          Edit: To be clear, I’m specifically referring to you calling me an anti-Semite because of my read of an article, not the assumption that the shop owner is an anti-Semite because of a ridiculous sign.

          • Philo
            link
            English
            -8
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Removed by mod

            • @KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              But you are assuming, you’re just mincing words. You’re taking a stance on something the article does not explicitly state. That is an assumption.

              Obligatory:

              • Philo
                link
                English
                -6
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Removed by mod