• 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