• KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    10 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
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Removed by mod

      • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 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
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Removed by mod