Report

I'm not arguing with its history or impugning its intention. It just has an inherent weakness that allows it to be applied to, essentially, any loss of life. I understand why that phrase is there, the job it's doing. It just seems to me to be unhelpfully nebulous. In this particular situation, it has allowed people to argue that the death of, when it was first applied, a fraction of a percent of a population, rising 16 months later to around 2% of that population (again, not to downplay this terrible loss of life), is something it manifestly is not.   Obviously the Jewish state is capable of genocide. But it is my belief that the inappropriate use of this word to describe Israeli actions, like the use of swastikas and other Nazi imagery and language, is clearly if not always consciously antisemitic. Its use is a demonstration that an individual or an organisation's intentions, or their analysis, is weak or prejudiced.

1 legacy  1 established star  1 up and coming    perfect for me    although not sure how to break it to my kids they need to sit through a Neil young set tho

Fair enough - although your original message was not really saying this 🙂 

They did a one-off with them at the Royal Albert Hall, was a nod to a joke about it in The Simpsons.   https://www.theguardian.com/music/article/2024/jul/10/hip-hop-band-cypress-hill-makes-1996-simpsons-joke-come-true-london-symphony-orchestra

Indeed. Don't worry, I'm not a complainer. Jungle-Coldplay-Justice served me very well last year 🙂