Why did you use the Oxford Leaner’s Dictionary to define Zionism, as opposed to the Oxford Reference? From the Oxford Reference, emphasis mine:
A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
In the same vein, why didn’t you use wikipedia to define Zionism like you did for for kahanism? FTA on Wikipedia about Zionism, emphasis mine:
Zionism (/ˈzaɪəˌnɪzəm/; Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת Tsīyyonūt, [tsijoˈnut]; derived from Zion) is a nationalist movement that emerged in the 19th century to enable the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine, a region roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Jewish tradition.
What both of these definitions point out that the one you linked did not mention is that original Zionism was about more than just the creation of a Jewish state–it was about the creation of a Jewish state in the Jewish holy land. That last bit is important-- there would be no Israeli-Palestinian conflict if Israel was located in Idaho.
You used a learner’s dictionary definition of the word, which is a little bit different. Learner’s dictionaries are for people who are first learning their first language, and give simple definitions using simple language. Think of it like comparing Wikipedia to Simple Wikipedia
That’s great, except it’s not how it’s actually used in either a geopolitical or casual context.
I doubt, very, very much Biden meant it that way either, because no one would ever use it that way in these circumstances without adding in your very explanation by requirement to make it clear they’re not calling for genocide.
Exactly, I’m also thinking Mercosur’s role in this conflict will be decisive! Or were you talking about the USA that has eaten up the word America?
I agree with your point though, words get eaten up all the time. It’s a very good strategy for capturing the attachment people have with the word. It’s been done with the word democracy as well.
Zionism has always had multiple different meanings, so this isn’t a new phenomenon. Humans made up every word in existence. There is no single definition for any word and there is no universal dictionary handed down by some higher power. We make up everything and write the rules ourselves. Pretending that isn’t how language works on a fundamental level is simply wrong.
Removed by mod
Why did you use the Oxford Leaner’s Dictionary to define Zionism, as opposed to the Oxford Reference? From the Oxford Reference, emphasis mine:
In the same vein, why didn’t you use wikipedia to define Zionism like you did for for kahanism? FTA on Wikipedia about Zionism, emphasis mine:
What both of these definitions point out that the one you linked did not mention is that original Zionism was about more than just the creation of a Jewish state–it was about the creation of a Jewish state in the Jewish holy land. That last bit is important-- there would be no Israeli-Palestinian conflict if Israel was located in Idaho.
Removed by mod
That’s kinda funny, I also found that Oxford Reference page by checking wikipedia citations. It’s #5 in the same article
A reasonable response? On Lemmy? Inconceivable.
All you have to do is pretend words don’t mean what they do.
Removed by mod
You used a learner’s dictionary definition of the word, which is a little bit different. Learner’s dictionaries are for people who are first learning their first language, and give simple definitions using simple language. Think of it like comparing Wikipedia to Simple Wikipedia
That’s great, except it’s not how it’s actually used in either a geopolitical or casual context.
I doubt, very, very much Biden meant it that way either, because no one would ever use it that way in these circumstances without adding in your very explanation by requirement to make it clear they’re not calling for genocide.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
I think you’re roughly doing the equivalent of trying to reclaim crusade and jihad but keep on tilting at that windmill I guess.
Exactly, I’m also thinking Mercosur’s role in this conflict will be decisive! Or were you talking about the USA that has eaten up the word America?
I agree with your point though, words get eaten up all the time. It’s a very good strategy for capturing the attachment people have with the word. It’s been done with the word democracy as well.
And provided the real word for extremist Zionists! 👏🏼 props :)
Zionism has always had multiple different meanings, so this isn’t a new phenomenon. Humans made up every word in existence. There is no single definition for any word and there is no universal dictionary handed down by some higher power. We make up everything and write the rules ourselves. Pretending that isn’t how language works on a fundamental level is simply wrong.
deleted by creator