Person 1: “Israel and Palestine have both done some horrid things to each other and deprived each other of basic needs. That isn’t something where genocide comes to mind.”
Person 2: “What Israel is doing to Palestine is genocide though.”
Person 1: “It’s a war crime. Not all war crimes are a genocide. Certain criteria have to be fulfilled for that. Similar to how not all mass shootings are acts of terrorism. Are you really dedicating a whole confrontation just to debate semantics?”
Person 2: Provides links to Amnesty International
Person 1: “I’m going by dictionary definitions, not what a certain biased organization says. I wouldn’t deny both of the organizations you mention there are biased. But the dictionary isn’t. Suppose you are right and the ADL is biased and controlled “by Zionism” (which sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory). What does that make the Snopes organization? What does that make the literal 50% of America who doesn’t disagree with the ADL? What does that make the people who call it a double standard that so many people are willing to support murder of one kind but not another, or that intentions matter sometimes but not all the time?”
Would it be biased if they were saying what person 1 wanted to hear?
That person doesn’t understand how the dictionary works.
See the response to point 1
Community sourced fact checkers.
Idiots. ADL is a good idea implemented and run horribly to the point it doesn’t do what’s on the label.
Racists.
Person 1 is incapable of seeing the world in anything but absolutes and shouldn’t be in any position of authority, including over a dog.
How could the dictionary be biased? Genuine question i promise im not piling on in bad faith or anything
It isn’t that it’s biased, it’s that the dictionary shows current usage updated every so often, sometimes with historical usage also. That’s why laws and ordinances often seem long-winded, they’re defining their meanings to try to avoid the change languages go through (except French).