Representative Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian American member of Congress, was attacked Monday for supposedly claiming that Michigan’s attorney general is going after pro-Palestinian protesters solely because she’s Jewish. The only problem is, Tlaib never said anything of the sort.
Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, posted on X Monday addressing Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer while alleging that Tlaib had made an antisemitic statement about Attorney General Dana Nessel. Nessel is pursuing charges against pro-Palestinian protesters at the University of Michigan, alleging some had assaulted police officers and engaged in ethnic intimidation.
The Jewish Insider article stated that Tlaib “has also claimed that Nessel is only charging the protesters because she’s Jewish.” As evidence, that article repeatedly linked to yet another article, this one from the Detroit MetroTimes—which included no quote from Tlaib referring to Nessel’s Jewishness at all.
Could we maybe reserve the word attack for physical violence, like its supposed to be, and not just throw it around like this?
You’d do well to remember that words can have multiple meanings and connotations, or you’re gonna have a bad time with English.
Of course, if you could provide some kind of evidence that “attack” was at any point ever used to mean only physical violence and nothing else… you’d still not have a point because languages change over time and “attack” could legitimately gain new meanings that it did not used to have.
But that’s not relevant because you won’t be able to provide that evidence, because “attack” has never been used only for physical violence and physical violence alone.
LEMMY.
VOTES.
NO.