I'm not. Double-quotes means quoting. Single-quotes means paraphrasing.
> At this point, a solution that doesn't involve "final solutions"
Yes, that is what many are looking for here -- that is why, when we see israel executing their 'final solution', we say that it is bad.
The rest of your post, with respect, is off-topic, and is more dehumanization which does not address the issue of israel perpetrating a genocide, because there is no justification for that. It does not matter what anybody did at any time: israel's genocide of Palestinians is bad and must be stopped, no matter what. It does not matter that israel is incapable of coming up with or implementing any alternatives: israel's genocide of Palestinians is bad and must be immediately stopped, no matter what.
It is up to israel to find a solution that makes them happy and does not involve genocide or other war crimes or crimes against humanity. Pretty much everybody else manages to do it, and israel is pretty smart and capable, so they can to, but only if the genocide isn't their goal. As many here have pointed out, though: genocide is their goal. They openly announce it, they just don't explicitly say "the g word" when doing so.
If you seriously want to discuss real solutions (I'm going to take you at your word here on HN, that you'll participate in good faith), it would have to start with you recognizing and stopping your dehumanizing and genocidal rhetoric. Then, maybe we can use the following as a foundation of shared values to build upon:
All innocent civilian lives are equal to each other, they all have equal human rights that deserve to be respected, and the death of 2 innocent civilian lives is worse than the death of 1 innocent civilian life, no matter their race, nationality, or national origin. Hopefully you can agree with this.
Once we're on the same page there, you can present some serious* solutions for evaluation.
* - serious here precludes genocide, however much one may want it, and as we see here, the scholarly and global consensus is that israel is currently perpetrating a genocide upon palestinians
> I'm not. Double-quotes means quoting. Single-quotes means paraphrasing.
If you abuse punctuation to mean different things than it conventionally means, then you are not going to communicate effectively. Paraphrasing is when you describe someone’s position without using quotation marks (in English generally, single and double quotes have the same meaning, and are used to distinguish nested quotations, with regional variation in which is usually preferred for primary, unnested quotations; both are also used for use/mention distinctions for literal words of phrases, and some styles distinguish which style of quotes are used for use/mention vs. primary direct quotation, but paraphrase is neither of these.)
your reply here quoted in its entirety for posterity:
> If you abuse punctuation to mean different things than it conventionally means, then you are not going to communicate effectively. Paraphrasing is when you describe someone’s position without using quotation marks (in English generally, single and double quotes have the same meaning, and are used to distinguish nested quotations, with regional variation in which is usually preferred for primary, unnested quotations; both are also used for use/mention distinctions for literal words of phrases, and some styles distinguish which style of quotes are used for use/mention vs. primary direct quotation, but paraphrase is neither of these.)
I hope this reply (focusing on 1 stylistic detail of the first sentence of the post rather than the substance) is not indicative of your usual posting. Try to focus on the substance. After all, I said I was assuming good faith and trusting that you were genuinely interested in the substantive discussion you started. Don't make me look dumb for trusting you. Feel free to edit your post to include more than just a stylistic nitpick.
Wait! Wait! I fear you heard might've heard me say something like, 'double down on the semantic thing, argue about its importance', but I didn't. Because what you or I think about stylistic preferences around paraphrasing (or as you put it, "abusing punctuation") is less important than stopping a genocide.
> I hope this reply (focusing on 1 stylistic detail of the first sentence of the post rather than the substance) is not indicative of your usual posting.
Not that I am overly concerned with your hopes in this area, but you could just check that with less effort than posting speculation.
> Because what you or I think about stylistic preferences around paraphrasing (or as you put it, "abusing punctuation") is less important than stopping a genocide.
That might be a point worth discussing, if what you were doing was, in fact, actually stopping a genocide, or even communicating effectively.
Darn, I was hoping you would focus on substance instead of again totally ignoring it and doubling down on the stylistic preference differences.
> if what you were doing was, in fact, actually stopping a genocide, or even communicating effectively.
It is! That's why I'm trying to discuss it in spite of deflections to purely stylistic differences. If you are interested in stopping the ongoing genocide too, please go back to the post you ignored the substance of and give a substantive, good-faith reply, if you are indeed interested in continuing the discussion you started and claim to want. Here is that post you ignored, for ease of navigation:
I'm not. Double-quotes means quoting. Single-quotes means paraphrasing.
> At this point, a solution that doesn't involve "final solutions"
Yes, that is what many are looking for here -- that is why, when we see israel executing their 'final solution', we say that it is bad.
The rest of your post, with respect, is off-topic, and is more dehumanization which does not address the issue of israel perpetrating a genocide, because there is no justification for that. It does not matter what anybody did at any time: israel's genocide of Palestinians is bad and must be stopped, no matter what. It does not matter that israel is incapable of coming up with or implementing any alternatives: israel's genocide of Palestinians is bad and must be immediately stopped, no matter what.
It is up to israel to find a solution that makes them happy and does not involve genocide or other war crimes or crimes against humanity. Pretty much everybody else manages to do it, and israel is pretty smart and capable, so they can to, but only if the genocide isn't their goal. As many here have pointed out, though: genocide is their goal. They openly announce it, they just don't explicitly say "the g word" when doing so.
If you seriously want to discuss real solutions (I'm going to take you at your word here on HN, that you'll participate in good faith), it would have to start with you recognizing and stopping your dehumanizing and genocidal rhetoric. Then, maybe we can use the following as a foundation of shared values to build upon:
All innocent civilian lives are equal to each other, they all have equal human rights that deserve to be respected, and the death of 2 innocent civilian lives is worse than the death of 1 innocent civilian life, no matter their race, nationality, or national origin. Hopefully you can agree with this.
Once we're on the same page there, you can present some serious* solutions for evaluation.
* - serious here precludes genocide, however much one may want it, and as we see here, the scholarly and global consensus is that israel is currently perpetrating a genocide upon palestinians