• PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 hours ago

    If you’re not aware of the subtle but pervasive linguistic technique here, you need to educate yourself. The supposed sympathetic party is always described in human-sounding terms, the supposed adversary is always dehumanized, using sterile language. And it works, it nudges those who don’t think very critically into framing their subconscious opinions that way.

    Your personal reaction to one incident of such isn’t very relevant. It’s a thing and it’s nasty.

      • PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        “Families” is absolutely more warm and human than “people” and while I see what you’re saying that “people of Gaza” could be interpreted as more inclusive than saying “Gazan families”, that would be an excessively literal reading, it is really not what’s going on here.

        Again, this is just one instance of a consistent pattern among media and public figures in general. Not interested in splitting hairs with you over your personal interpretation of the one specific phrase. It’s like a dog whistle, once you know what it sounds like, you can hear it, but it will escape your notice until you learn about it.