Palestinian film director and Academy Award-winner Hamdan Ballal was violently attacked by what his colleague described as a “lynch mob” of Israeli settlers on Monday night in the Palestinian village of Susya, south of Hebron in the occupied West Bank.
Ballal’s whereabouts are now unknown after Israeli soldiers then seized him from the ambulance that arrived to treat him, his co-director and fellow Oscar winner of the documentary No Other Land, Yuval Abraham, said on X.
Abraham, a journalist for +972 magazine, said in a separate post featuring a shaky cell phone video that masked settlers “attacked Hamdan’s village, they continued to attack American activists, breaking their car with stones”.
I guess this is a severely watered down use of the word “lynched”, because you’re not alive to be kidnapped after the traditional meaning.
I Ducked it but apparently killing someone is not necessary. Only mob violence without trial.
I mean, all of the “especially” bits are still significant, and affect the general understanding of the term.
“your usage was actually right, but I can’t accept that my narrow definition isn’t right, so because it says ‘especially’ I’m interpreting that as ‘always’. So actually I’m right. Yay me.”
I just mean this is like someone using the word “raped” to mean stolen.
please go back to reddit you are unseemly and pedantic.
Thanks, I was about to have a nice day but someone thankfully reminded me I actually suck.
Except that in the context “lynched” is being used in this case, even with a strict “death only” definition, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that “attempted lynching” would have been appropriate. Given that context, and the fact that actually “death only” is not the definition of lynched, can you not see how crying about definitions looks an awful lot like downplaying the severity of this crime? Like when zionists cry about being accused of genocide?
But why use “lynched” and not “raped” then? He was successfully raped, as opposed to an “attempted” lynch.
I’m not the one crying about definitions, I just think linguistic prescriptivism is a weird hill to die on. We all know the connotations of these terms.
Do we? Because I didn’t have any issue with the word as used. To me, a lynching is a violent, usually race/ethnicity-based mob attack on a person. And this pretty well fits the bill.
You’re the one doing linguistic prescriptivism here. The only difference is that what you’re prescribing isn’t what’s in the dictionary, it’s what’s in your own head.
Only to prove a point, I apologize if the meaning was lost.
But it is in the dictionary, that’s the point I was getting at. From the same source as the previous poster, note the second definition of both the noun and verb forms:
If that seems like I’m just cherry picking definitions to exclude the common parlance (which, to clarify, is what I am doing), then why likewise exclude the definitions of lynch which do specifically equate it with execution just to make some sort of “umm akshually” point?
here in america there are strict reconstruction era lynching standards to uphold and pass along to future generations. yessiree bob! a fine US export, to be sure.
Americans should be ashamed of themselves. How could they allow the American definition of this word not be the dominant (only) definition of this word. This is what happens when you break ties with allies. The cracks in the American empire are already forming…
Removed by mod