When Israel re-arrested Palestinian men in the occupied West Bank town of Dura, the detainees faced familiar treatment.
They were blindfolded, handcuffed, insulted and kept in inhumane conditions. More unusual was that each man had a number written on his forehead.
Osama Shaheen, who was released in August after 10 months of administrative detention, told Middle East Eye that soldiers brutally stormed his house, smashing his furniture.
“The soldiers turned us from names into numbers, and every detainee had a number that they used to provoke him during his arrest and call him by number instead of name. To them, we are just numbers.”
Numbers are so 1940’s, I thought they might have moved to QR codes by now.
I have a theory that people that willingly post links from this site are doing it on purpose to cause more harm to Palestinians. Hear me out.
-
No other news source has confirmed this act.
-
Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation.
-
People that actually read the article are pointing out that the headline is misleading but they are getting drowned out by pedantic discussions of semantics when it’s clear the implication is physical mutilation.
-
There is so much heinous actions committed by the IDF but here we are talking about made up news. See where this is going?
There is something fucky going on.
No other news source has confirmed this act.
-
the domiannace of the big news outlets by zionists is well documented.
-
notice how Israel has killed all the journalists and the sites that do report carefully use passive lagnuage for israeli actions and active and adverserial language for anything lebanese or gazan people do. Its obvious bias and controlled jouranlism. So why would you think them not covering something is meaningful?
Maybe you are just lookinbg for confirmation of your own bias?
Every single day heinous actions by the IDF are being reported in mainstream news. You’re straight lying or stuck in online echo chambers. The fact that this comment has any up votes is really frightening.
Every single day heinous actions by the IDF are being reported in mainstream news. You’re straight lying or stuck in online echo chambers.
You’re arguing that this headline is biased against Israel, yet your implication here is “Israel’s heinous actions are being reported so there can’t be a bias against Israel.”
The BBC has been accused by more than 100 of its staff of giving Israel favourable coverage in its reporting of the war on Gaza and criticised for its lack of “accurate evidence-based journalism”.
A letter sent to the broadcaster’s director general, Tim Davie, and CEO Deborah Turness on Friday said: “Basic journalistic tenets have been lacking when it comes to holding Israel to account for its actions.”
“The consequences of inadequate coverage are significant. Every television report, article and radio interview that has failed to robustly challenge Israeli claims has systematically dehumanised Palestinians,” the letter said.
Someone is reporting according to journalistic standards what is literally and actually happening, which is the everyday dehumanisation of Palestinians through acts like drawing a huge number on their foreheads and calling them only using it instead of their name. And you’re making a huge deal about the reporting being biased and deceptive, when it’s neither of those things. And definitely not everyone on this comment thread is taking the “branding” to mean “burning with a hot iron”.
We need to robustly challenge Israel’s dehumanisation of Palestinians. I think to do that requires us not to whinge about a headline when it doesn’t fill some weird linguistic purity standard in your head where “branding” can only mean ‘burning with a hot iron’."
-
Everyone in the comments are assuming the literal and first dictionary definition of branding by physical mutilation.
Why do you keep insisting this childish bullshit that no-one has argued for?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brand
a(1)
: a mark made by burning with a hot iron to attest manufacture or quality or to designate ownership
(2)
: a PRINTED mark made for similar purposes
b(1)
: a mark put on criminals
I’m curious, are you a native English speaker? In colloquial English the term “branded” is almost never referred to the second point in the Webster dictionary. The term originates from a particular context and the etymology derives from germanic “to burn”. I’m not doing the semantic bullshit game that already happened in this thread. No one uses “brand” colloquially for printed form. I suspect you know this.
In colloquial English the term “branded” is almost never referred to the second point in the Webster dictionary
Oh fuck right off. It has a way stronger connotation in colloquial English to be any other definition except an actual burning hot iron.
IF we were having this conversation 150 years ago, it would be different.
We’re not.
https://www.playphrase.me/#/search?q=Branded
What sort of a percentage of those is referring to an actual brand and isn’t from a piece of media depicting something before 1900’s?
How about here?
https://edition.cnn.com/search?q=Branded&from=0&size=10&page=1&sort=relevance&types=article§ion=
Here?
https://apnews.com/article/wawa-tumbler-recall-metal-straw-injuries-0225d1ec580c880d3f1aef199e6580ca
https://apnews.com/search?q="branded"&s=0
https://apnews.com/search?q="branded+people"&s=0
Searching for “branded people” and the first story to come up is
No one uses “brand” colloquially for printed form. I suspect you know this.
Not a native speaker, are ya?
Not to mention which, you still haven’t addressed the fact that demanding such linguistic prescription is wrong in general, not to mention in journalistic practice where standards are different.
See you’re trying to challenge linguistics when you have an understanding that’s probably from your lessons at whatever public school, because the teachers at those tend to be extremely prescriptive. Something which modern linguistics definitely wouldn’t agree with to that extent at least, and definitely not in the context of headlines, and definitely not in the context of this specific word, which actually has this definition as well.
(Also, you’re avoiding admitting Israel is committing crimes against humanity. Probably because you’re a filtht little genocide denier.)
You keep bringing up the branding of objects or products as a counter to the branding implied when humans are the subject. In the AAP article you linked it is referring to product branding.
I know for sure English is not your language now.
Almost everyone in this thread that did not read the article took the physical scarification implication of the headline.
This in such a weird hill to die on. Unless you are the author of the article it’s odd how much effort you are putting into discussing the semantics of branding when it comes to humans. Right now the IDF is committing genocide and there are so many more horrendous acts being neported in actual news sources to refer to but here we are super concerned with explaining how the word “branded” akshuallly really means printed text haha no really gotcha (in every colloquial context - not news articles discussing products! - in the English language when the physical branding of humans is mentioned it is universally taken as physical scarification; Not drawing with a sharpie).
Like, why?
Edit: just reread your comment and just caught the labels. Holy shit,
“filthy little genocide denier”
How sad that even after people mention they agree that Israel is committing heinous acts (I’ve stated as much numerous times) you can’t help yourself. We are all in agreement here that Israel is committing genocide but I want nothing to do with you. You are incapable of discussing anything that disagrees on the slightest fact because your feelings are unable to handle any criticism. I recommend you stick to some safe bubble or echo chamber from now on.
You keep deferring whenever your childish garbage is shown to be moronic.
This in such a weird hill to die on.
Isn’t it just? Had you actually read the article I linked in the first place, your asinine ego wouldn’t be in your way to admit how wrong you are. But you’re not interested in actual linguistics. You don’t care about it and you’re not versed in it, which is apparent from you pushing views that high-schoolers might have, because you’ve just never read anything about linguistics beyond your lessons on that level. I’ve said it several times. Applying such a prescriptive criteria to journalistic headlines is beyond inane. Literally a 12-year old in my country would be expected to understand what I’ve been repeating to you several times now. So you’ve definitely not stepped a foot anywhere near a university anytime in your life.
You’re stomping your foot, crying “NO, ‘BRAND’ ONLY HAS ONE SINGLE MEANING. ONE SINGLE ONE. THAT’S HOW LANGUAGE WORKS. WAA-WAA!”*.
You desperately need your exaggerated bullshit to be right, but since you’ve exaggerated and generalised, it’s obviously not, which makes you ashamed, which makes you even more convicted to die on this hill on that you don’t understand the first thing about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description
https://spcollege.libguides.com/c.php?g=254319&p=1695321
https://newslit.org/educators/resources/seven-standards-quality-journalism/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216608002798
Cry all you want, but the journalist has done nothing wrong, and unlike you claim, people in this thread definitely aren’t assuming “physical mutilation” when they read “brand”. You can cry and cry and cry all day, it won’t make your sixth grade approach to philology any better, kiddo. :D
I recommend you stick to some safe bubble or echo chamber from now on.
-
