Hexbears Understand Satire Challenge: Impossible, indeed, juniper, but I'm not the one who failed that challenge here.
This all just underscores how tone is hard to read through text. I don't know how I was meant to understand it was a joke. People are mistaken online sometimes, I thought maybe this was a case of that.
I'm not trying to start a fight here, this is completely sincere. I think that tone indicators/tone clarification can be good to clarify jokes or irony when it might be ambiguous. I don't know if I upset you by misinterpreting your comment, and if I did it wasn't my intent.
Yeah, I thought it was odd that they referred to it as "Israel/Palestine" and "technically in Israel". Has to be either a Palestinian or one of the very few "Israelis" left who aren't the reincarnation of hitler.
I know it's a shitpost but yeah I actually hate the idea of demonizing the Star of David.
I agree broadly that outside the context of discussing zionism, it's probably better to avoid using the Star of David as a MSE substitution, but for many people in the world (especially in West Asia and North Africa), "demonizing the Star of David" is unfortunately already done by the actions of zionists.
Edit: even discussing zionism, it might be a bad idea depending on the context, the speaker, the audience, etc.
u/tomenzgg beat me to it, but apparently you haven't read A Modest Proposal.
I just want to reply to this part specifically. A Modest Proposal wasn't actually calling to eat orphan children, it was satire based on the fact that calling to eat orphan children (actually, it was the children of poor people) would be shocking and repulsive to any reader. I don't know if that was what you were actually saying, but I think it is important that AFAIK no one at the time was unironically calling to eat orphan children. Of course, as part of that satire Swift did liken the Irish to livestock, which is something that plenty of colonizers have unironically said of the colonized. It just wasn't the case in the particular case of that essay.
If sex work is work and all work is performed via coercion under capitalism... Then sex work is coerced sex. We have a different word for that usually.
Yes, this always struck me when I saw people say "sex work is just work, all work is coercive". Of course, there are different degrees of coercion in sex work ("voluntary", meaning coercive only as much as work usually is so long as the laborer can find different work, vs. human trafficking where there is strictly no choice at all, etc.) and many measures people claim are for the benefit of sex workers are counterproductive, but I think just saying "sex work is work" ignores the clear difference in impact of, for example, being forced to re-shelve library books for a day vs. being forced to prostitute oneself for a day.
And also of course, the implication when saying "sex work is work" that it should be regulated and have safety standards like any other job is also correct.
Religious people do also exist outside the USA.