I think you have wholly failed to read an argument in my post and have just projected what you would like to respond to unto it.
I have already said that I think the special status of Israel in anti imperialist discourse is absurd. What I told you now is that the person who makes the emotes doesn’t want to, because of the history of the use of burning stars of David as antisemitic imagery, and forcing them would both be difficult and weird, to which you respond by saying that’s the standard lib line.
Most lib arguments aren’t about the feelings of emote makers, that’s not a normal conversation.
I suppose that accepting that the emote maker has no desire to do so is a special type of argument, but it’s not the type of special you want it to be.
I think you have wholly failed to read an argument in my post and have just projected what you would like to respond to unto it.
I have already said that I think the special status of Israel in anti imperialist discourse is absurd. What I told you now is that the person who makes the emotes doesn’t want to, because of the history of the use of burning stars of David as antisemitic imagery, and forcing them would both be difficult and weird, to which you respond by saying that’s the standard lib line. Most lib arguments aren’t about the feelings of emote makers, that’s not a normal conversation.
You say this, then in the very next post defend the decision to not have the emoji for some “special” reason, giving it a special status
I suppose that accepting that the emote maker has no desire to do so is a special type of argument, but it’s not the type of special you want it to be.
Ultimately it’s the same argument with an added layer to obfuscate it. Why does the emote maker have no desire to?
Were talking in circles here. I’ve laid out all I care to and you can agree or disagree.
Why don’t you just admit I’m right?