this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2025
656 points (86.7% liked)
Progressive Politics
3379 readers
1041 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is the dumbest post I have seen in ... hours.
Progressives impotently punching at black people because Progressive social media person is unhappy with purity language tests.
Hows about run for office, Ms Rachel ? Put your past through the ringer publicly to help more than rich children with fast internet, nice computers, and free time to be talked to by a stranger online. You know ... children of wealth.
Or make sure y'all stay as divided as possible. That is what wins the day!
This com isn’t about actual progressive politics but continuing to drive a wedge. Keep watching
This post is proof positive, this is the norm here.
An important step on any path to unity is a requirement that we all believe that the inherent value of human life does not vary by national origin. Demanding that our politicians do better, and stop misusing language in this consistent pattern to minimize perceived suffering of The Other - that's unity. "Israeli families" vs. "the people of Gaza" - isn't it self-evident, that is the wedge? Once you know to look for it, you see it used everywhere.
I don't want unity with people who aren't willing to make the above commitment. When demanding just minimal lip service to such an ideal from a public figure is "driving a wedge", I think you have some serious soul searching to do.
For me it felt like the exact opposite of your take.
The people of Gaza is everyone in Gaza.
"Israeli families" feels more limited.
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.
Maybe educate yourself on logic: you're ignoring the logical distinction between fewer Israelis & all Gazans indicated by the choice of words & context.
You're choosing the most offensive interpretation despite latitude to interpret this differently & more coherently as explained elsewhere.
Let's see how your argument plays out with alternatives.
What? So, all Israelis suffered equally? How dare he say they suffered as much as Gazans‽
So, the Gazans without families don't count? What an asshole!
Losing with you is a foregone conclusion. Everyone has to delicately dance & mince words or be subject to irrational condemnation from your crowd.
Ya know, I try not to be one of these people that just digs in their heels on a take, no matter what is said in response, so I took the time to consider what you said, what Obama originally said, and what I think.
I do want to make some concessions. I stand by a lot of what I said in a general sense, but yeah, this wasn't a good example of what I was describing, to the point of being a weird spot for me to jump in. This case has a reason to use those terms for each group, as you've pointed out, and it even has a reason to mention both groups.
I'm not giving him a pass on much in general, but I see why people are not seeing the thing here. More subtle than I gave it credit for.
E: the comment link didn't work for me btw, I'm on mobile tho
You think "people" somehow doesn't sound human?
"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.