Feels like some on the conflict in the ME thread love conflict

@veiledsentiments You said you will avoid using emotive language which I thanked you for.

I was talking to someone else when I made the point about The Hunger Games which is why I tagged @fixingmylife not you.

For which I had already apologised for. A second telling off for it really wasn’t necessary and quite patronising.

@fixingmylife we already know civilians are getting shot close to aid sites.

No need to make comparisons to an American film franchise.

If anything that seems to minimise what is happening.

I think it's very telling that playground analogies have to be assigned to something, that's meant to be viewed as serious. Make your minds up.

Oh absolutely.

Very telling.

Extremely.

Isn’t it telling that the focus is on whether the phrase is ‘cringeworthy’ rather than the fact that people are being shot while trying to collect food aid?

I wish MN had an ignore button for certain people - other sites do.

Me too.

The Hunger Games thing is just cringeworthy. It does reflect the level of maturity shown in a lot of posts.

Not at all.

Words like “horrific” & “barbaric” have always been used freely on these threads. They have been used to describe both the October 7th massacre ( another emotive word) and the Israel retaliation.

OPs point was about respectful debate or as MN would say “attack the ball not the player”. Stick to the points being discussed not personal attacks on whether individual posters are callous/lacking in empathy/uncaring about babies dying in Gaza.

I wish MN had an ignore button for certain people - other sites do.

The worst boards seem to be AIBU where people love to pick fights and Conflict in the Middle East.

I agree with this.

I don’t use the word genocide myself or agree with it but I can see that is an opinion that a lot of people have.

I never disagree with people calling it a genocide though it is emotive language. But I respect that they feel strongly about it.

I read this is why the BBC also don’t use the words “genocide” or “terrorist” - because those terms are too loaded with emotion & judgement & they are supposed to be impartial.

Though I do personally use the word terrorist to describe Hamas as I also can express my opinions on these boards.

It’s interesting how “emotive language” is suddenly a problem — but only when it risks making certain people uncomfortable about what’s happening in Gaza. Apparently words like “horrific” and “barbaric” are fine, just as long as they’re describing the right victims.

It does rather feel like the goal isn’t respectful debate, but emotional airbrushing — so people can stay comfortably “pro-Israel” without having to confront the implications.

If language needs to be tidy and bloodless to be acceptable, maybe that tells us more about what’s being protected than who’s being offended.

Imo criticising language for being emotive is only done one way. No one ever gets criticised for referring to oct 7th for being awful, horrific etc it is only ever done when discussing Palestinian casualties.

It’s very clear that the aim is to minimise what is happening in Gaza and sanitise it so people can feel “pro Israel” with clean hands and shut down discussion which is exactly what the thread is about .

I don’t think you need to be on one side or the other, affording basic freedoms and condemning the bombing of Gaza should not be seen as “anti Israel” imo.
I feel comfortable criticising the Irish government, the UK government, the assembly etc. I don’t think in the UK we’re under any illusion that voting for a particular party or living somewhere means you support every single thing a government does. And yet the notion seems to be that you can’t possibly criticise Israel’s actions in Gaza and the Westbank without it being an attack on Jewish people world wide.

It's not just ME boards attracting people who cannot abide anyone holding a different point of view. I've decided in future to not take the bait or engage with those 'looking for a fight'. MN needs an ignore emoji.

I think it’s important not to shut people down for expressing emotion — this is a deeply emotional subject, and strong language often comes from real distress, not just a desire to provoke.

Rather than focusing on tone, it’s more helpful to look at how people are engaging with each other. Respectful discussion doesn’t have to mean emotionally neutral — it’s possible to disagree and still allow space for strong feelings.

It depends what you mean by emotive language and loving conflict. If you think for example calling it ‘genocide’ is emotive, then to me that is just factual at this point in the conflict. I will continue to use this word, just as I will continue to refer to 7th October as one of the most horrific terrorist attack in recent history.

Thank you.

I agree many posters do “come out swinging” but all that achieves is to put people’s backs up (& closes their ears to important points that could have been made in a more reasonable way).

Then I will avoid using emotive language. I’m all for discussion. But I feel that in such an emotive situation, people always try to come out swinging. I agree, it’s not helping the war in Gaza, or the Palestinian people. However, I’m not sure what will at this stage.

Emotive language doesn’t help @veiledsentiments

An example being you repeating the phase “The Hunger Games” - a term coined by whom? Do you even know or are you just repeating it.

I don’t know who came up with that term, someone on X maybe? I have only heard it used by people on the pro Palestinian side and I find it disgusting.

I think if someone on the pro Israel side said people in Gaza collecting aid could be compared to The Hunger Games they would quite rightly be criticising for saying that.

I don’t care which side people are on, for the purposes of a discussion on MN. What is important is that people discuss the issues politely like they presumably would if they were discussing the issues with someone in person. Unless they love having quite vicious arguments with people face to face too.

But as the OP says, some people do just love causing conflict so even if a thread starts off with posters just exchanging opinions, it soon descends into a bun fight once the personal attacks start.

This thread is not actually about the reasons we might support Palestine or not. There are several threads already dedicated to this subject. It’s about whether we who use the board should tone down our language & not be so argumentative amongst ourselves.

I’m afraid I am not on Israel’s side in this. I lived in the ME for 45 years. I have a fairly good grasp on the situation. I would like to see a free Palestine, with the ability to move in and out of their own country with free will. With their own airspace and own freedom of the waters in front of them. I would like them not to live in fear, of their children being shot, bombed, starved to death. I would like to see them live free of Hamas. I feel that this can only be achieved if Israel is also freed of Bibi and his nefarious lot. Both need to go, so that both can start again. However, this war will have caused an awful lot of hatred. And I fear that it will be difficult to move on.

It’s curious how quickly some threads pivot from people sharing despair or moral outrage to others diagnosing them as hysterical or 'enjoying the drama.' I don’t think anyone enjoys this. That’s the point.

But why, if you disagree with what Israel are doing do people get shut down? Why do reasonable voices who disagree with what Israel are doing in Gaza get told they are wrong? Why do you think the war in Gaza is now being known as the Hunger Games as the IDF shoot people coming for aid? Lot’s of people disagree with Bibi, the IDF, and as a result the Israeli government. And yet they get slammed on these boards time after time. I think empathy, and understanding work both ways. Sadly, on CITME boards, this seems to have been thrown out of the window. Sad times for humanity.