This sounds like quite a reach, I looked in that article and found nothing on quote marks. I also googled it and found only mentions of parentheses. I also found this thread. So from what I see, it’s not grammatically correct, no. It’s a bit demeaning, but it is a huge reach to compare it to triple parentheses.

I am mad because this type of legislation is inherently authoritarian and borderline fascist, it actually does benefit the modern Nazi party of Germany to stifle criticism and prevent historical comparisons. I’m not a neoliberal german nationalist like yourself so I’m not ever going to see that as okay, and the fact that you try to make anyone who disagrees with you out to be “just a bigot” continues to show what a sad pathetic neoliberal you are. I’m not scared or intimated by you. Maybe you’re used to people groveling before you because of your admin status and you think continuing to argue with me will intimidate me into apologizing or yeilding, but you have no points, no intelligent discussion of any kind. All you’ve offered is the same neoliberal Zionist apologia, and dismissal of anyone against you or feddit as ““bigots””.

This sounds like Zionist apologia to the max, and a Zionist strawman too. In fact the majority of anti-Zionists are against conflating the jewish people with Israel and their government. In fact a lot are fucking Jewish themselves. Antisemitism is a real problem and needs to be stood up against, but accusations of antisemitism are being made falsely these days and are being weaponized against criticism of Israel, and against the people criticizing Israel.

And right now, you are doing more of the latter than the former by blanket stating that we shouldn’t use “anti-Zionist” or even advocate against Zionism. You know, instead of to call out the anti-Semitic dipshits themselves claiming to be anti-Zionist. You are using a rhetorical tactic to try and claim it is antisemtic to be anti-Zionist and that is Zionist apologia.

And actually I would go as far as to say this rhetoric is directly harmful towards Jewish people, because using terms like “antisemitism” and antisemite" incorrectly, as ways to shut people down or suppress political views, or even unjustly attack people’s character makes these terms less meaningful, and ultimately undermines their effectiveness when they are more than justified. If “Antisemite” becomes the thing we call Greta Thunberg and people like her, who are not attacking Jewish people, who are standing up against the atrocities a government has committed (as well as the vile politics of a different government suppressing criticism of it) that ultimately bleaches the word of its meaning, a meaning which is very important and still valid today.

I think you can understand and appreciate why it’s important to be very clear on this removing all but the smallest trace of ambiguity. Because in these situations, bad faith actors use ambiguity to their advantage for the purpose of implying things or claiming someone else meant something because an answer was simple and vague.

So in short, loaded questions need loaded answers, and people who answer them with simple answers are either ignorant on how their answers will be misused or misinterpreted in bad faith, or they are themselves answering in bad faith.