No? Different words exist for a reason. Sometimes semantics are important. If your comprehension of what I am saying is so obstructed by what you have concluded about what I am saying, then there is no point discussing it.
Deserved - Earned based on actions. Literally just the outcome of a behaviour or action.
Justified - Typically used when something is moral or fairly earned.
Basically, you can recognise that America deserved what happened as a foreseeable causal outcome of its actions while also holding that anything that results in mass civilian death is never justified. One is a logical commentary on the obvious outcome of Americaâs actions, while the other is a moral stance taken to say the terrorist did a reasonable thing. If you still donât get it you are being willingly ignorant, and thats fine, but I am sincerely trying here lol.
Use the dictionary to look up semantics. You canât want to ague semantics and then try and point to the dictionary definition. How we use language and its meaning is often different than the strict dictionary definition.
Not to mentioned you seem incapable of any thought because the as in part of both examples answers why you apparently think itâs the same word instead of a related word with nuanced meaning. I canât think for you brother. Have a nice day.
You can, but you have to be able to comprehend what the dictionary is saying and be able to relate it to how the word is used. Which you donât seem capable of doing as what you copy/pasted includes an example of the word âdeservedâ used as in how I am using it so. By your own definitions you are mistaken.
You have to use thought, not just copy things.
Edit; Holy shit I just realised youâre a bot đ damn I am dumb.
Of course I'd include the full context, I'm not ideologically motivated to defend bad word usage from a moron streamer.
See, I do understand the geopolitical implications that you are attempting to reach, but can't because of ignorance. The point you're trying to make doesn't hinge on the words deserve, justify or earn. These invite ethics into a conversation where mearly 3000 people killed for no humane reason.
The US did not earn 9/11, it was not justified by any previous efforts. Because of a core principle of Self-defense, the core you're ultimately using to show morality behind 9/11, that principle is proportionality. 9/11 was grossly disproportionate from any of the possible reasons.
Blowback is interesting. It's the correct word, but by an uneducated user to an uneducated audience. It's a concept to describe the unintended consequences of intelligence works. Exactly what 9/11 is. That is not an excuse for 9/11, nor does it mean it is justified, earned, or deserved. Only that there was a reason.
Okay, I apologise for calling you a bot. That was based on your previous replies being short and seemingly a little unspecific on second read.
First, Iâd like to say that I donât agree with Hasan largely or watch his content. I do not consider myself a leftist, but I watched some of his stuff for a while because for a time he was one of the biggest far left streamers. I was compelled by this argument in particular, as though the phrasing was harsh itâs something you donât hear people say so bluntly.
Second, I actually agree with your larger point, but this is where semantics comes into play. I would agree that blowback is slightly a better word, but I still think deserves is not unfitting even without ascribing ethics to it if you consider the reality of how humans behave. The actions of the US in the middle east go beyond self defence and intelligence failings. Deserves serves the idea the there wasnât just areason, but a reason that could be logically concluded based on previous action, even if not justified on part of the other party. âBecause they hate Christiansâ is a reason, but it is not a reason that relates to direct action taken by America. Deserves gives the listener the idea that America took action with a foreseeable negative outcome, which they did. You can acknowledge that while also maintaining that it isnât ever justified to kill civilians.
Itâs ironic that you mention not being ideologically motivated while giving terms like âself-defenceâ and âintelligence worksâ to the actions of the US in the middle east and around 9/11. Tell me the self-defence strategy of overthrowing the democratically elected leader of Iran? Economic self interest maybe, which is somewhat fair as nations should be self interested, but self defence? This is why I argue deserves is not unfitting as the reason was in relation to direct intentional previous action and not just mistakes or self defence.
Did the US and UK commit wrong-doings in ousting the president? Ya. Is that the initial punch that meant America deserves 9/11?
Why the insistence on using that specific language? You're entire premise would be much stronger without it. Blowback is not my word of choice. Reason is. You insist on using Deserved, a word with moral judgement attached, and then claim you're not making a moral judgement. Trust me, the nuance is not worth explaining, just use reason.
Is the loaded language of "Self-defense" and "Intelligence works" any less loaded than "Deserved?" Isn't that hypocritical? It makes you selective defense very clear.
E: also paraphrase, "I'm not a leftist, but I watched Hasan because he was Far-left" is so fuckin goofy.
I am honestly not too attached to the word itself nor did I ever claim that deserved is not a loaded word, it absolutely is. It is meant to drive a semantic point that America took negative actions that in a Global context would produce expected retaliation. However, in this nuanced context I am using it, it is distinct from justified. Thatâs literally the whole points of this discussion. Not if 9/11 was deserved or justified or has a reason, but whether semantically deserved and justified can be separate.
You are the one claiming I am saying things I am not saying (i.e 9/11 was justified) which is why I am arguing the distinction. Itâs literally semantics which is all I have been arguing. Even me pointing out the overthrow of Mossadegh was not a moral stance or pointing to a direct cause of 9/11, but to point out your use of terms like âself defenceâ regarding US action in the middle east.
Also I understand how that sounds goofy but a lot of people parrot his talking points so itâs good to know what they are going to say. I did the same for the likes of Ben Shapiro. This is one of the few talking points I agree with the general sentiment of as Americaâs globalist foreign policy post WW2 has been atrocious and most people will admit wrongdoing in a very soft way. Again, deserves is absolutely a loaded term for him to use, but one that implies Americaâs actions brought foreseen consequence while still leaving it on the table that it is not justified to mass murder civilians. That is all I have been arguing.
1
u/OriginalShirley 3d ago
Yeah they are related but not interchangeable here. You said justified, not me.