which is not what was said, and I quote, "I want to know why it specifically has to mean that."

I should have made reference to the article in my first reply. I was responding to what I took to be the author's direct argument, and I stand corrected. But I didn't reply out of thin air; I was, I think, concerned with the argument implicit in the author's rhetoric (I use the word without negative connotation).

The Star of David is actually called "Magen David," or "Shield of David." Why couldn't the images represent that death is shielded and it's a good thing? Why couldn't the images mean that a guy named David makes good pesticides? It could also mean that the Jolly Roger was successful in following the north star.

The effect of this stream of possible interpretations is to produce the sense that none is more likely than another to come to mind when an individual when presented with symbolic arrangement. But there is no such equilibrium in interpretation.

Noteworthy that, presented with a figure composed of opposite triangles, the author calls it a magan David. Not only does she call it a "shield" or "star" of David, she calls attention to herself so calling it:

The Star of David is actually called "Magen David," or "Shield of David."

I want to know why it isn't a "star" or a "polygon" or…

Perhaps the relevant condition of the author's predilection isn't a general social context, but a textual one. She is advancing her argument in an argument in which the polygon has, as belonging to the nefarious grouping, been predefined as a Star of David. In that case, her writing itself is subject to a condition similar to the one she describes concerning the use of the "rectifying" symbol set to verify the supposed meaning of the original symbol set and she may be being intentionally ironic. On the other hand, it may suggest that she shares that bias of interpretation which may produce a predilection for the nefarious interpretation of the first symbol set.

(I apologize for the last paragraph; it's late, and I'll try to clean it up in the morning)

That writing is to this extent ambiguous.

But I agree with you insofar as my first reply incorrectly responded to what I remembered as the author's direct argument.