post edited

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 making her argument in a context in which the polygon, belonging to the "nefarious [first] grouping," has already been defined as a Star of David. Her writing is itself subject to a condition similar to the one she describes concerning the 'retroactive' use of the existence of the "redeeming [second] grouping's " predetermined meaning to demonstrate, directly or implicitly, the pre-existence of the nefarious groupings imputed meaning.

This be an intentional irony. On the other hand, it may suggest that the author shares that bias of interpretation, which can produce a predilection for the nefarious interpretation of the first grouping. That writing is to that extent ambiguous.

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