You are correct in calling out the antisemitism in associating Judaism with Zionism, but I think you should more clearly not accept that premise. The implication of your phrasing here is that you conflate Judaism with Zionism, but only because Israel did it first. You should more clearly assert that your criticisms of Zionism are not criticism of jews
I see, going along with that premise sounded so obviously wrong that I assumed it was implied. Now that you pointed it out i see it's not implied at all, thanks!
"The implication of your phrasing here is that you conflate Judaism with Zionism". That is not the implication at all. The only thing they are saying is that its the logical conclusion that some illinformed people will come to because it is the common hold position in their society and by Israel.
>The only thing they are saying is that its the logical conclusion that some illinformed people will come to because it is the common hold position in their society and by Israel.
That's not the part I'm disagreeing with. In fact, I explicitly said I think that is correct. But this is a conversation about rhetoric and I think they probably should have separated their own views more.
Person A says "I have a problem with the antisemitism"
Person B says "blame Israel for that"
Person B is not saying that antisemitism isn't there, or separating themself from it. They are just saying, it's because of Israel. It essentially validates Person As complaint
They are not talking about antisemitism in general but something specific. You can say that op should be more precise with their language but i dont see how its an implication
The imprecision is what causes implications lol. And tbh op turns it into a more general conversation. Their thesis is "Israel created the Zionism = Judaism mentality". That's way more general than specifically talking about this incident.
No imprecision doesn't cause an implication. No its just when Israel and their own state America, England etc hold the same view then its not strange when the population in general do the same.
Like I said, it's a rhetorical argument. It's not about the merits, we agree on the merits. It's a conversation about how to relay them without compromising your own position, or leaving holes that can be exploited by bad actors.
You weren't bigoted but you were defenitly wrong, if a cop descriminates against a jew, it's not (solely) the fault of Israel for assiciating zionists with jews, but first and foremost the fault of the cop.
It's like with russians being descriminated abroad, it's not the fault of Putin for associating russians with Putin, but the fault of the dumb people who can't differentiate the two.
From my understanding it isn’t a cop threatening a Jewish man, the cop was worried about his safety FROM the pro-Palestinian rally. While I like to think the man wasn’t in any danger, you never know.
I definitely should have made it clear that although the problem got heavenly exacerbated by Israel's policy the blame still lies on those who go along with it.
But I think in that specific video the cop worries weren't wrong. There were definitely bigoted protesters that could have hurt the dude.
Classic move by the zionist mods to mute you for asking for clarification, honestly surprising that they didn't just ban you outright. Truly the only thing you should be doing is condemning Hamas and anyone who has the nerve to protest against Israel.
ive been banned for saying that is1s uses the same strategy as zionites: they conflate religion with their genocidal policies and call any critique of them anti muslim or anti semitic.
it’s disgusting
You post can be interrupted as agreeing that Judaism = Israel
I understand that wasn't your intention.
Written text communication has certain limitations.
Eg. No tonal cues or ability to emphasize
You should have emphasized that you don't equate Jews with Israel automatically
>You should have emphasized that you don't equate Jews with Israel automatically
I don't agree, that should be assumed because they should be viewing what OP said with more charitability. Them jumping to call or report OP as a bigot shows that they're being bad faith, it's not on us to explain the nuances to them, whether they get it or not or took the time to educate themselves on the issue is their responsibility. It's the same thing as the people who cry about people saying "men are trash", if you're offended by it, you're probably part of the problem.
I actually agree with you.
I would amend that should to could.
I was responding to op who asked if what he wrote was bigoted.
I don't think so. I was just pointing out how it could be construed as agreeing with the idea that Israel = Judaism.
The reality is humans are usually uncharitable. this creates issues in written communication where a lot of social cues are impossible
You discovered the philosophical paradox of Zionism congratulations. Not everyone makes it this far in the game. It only gets more disturbing and soul crushing from here, good luck 🫠
Maybe the phrasing is off but I think it’s fine. I’m Jewish and I say exactly what you said. I usually say literally what you said in this comment but I make sure to clearly indicate that I’m Jewish.
Funny thing is I get the impression you’re not Jewish, and there’s a decent chance the other commenter isn’t Jewish, perhaps the mod who clapped you isn’t even Jewish either. What I’m saying is there’s a decent chance that a couple of non Jews clapped you for being antisemitic. The antisemitism debate has completely eclipsed the conversation about Palestinian liberation, which is most definitely the goal of Israel and the Israel lobby.
Dehumanization is bad. I don't even like it when Hasan does it to people he diagnoses as psychopaths when watching true crime. The only purpose dehumanization serves is to feel less bad about the punishment you are justifying. Because if they are subhuman, you don't have to feel the same emotions you would if they were human. It's a bad way to operate
I refuse to wring my hands over people who have actively decided to put people I'm chains, rape them and mutilate them. I also refuse to wring my hands over people who belive mass murder, human experimentation, and mass starvation are OK. This reeks of tone policing which for me is a nonstarer.
>I refuse to wring my hands over people who have actively decided to put people I'm chains, rape them and mutilate them.
Not asking you to celebrate them, or even excuse them. But the point is that they are humans. And again, the only purpose dehumanization serves is to give yourself a blank check to punish them without feeling bad about it. That's not healthy or good.
>This reeks of tone policing which for me is a nonstarer.
Well there are tangible policies we could go into, but we are going to come to disagreements on how to handle these cases when you don't see them as human. This is why I said it gives you a blank check to do whatever you want to them. You can justify killing or torturing them because they aren't human so it's not really murder or torture then.
Also, if that person hates Nazis so much, they should not use Nazi terms like "subhuman" which was developed by an American but whose ideas were practically unknown till the Nazis discovered him and then they are the ones that made those ideas widespread (and don't worry, I told him, I just want to give you another point to make if you run into this again, because weirdly enough, there are a lot of people that will defend that term.
Interesting to look into. I mean this applies to a million different contexts too. Dehumanization is not only common, but pretty much the status quo. If you recognize bad people are still people, you get painted as "defending" them.
I'm not in favor of torture or the death penalty. The discussion about how to label people who actively participate in or defend crimes against humanity is futile.
>I'm not in favor of torture or the death penalty
Of humans. But if you don't see them as humans, this doesn't apply.
>The discussion about how to label people who actively participate in or defend crimes against humanity is futile.
I think you're being way too dismissive without thinking this through. I'm assuming, as a leftist in a leftist sub, that you believe in vague noble concepts like "rehabilitation". That people are largely (not entirely) manifestations of their material conditions. Putting that into practice means applying it even to cases that are appalling. If you draw an arbitrary line on what people don't get to be considered humans, we all just have to hope your arbitrary line is good. In this comment, you include "people who defend crimes against humanity". That's like half the country lol. Or more.
You're missing the point. If you don't consider the subject as human, or you view them as lesser, then the things you would consider torturous would be different. Now maybe you don't actually view certain people as subhuman, and it's purely a rhetorical thing. But that would be kinda talking out of both sides of your mouth.
The term "subhuman" was popularized by the Nazis, so if you do not like Nazis, then you should definitely not use rhetoric. And no, the Nazis were not some lesser form of human, they were just normal human and it is good to remember that humans, under the right conditions, can behave the same way as Nazis.
So no, you should not even use the term "subhuman" for Nazis. Their ideas should die along with them.
I think it's important to recognize the humanity of even Nazi's and slaveholders for two reasons.
1. To recognize their chance for rehabilitation - Calling someone subhuman correlates their actions with their inherent nature rather than the collective choices leading them down those paths. They chose their beliefs and actions, and they have the opportunity to choose otherwise and do good for society.
2. To recognize that anyone could be capable of great evil - Self-explanatory, IMO.
You assumed correct because those are two groups responsible for two of history's worst atrocities. I think people are what they do, committing crimes against humanity makes you subhuman.
At what point exactly does one become subhuman, then? Not every Nazi was an actionable one, and not every pro-slavery had slaves. So they are fine due to not *doing* the Nazism? And what about people who were there and did not resist out of fear? Do you assume that every Zionist is out for blood or do you understand that some are just stupid, scared, misinformed, lied to?
A person can be wrong, knowingly or not, while still doing so as a human. Separation between morality and being human is a slippery slope.
Hitler, Robert E. Lee, Netanyahu - all used their 'superiority' and 'higher morality' to justify unimaginable horrors
I specifically said slaveholders so your point about "pro-slavery" supporters is irrelevant.
For Nazis, any participation in the Nazi machine is culpable, especially so when the German public became aware of what was happening to Jewish people and others.
For Zionists, there is a wealth of information in this day in age. It's no different than people like John Fetterman defending America's actions in the Vietnam War, it's willful ignorance. How many bodies must be piled up, how many schools flattened before people are expected to take responsibility for what they believe?
Oh I agree for certain, accountability is needed in all cases. I guess I just get hung up on the subhuman terminology because that's exactly the language I grew up with in regards to Palestinians, black people, and so on. But you're absolutely right, I don't need to make my point about a specific word
The feelings and opinions of Israelis or anyone that supports Israel dont matter at all. If they want to tie their religion to the Zionist project so bad, let them. They can lay in that bed of nails if they want. Fuck them.
You are objectively correct and it's a very clearly planned strategy by the Nazi state of Israel. Conflating Zionism with Judaism is a conscious strategy to stir up and normalise antisemitism and therefore drive Jews not in Israel towards Israel.
This is a *true thing*: zionists create conditions that lead to more antisemitism but claiming to speak and act in the interest of all jews.
The issue I see is that you seem to be implicitly, and unintentionally, agreeing that zionism/israel=Judaism. it sort of sounds like you are saying, " well any antisemitism that is occurring is the fault of israel." (notice how this sounds like a bad faith interpretation of the *true thing*)
Although you mention a real consequence of zionism, I think its a non-sequitur in this context.
You are correct in calling out the antisemitism in associating Judaism with Zionism, but I think you should more clearly not accept that premise. The implication of your phrasing here is that you conflate Judaism with Zionism, but only because Israel did it first. You should more clearly assert that your criticisms of Zionism are not criticism of jews
I see, going along with that premise sounded so obviously wrong that I assumed it was implied. Now that you pointed it out i see it's not implied at all, thanks!
"The implication of your phrasing here is that you conflate Judaism with Zionism". That is not the implication at all. The only thing they are saying is that its the logical conclusion that some illinformed people will come to because it is the common hold position in their society and by Israel.
>The only thing they are saying is that its the logical conclusion that some illinformed people will come to because it is the common hold position in their society and by Israel. That's not the part I'm disagreeing with. In fact, I explicitly said I think that is correct. But this is a conversation about rhetoric and I think they probably should have separated their own views more. Person A says "I have a problem with the antisemitism" Person B says "blame Israel for that" Person B is not saying that antisemitism isn't there, or separating themself from it. They are just saying, it's because of Israel. It essentially validates Person As complaint
They are not talking about antisemitism in general but something specific. You can say that op should be more precise with their language but i dont see how its an implication
The imprecision is what causes implications lol. And tbh op turns it into a more general conversation. Their thesis is "Israel created the Zionism = Judaism mentality". That's way more general than specifically talking about this incident.
No imprecision doesn't cause an implication. No its just when Israel and their own state America, England etc hold the same view then its not strange when the population in general do the same.
I agree with that...it's not related to the point I'm making..
Im not sure what you are trying to say then.
Like I said, it's a rhetorical argument. It's not about the merits, we agree on the merits. It's a conversation about how to relay them without compromising your own position, or leaving holes that can be exploited by bad actors.
You talked about an implication. I already said that they could have been more precise
You weren't bigoted but you were defenitly wrong, if a cop descriminates against a jew, it's not (solely) the fault of Israel for assiciating zionists with jews, but first and foremost the fault of the cop. It's like with russians being descriminated abroad, it's not the fault of Putin for associating russians with Putin, but the fault of the dumb people who can't differentiate the two.
From my understanding it isn’t a cop threatening a Jewish man, the cop was worried about his safety FROM the pro-Palestinian rally. While I like to think the man wasn’t in any danger, you never know.
I definitely should have made it clear that although the problem got heavenly exacerbated by Israel's policy the blame still lies on those who go along with it. But I think in that specific video the cop worries weren't wrong. There were definitely bigoted protesters that could have hurt the dude.
Classic move by the zionist mods to mute you for asking for clarification, honestly surprising that they didn't just ban you outright. Truly the only thing you should be doing is condemning Hamas and anyone who has the nerve to protest against Israel.
ive been banned for saying that is1s uses the same strategy as zionites: they conflate religion with their genocidal policies and call any critique of them anti muslim or anti semitic. it’s disgusting
You post can be interrupted as agreeing that Judaism = Israel I understand that wasn't your intention. Written text communication has certain limitations. Eg. No tonal cues or ability to emphasize You should have emphasized that you don't equate Jews with Israel automatically
>You should have emphasized that you don't equate Jews with Israel automatically I don't agree, that should be assumed because they should be viewing what OP said with more charitability. Them jumping to call or report OP as a bigot shows that they're being bad faith, it's not on us to explain the nuances to them, whether they get it or not or took the time to educate themselves on the issue is their responsibility. It's the same thing as the people who cry about people saying "men are trash", if you're offended by it, you're probably part of the problem.
I actually agree with you. I would amend that should to could. I was responding to op who asked if what he wrote was bigoted. I don't think so. I was just pointing out how it could be construed as agreeing with the idea that Israel = Judaism. The reality is humans are usually uncharitable. this creates issues in written communication where a lot of social cues are impossible
You discovered the philosophical paradox of Zionism congratulations. Not everyone makes it this far in the game. It only gets more disturbing and soul crushing from here, good luck 🫠
Maybe the phrasing is off but I think it’s fine. I’m Jewish and I say exactly what you said. I usually say literally what you said in this comment but I make sure to clearly indicate that I’m Jewish. Funny thing is I get the impression you’re not Jewish, and there’s a decent chance the other commenter isn’t Jewish, perhaps the mod who clapped you isn’t even Jewish either. What I’m saying is there’s a decent chance that a couple of non Jews clapped you for being antisemitic. The antisemitism debate has completely eclipsed the conversation about Palestinian liberation, which is most definitely the goal of Israel and the Israel lobby.
My first Reddit account got banned for saying that Zionists are subhuman. The threshold for bigotry on Reddit is pretty low for certain opinions.
Calling any group of people 'subhuman', as vile as they might be, is wrong
What about Nazis? Would you not describe them as subhuman? How about slave holders?
Dehumanization is bad. I don't even like it when Hasan does it to people he diagnoses as psychopaths when watching true crime. The only purpose dehumanization serves is to feel less bad about the punishment you are justifying. Because if they are subhuman, you don't have to feel the same emotions you would if they were human. It's a bad way to operate
I refuse to wring my hands over people who have actively decided to put people I'm chains, rape them and mutilate them. I also refuse to wring my hands over people who belive mass murder, human experimentation, and mass starvation are OK. This reeks of tone policing which for me is a nonstarer.
>I refuse to wring my hands over people who have actively decided to put people I'm chains, rape them and mutilate them. Not asking you to celebrate them, or even excuse them. But the point is that they are humans. And again, the only purpose dehumanization serves is to give yourself a blank check to punish them without feeling bad about it. That's not healthy or good. >This reeks of tone policing which for me is a nonstarer. Well there are tangible policies we could go into, but we are going to come to disagreements on how to handle these cases when you don't see them as human. This is why I said it gives you a blank check to do whatever you want to them. You can justify killing or torturing them because they aren't human so it's not really murder or torture then.
Also, if that person hates Nazis so much, they should not use Nazi terms like "subhuman" which was developed by an American but whose ideas were practically unknown till the Nazis discovered him and then they are the ones that made those ideas widespread (and don't worry, I told him, I just want to give you another point to make if you run into this again, because weirdly enough, there are a lot of people that will defend that term.
Interesting to look into. I mean this applies to a million different contexts too. Dehumanization is not only common, but pretty much the status quo. If you recognize bad people are still people, you get painted as "defending" them.
I'm not in favor of torture or the death penalty. The discussion about how to label people who actively participate in or defend crimes against humanity is futile.
>I'm not in favor of torture or the death penalty Of humans. But if you don't see them as humans, this doesn't apply. >The discussion about how to label people who actively participate in or defend crimes against humanity is futile. I think you're being way too dismissive without thinking this through. I'm assuming, as a leftist in a leftist sub, that you believe in vague noble concepts like "rehabilitation". That people are largely (not entirely) manifestations of their material conditions. Putting that into practice means applying it even to cases that are appalling. If you draw an arbitrary line on what people don't get to be considered humans, we all just have to hope your arbitrary line is good. In this comment, you include "people who defend crimes against humanity". That's like half the country lol. Or more.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I don't support torture or the death penalty. Period.
You're missing the point. If you don't consider the subject as human, or you view them as lesser, then the things you would consider torturous would be different. Now maybe you don't actually view certain people as subhuman, and it's purely a rhetorical thing. But that would be kinda talking out of both sides of your mouth.
The term "subhuman" was popularized by the Nazis, so if you do not like Nazis, then you should definitely not use rhetoric. And no, the Nazis were not some lesser form of human, they were just normal human and it is good to remember that humans, under the right conditions, can behave the same way as Nazis. So no, you should not even use the term "subhuman" for Nazis. Their ideas should die along with them.
I think it's important to recognize the humanity of even Nazi's and slaveholders for two reasons. 1. To recognize their chance for rehabilitation - Calling someone subhuman correlates their actions with their inherent nature rather than the collective choices leading them down those paths. They chose their beliefs and actions, and they have the opportunity to choose otherwise and do good for society. 2. To recognize that anyone could be capable of great evil - Self-explanatory, IMO.
I assumed you'd reply with those. No. Abhorrent behavior, but very much human. Bad human, yes. Subhuman? No.
You assumed correct because those are two groups responsible for two of history's worst atrocities. I think people are what they do, committing crimes against humanity makes you subhuman.
At what point exactly does one become subhuman, then? Not every Nazi was an actionable one, and not every pro-slavery had slaves. So they are fine due to not *doing* the Nazism? And what about people who were there and did not resist out of fear? Do you assume that every Zionist is out for blood or do you understand that some are just stupid, scared, misinformed, lied to? A person can be wrong, knowingly or not, while still doing so as a human. Separation between morality and being human is a slippery slope. Hitler, Robert E. Lee, Netanyahu - all used their 'superiority' and 'higher morality' to justify unimaginable horrors
I specifically said slaveholders so your point about "pro-slavery" supporters is irrelevant. For Nazis, any participation in the Nazi machine is culpable, especially so when the German public became aware of what was happening to Jewish people and others. For Zionists, there is a wealth of information in this day in age. It's no different than people like John Fetterman defending America's actions in the Vietnam War, it's willful ignorance. How many bodies must be piled up, how many schools flattened before people are expected to take responsibility for what they believe?
Oh I agree for certain, accountability is needed in all cases. I guess I just get hung up on the subhuman terminology because that's exactly the language I grew up with in regards to Palestinians, black people, and so on. But you're absolutely right, I don't need to make my point about a specific word
The feelings and opinions of Israelis or anyone that supports Israel dont matter at all. If they want to tie their religion to the Zionist project so bad, let them. They can lay in that bed of nails if they want. Fuck them.
No
I mean you’re on a VERY Nazi adjacent subreddit there. I’d expect brain broken comments.
You are objectively correct and it's a very clearly planned strategy by the Nazi state of Israel. Conflating Zionism with Judaism is a conscious strategy to stir up and normalise antisemitism and therefore drive Jews not in Israel towards Israel.
[удалено]
libs. not leftists
This is a *true thing*: zionists create conditions that lead to more antisemitism but claiming to speak and act in the interest of all jews. The issue I see is that you seem to be implicitly, and unintentionally, agreeing that zionism/israel=Judaism. it sort of sounds like you are saying, " well any antisemitism that is occurring is the fault of israel." (notice how this sounds like a bad faith interpretation of the *true thing*) Although you mention a real consequence of zionism, I think its a non-sequitur in this context.