Was going to say, the quote sounds great, but of course I had a feeling the context was probably saying... calling the specific government/individuals who are commiting a genocide out for what they are actually doing. Rather than hating people for what their race is.
Actually, the speech is mostly about that last part even as it starts on the Holocaust. Since so far I didn't see a link to it, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsETTn7DehI
I mean people have been criticizing Israel for decades without being called antisemites. At least not credibly. I know because I've been calling Gaza and apartheid state since the 90s. The difference here is the way people have formed a rhetorical alliance with actual neo Nazis instead of articulating those specific criticisms. People slinging around "Zionist" are just as obnoxious as people slinging around "antisemite." The left really needs to do better on this. Use your words, not problematic bumper sticker politics.
The entire reason the word is problematic is because it is so overloaded. Even setting aside the white supremacist baggage for a moment, purely descriptive definitions depend on time, place and context to determine whether you mean that the Jewish people should have representation in Palestine, the creation of their own independent state, the continuation of their own state, or a justification for colonialist expansion in the Levant. The term is historically favored by white supremacists specifically because it is a dog whistle which has plausible deniability to mean anything from a historical retrospective to actual antisemitism.
For decades, thoughtful critics of Israel have intentionally avoided invoking the term to separate their analysis from hate groups. And this is not a difficult thing to do. It is quite easy to articulate specific problems with Israel's statecraft. There are many things to choose from, so when people choose the dog whistle instead, there's a good reason to see it as suspect. Israel also understands this. They prefer you choose the bumper sticker instead of sober analysis, because it is easier to discredit.
(Unfortunately?) no. Even putting aside that the term is a lot more broad than a lot of (well intentioned) critics of Israel think, its been long used as a dog whistle by anti-semites. The novel "The Turner Diaries" for example, which is sometimes referred to as the bible of American neo Nazism, uses the term "Zionist occupied government" (ZOG).
The word Zionist in "Zionist Occupation Government" is used to equate being Jewish with the ideology of Zionism, depicting Zionists as conspiring on behalf of Jews and Israel.
The algorithm boosts the voice that create the most engagement and shareholder value. It's a perfectly objective and rational way to run political discourse. What is wrong with bumper sticker politics, they are extremely efficient.
You must be some obnoxious communist to criticize this! (jk lol)
PS: You're probably right though, and actual antisemites and fascists are the reason why the propaganda wasn't able to completely quell criticism of Israel about the genocide. So in this very rare instance we probably should thank our nazi bedfellows, otherwise Israel would kill, starve and rape Palestinians even harder.
Perhaps have a look at what he achieved instead of the label he achieved it under. His policies were pretty far removed from what you would expect from a Republican.
He's a Republican because he fell for the Reagan bling, he's said multiple times he got in it for him. I think he never really understood what that actually meant, and he did side with leftist ideas more often than against, and he did do a bunch of things that are more leftist than he understands, but he still had some pretty entrenched ideas of what a Republican is that he never managed to question despite having reality shoved in his face, so he's still a Republican by religion and lack of reckoning of what that really does.
Imagine this, though: Imagine the above comment was made by a conservative, upset at AOC, a deeply progressive politician, for joining the Democratic Party, a group that supports Israel and tends to work quietly against universal healthcare.
It’s sometimes poor logic, but people do successfully cherry pick reasons to feel the same about the Democrats - fans of progressives especially.
It's not a very good analogy. AOC has two choices in American politics: Democrat or Republican. She may not be a perfect fit for the Democratic Party, but she's significantly closer to them than she is to the Republican Party (even before MAGA).
Schwarzenegger had the same options. He would have fit fine in the Democratic Party, but he, for whatever reason, chose the Republican party; a political party that has been overtly racist for as long as any of us have been alive.
Maybe he had some good reason to throw his support behind the Republican party pre-MAGA, but it is still a valid criticism that he made that decision.
Valid, but I have to admit, it's not a very useful criticism. What's he going to do; time travel back and prevent himself from making that decision?
Part of my point is, I think everyone has had “romantic, classical notions” of what their party used to represent, and defer to that notion when considering which party a good person should join.
For Democrats, that involves protecting minorities, a strong government, etc. For some Republicans, it’s about more state-level government, and strong businesses. The wishful often want to believe it’s just those - that racism isn’t built into that party, only “protecting the border from criminals”.
And if you look way back in history, there are “hints” to that too - Lincoln freeing the slaves, Reagan welcoming immigration to strengthen the economy. They’re not true anymore, of course, just as the Democratic Party won’t lift a finger for anything that stands against Israel, or could actually pass universal healthcare. But I could imagine an older guy like Arnold remembering that image when he signed up. Maybe to some degree there’s a Code Geass’ Suzaku style of “The only right way is to change them from the inside!” thinking.
Decidedly have no love for the GOP, but he was a politician in a time where the GOP was immensely different from what it is today, and the focus of the party was not overt bigotry and absolutism. Iirc, he was also talked about as a bit of a black sheep during the Bush Jr.-era GOP politics, but I might be misremembering things based on my own impressions from that time.
The GOP back then when Arnie joined was more socially progressive and actually fiscally conservative. This was the party that allowed more migrants in the 1980s, and courted Muslim voters in 2000 presidential election by tapping into the mostly immigrant Muslim's entrepreneurial spirit-- and it worked. I won't vote for any conservatives because I inherently disagree with them on economics and I am not religious, but 2000's GOP is the kind of conservative that I identify as conservative.
"socially progressive and fiscally conservative" is and always has been a copout phrase used by people that will never, ever, support wide spread systemic change to better people's lives, but dont want to be yelled at for it. Its the "thoughts and prayers" group.
Notice that everyone who claims to be socially progressive and fiscally conservative still always votes Republican. It's basically their way of saying "I don't personally want to kill all gay people, but would gladly vote for politicians who do if it means I might get a tax break."
Because those who are "socially progressive and economically conservative" are operating from the classical liberal sense of personal freedom and freedom from government control on the market. Liberalism and capitalism are progressive ideas when they first came out, as these ideas were opposing the aristocratic hierarchy and government control of economy to turn profit (mercantilism). Now, with aristocracy pretty much gone, personal liberty is practically non-questionable, and free market is widely adopted, these are given and hence became "conservative" in the modern sense.
Whatever your views on him as an actor or his political affiliation, you should watch the original speech in its entirety, rather than keep this soundbite in and of itself and hijack its meaning. It's also worth noting this was recorded in early 2023, so a lot of things have changed since then.
I think it's a powerful message and well delivered. Something the hardline MAGA crowd definitely needed to heed. And all around the world, as more of these populist movements rise or have risen.
Schwarzenegger may have had a very specific niche he fit within as an actor, but when he worked within that niche he was excellent. If you look at Conan the Barbarian, it should not have worked as a movie, and yet it absolutely does, and no small part of that is his acting. Dude can smolder stoically. Terminator, T2, Running Man, Total Recall, Predator, they're all excellent uses of his very specific type.
Then jump ahead to True Lies and Last Action Hero, where he's arguably at his height of fame, and he makes basically a couple of parodies of his acting persona, during a time when action heroes were largely taken much more seriously than they are today, and he nails both of those roles, too.
Sure, he's got a bad habit of trying to make movies he maybe shouldn't have, and yeah, he's always a huge muscly Austrian with a thick accent, but I think he might be the best Western action star who's ever lived.
As a person or a politician... ehh... could be a lot worse.
Words change their meaning over time, in context, and with other words. When people say antisemitic nowadays, we know what they mean. No need to go all ackshyually
I mean that's how language works, if everybody started calling White, Black; Black would would have a new definition, see literally. That said fuck Israel, Jews are cool unless they support what Israel is doing. All religion is bad and used to justify terrible things but not all religious people are bad.
What is wrong with you? What are you, some kind of new-age hippy? Why are you using these new-fangled words like white, war, and peace? What ever happened to albus, bellum, and pax?
Actually I don't know at all what someone means when they say that anymore because for the last two years when the media or a public figure mentions antisemitism it is nearly always criticizing Zionism and Israel for their genocide.
The issue is, if you care at all about how the Palestinian people are treated, you’re labeled an antisemite. That word is being used to shut down ANY discourse.
It sounds like victim blaming, but a lot of the rise of antisemitism is being fueled by the actions of the Israeli state itself. Over the course of the last few years the state has burned through 80 years of good will and hard work put in by groups devoted to fighting real antisemitism.
A lot of the behaviour like flexing control over the media, and political systems that antisemitic groups have been falsely accusing them of have been made true through the acts of the Israeli far right government. Furthering the idea that these antisemitic groups have been correct the whole time. The worse thing is that the state is intentionally conflating the idea that the actions of Israel represent the intent of all Jewish people, labeling any criticism against the state antisemitic behavior. This only serves to validate the behaviour of real antisemitic actors, giving them cover to disguise their racism under a veil of righteous criticism.
Israel spent significant resources propagandizing that they speak for every jewish people on earth. As a part ashkenazi, I was called blood traitor many times for suggesting that maybe genocide shouldn't be happening actually. And I can't even betray any blood, I wasn't even rised jewish and I don't look the part.
Yep, after Palestinians this propaganda campaign is most dangerous for ethnic Jews. It always amazes me that people who survived the consequences of people attempting to create an ethnostate are so quick to want to create one themselves.
Iirc, I think I remember this speech of his. It was about magas and telling them to go the fuck home, shut the fuck up, and grow up. Basically trying to Daddy them and tell them to stop acting like the losers they are.
It was specifically about that movement getting big. Like, around the years following the period where some guy in a car ran through an anti-far right protest and killed a woman, and where a neo-nazi protest marched through a town with tiki torches. This was about them.
Because he immigrated to the US after hearing a speech from Reagan and promptly went from having almost nothing to starting his own business and becoming a multi-millionaire before he got into acting. He's what the Republican party used to advertise itself as. He is to the Republican Party what Worf is to the Klingon Empire.
Because the dem primary in CA would have been too crowded. Same reason Bloomberg ran as a republican his first NYC mayoral election. As a republican he could get to the general election uncontested. They're both independent types, it was just easier to win as a republican than an actual no party Independent. And if they had run as Democrats they would have been blue dog clinton conservative democrats. (IIRC Bloomberg did run as an independent when he could run as an incumbent.)
Given how much he reversed on after speaking with experts on other things when he was govenor, I think he could be convinced he isn't defending the right people if he talked to a 3rd party expert about it.
Yeah.... Morally he wasn't as repugnant as your average Republican, especially compared to today's standards. However, there isn't really a way to be a Republican and still be a truly empathetic person. His tenure as governor was all about cutting taxes and services for his constituents.
He massively cut funding for schools, healthcare, and social services which, all while racking up a huge amount of debt for the state. Imo you can't systemically make the lives of hundreds of thousands poor families even harder and still be considered a good person. Being "fiscally conservative" is just short hand for wanting to starve children and deprive them of healthcare and equitable futures, just to make rich people richer.
Yeah, my bar got so low, I genuinely considered that not openly supporting fucking kids already made him not a republican. I'm kind of forgetting that it's a new development for those folks.
Well alright could you please also forward that note to the genocidal child killers that are ranzig Gaza and Lebanon?
I really don't want more antisemitism but that's not something I can control as Israel itself is currently the biggest driver of antisemitism in the world
On his final day in office, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger "announced in an executive order signed on December 31, 2010, that he had commuted Nunez's sentence from 16 years to seven years. Back-room dealings were apparent.".
Anti-semitism is a bankrupt term. Its being weaponized by nazi-Israel against anyone who criticize Israel. We should rather use a plain term like judeophobia so that we are clear in our speech.
I dont know how true this is but i also heard his dad was a nazi(not all that uncommon in austria...) and he basically based his worldview on being a better person than him and helping people who nazis hurt. He also got a lot of shit and got called gay for bodybuilding by his dad and basically single handedly redeemed the sport so id say he was successful.
Something all of us have to keep in mind, especially based on many of the comments here generalizing about MAGA, Jews (and the guilt by association angle), immigrants more broadly (for the rare conservative about these parts), etc..
I see a lot of rationalization and emotionally strong trigger words being used to justify acting the way Arnold is being celebrated for saying people should not act.
Arnold must lick Zio Hollywood boots in order to stay in his place. Arnold cannot talk about the real fucking losers who cry antisemitism in the same time they literally kill kids and shoot them in the testicles twice, and rape hostages and burn civilians alive, kill medics and jourmalists, academics, peace negotiotors, and flatten and steal homes, bomb hospitals and schools and places of worship, occupy neighboring countries, enable corrupt dictatorships, impose aparthied, genocide, torture prison camps, besieged and starved ethnic population.... fuck the list is too long
Nah Nazism was totally fine and even applauded until they started expanding and were going to pose a competition problem for established capitalists. The allies won because they had the common interest of crushing a competitor that would cost them profit and power. The axis lost because the 3 of them were empire building and didn't have common interest beyond "don't fight over the same stuff. Maybe help each other?"
The axis lost because the 3 of them were empire building and didn't have common interest beyond "don't fight over the same stuff. Maybe help each other?"
I think this is probably the best response. The allies wanted to protect the status quo including their own colonial empires. There was talk of "self determination", but that did not apply to their own colonies.
Don't forget, the Soviet Union was totally fine with the Nazis marauding in Eastern Europe until they started invading their territory. Only after that, they decided the Nazis had to go.
That's very reductionist. I'm no tankie but you have to admit the soviet leadership were no bad strategists. They were well aware that there would be war and they needed every bit of time to build up their heavy industry to be prepared. Without the masses of tanks they had by 1941, the soviet union wouldn't have stood a chance.
And acting as if the Western Allies were any better is quite laughable. They were acting out of pure self-preservation as well, not for some great ideals or honor or something.
Britain and France declared war in Germany on Sept 3, 1939.
This was triggered by Germany invading Poland. The USSR and Germany signed a pact and Britain signed a pact with Poland in response. When Germany invaded Poland, Britain had to respond.
Before this, Britan, France and Italy signed a treaty with Germany which basically let them have Sudetenland??. This is an example of appeasement. There was no appetite for war after WWI. People were kind of hoping Hitler would just chill tf out of they gave him some stuff, including permission to re-militarize. LMAO.
Italy wanted to take advantage of the war to gain territory, so they linked up with Hitler. They were also colonizers in Africa (along with Britian, Germany, France) so fighting happened there too. Italy's war in the Balkans got Britain to respond (gotta protect the oil!) which then got Germany involved.
Other aggressions that were largely ignored but the allies:
Japan invading China
Italy invading Abyssinia (Ethiopia and Eritrea).
Germany invaded the USSR in June 1941. And that point the USSR joined the Allies with the Anglo-Soviet agreement.
For some reason the US was taking part in the Atlantic Charter (August 1941) months before they entered the war?? The US and China didn't enter the war until December 1941, but this was because they were attacked by Japan. The US declared war on Germany and Italy a few days after they declared war on Japan, the did so after Germany and a Italy declared war on them.
I'm not an expert or even really an enthusiast, so this is pretty simplified. If I want to take it a step further I would say the war was about protecting empires (including colonies), more than opposition to Nazis.
There's a picture of a young Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth) being taught by her uncle, the then King, how to make a NAZI salute.
At least the British upper classes actually liked NAZIsm, they only started having a problem with NAZIs when Hitler invaded Poland.
More broadly, the white supremacist ideas have always been appealing in Britain - even Churchill himself committed a Genocide in India years before he became PM and the Battle Of Britain. Certainly a continued love for such ideas would explain Britain's posture even since: unwaveringly supporting Pinochet in Chile, the Apartheid Regime in South Africa and right now the Zionist Genocide in Palestine.
At least for Britain their relation with NAZIs wasn't hate, it was mainly geopolitics and actual fear when Hitler blitzed through France and ended up on the other side of the Channel from Britain.
Don't get me started on the US: from the NAZI movements in the US to how long they kept selling to both sides (famously IBM supplied the computer systems used to manage the Holocaust), only turning against the Axis and entering the War after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
And then there's of course how Stalin actually had a pact with the NAZIs until Hitler broke it and invaded the USSR.
Yeah, when you consider a nationals an entity sure, but pretty sure the hundreds of thousands in the trenches and their families back home had a pretty solid hatred for nazis
A repub gov in CA. That probably makes him more left than Manchin in WV or some other dem elected in a red state. He was more open about hearing from everyone and working to get things accomplished.
For your second question. Probably, idk. He is a capitalist.
One thing I will say he doesn't get enough flack for is being a part of the body dysmoprhia machine. Soo many young men are taking steroids now and have body image issues. What used to be great physiques are now seen as scrawny partly due to these guys blasting gear and making it seem glamorous.
On the positive side, decades of underground gym bro steroid compounding resulted in the infrastructure and community practices that the trans homebrew community now uses to get HRT to trans people shut out by the medical system. The majority of trans people have used or use DIY HRT at some point in their lives, and that infrastructure comes right out of the gym bro steroid culture.
Agree with this outside of those opposing genocide being labeled as antisemites.
Was going to say, the quote sounds great, but of course I had a feeling the context was probably saying... calling the specific government/individuals who are commiting a genocide out for what they are actually doing. Rather than hating people for what their race is.
Actually, the speech is mostly about that last part even as it starts on the Holocaust. Since so far I didn't see a link to it, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsETTn7DehI
I mean people have been criticizing Israel for decades without being called antisemites. At least not credibly. I know because I've been calling Gaza and apartheid state since the 90s. The difference here is the way people have formed a rhetorical alliance with actual neo Nazis instead of articulating those specific criticisms. People slinging around "Zionist" are just as obnoxious as people slinging around "antisemite." The left really needs to do better on this. Use your words, not problematic bumper sticker politics.
Is Zionist not a neutral term?
The entire reason the word is problematic is because it is so overloaded. Even setting aside the white supremacist baggage for a moment, purely descriptive definitions depend on time, place and context to determine whether you mean that the Jewish people should have representation in Palestine, the creation of their own independent state, the continuation of their own state, or a justification for colonialist expansion in the Levant. The term is historically favored by white supremacists specifically because it is a dog whistle which has plausible deniability to mean anything from a historical retrospective to actual antisemitism.
For decades, thoughtful critics of Israel have intentionally avoided invoking the term to separate their analysis from hate groups. And this is not a difficult thing to do. It is quite easy to articulate specific problems with Israel's statecraft. There are many things to choose from, so when people choose the dog whistle instead, there's a good reason to see it as suspect. Israel also understands this. They prefer you choose the bumper sticker instead of sober analysis, because it is easier to discredit.
(Unfortunately?) no. Even putting aside that the term is a lot more broad than a lot of (well intentioned) critics of Israel think, its been long used as a dog whistle by anti-semites. The novel "The Turner Diaries" for example, which is sometimes referred to as the bible of American neo Nazism, uses the term "Zionist occupied government" (ZOG).
And when Hamas leaders use the term Zionist, then they mean Jews more often then not either.
The algorithm boosts the voice that create the most engagement and shareholder value. It's a perfectly objective and rational way to run political discourse. What is wrong with bumper sticker politics, they are extremely efficient.
You must be some obnoxious communist to criticize this! (jk lol)
PS: You're probably right though, and actual antisemites and fascists are the reason why the propaganda wasn't able to completely quell criticism of Israel about the genocide. So in this very rare instance we probably should thank our nazi bedfellows, otherwise Israel would kill, starve and rape Palestinians even harder.
That's because non of you truely only criticise genocide
There's always some other crap or implication attached
Sadly he joined the GOP.
While I may like the sentiment, his actions are contrary to it.
The GOP glorifies personal responsibility while making sure that individuals without wealth have little to no power.
Perhaps have a look at what he achieved instead of the label he achieved it under. His policies were pretty far removed from what you would expect from a Republican.
Then maybe he shouldn't be registered with a party that's against all his values.
He's a Republican because he fell for the Reagan bling, he's said multiple times he got in it for him. I think he never really understood what that actually meant, and he did side with leftist ideas more often than against, and he did do a bunch of things that are more leftist than he understands, but he still had some pretty entrenched ideas of what a Republican is that he never managed to question despite having reality shoved in his face, so he's still a Republican by religion and lack of reckoning of what that really does.
Imagine this, though: Imagine the above comment was made by a conservative, upset at AOC, a deeply progressive politician, for joining the Democratic Party, a group that supports Israel and tends to work quietly against universal healthcare.
It’s sometimes poor logic, but people do successfully cherry pick reasons to feel the same about the Democrats - fans of progressives especially.
It's not a very good analogy. AOC has two choices in American politics: Democrat or Republican. She may not be a perfect fit for the Democratic Party, but she's significantly closer to them than she is to the Republican Party (even before MAGA).
Schwarzenegger had the same options. He would have fit fine in the Democratic Party, but he, for whatever reason, chose the Republican party; a political party that has been overtly racist for as long as any of us have been alive.
Maybe he had some good reason to throw his support behind the Republican party pre-MAGA, but it is still a valid criticism that he made that decision.
Valid, but I have to admit, it's not a very useful criticism. What's he going to do; time travel back and prevent himself from making that decision?
Part of my point is, I think everyone has had “romantic, classical notions” of what their party used to represent, and defer to that notion when considering which party a good person should join.
For Democrats, that involves protecting minorities, a strong government, etc. For some Republicans, it’s about more state-level government, and strong businesses. The wishful often want to believe it’s just those - that racism isn’t built into that party, only “protecting the border from criminals”.
And if you look way back in history, there are “hints” to that too - Lincoln freeing the slaves, Reagan welcoming immigration to strengthen the economy. They’re not true anymore, of course, just as the Democratic Party won’t lift a finger for anything that stands against Israel, or could actually pass universal healthcare. But I could imagine an older guy like Arnold remembering that image when he signed up. Maybe to some degree there’s a Code Geass’ Suzaku style of “The only right way is to change them from the inside!” thinking.
Robin Williams said it best.
Decidedly have no love for the GOP, but he was a politician in a time where the GOP was immensely different from what it is today, and the focus of the party was not overt bigotry and absolutism. Iirc, he was also talked about as a bit of a black sheep during the Bush Jr.-era GOP politics, but I might be misremembering things based on my own impressions from that time.
The GOP in 2016. "We can't have Hillary as President. The world will laugh at us!"
The GOP in 2016. "Who cares what anyone thinks of us?? USA! USA!! USA!!!"
The GOP back then when Arnie joined was more socially progressive and actually fiscally conservative. This was the party that allowed more migrants in the 1980s, and courted Muslim voters in 2000 presidential election by tapping into the mostly immigrant Muslim's entrepreneurial spirit-- and it worked. I won't vote for any conservatives because I inherently disagree with them on economics and I am not religious, but 2000's GOP is the kind of conservative that I identify as conservative.
"socially progressive and fiscally conservative" is and always has been a copout phrase used by people that will never, ever, support wide spread systemic change to better people's lives, but dont want to be yelled at for it. Its the "thoughts and prayers" group.
Notice that everyone who claims to be socially progressive and fiscally conservative still always votes Republican. It's basically their way of saying "I don't personally want to kill all gay people, but would gladly vote for politicians who do if it means I might get a tax break."
Well they are called conservatives for a reason. Because they value "conserving" whatever it is.
He's referring to people who claim to be "socially progressive and economically conservative" because those two concepts are diametrically opposed
Because those who are "socially progressive and economically conservative" are operating from the classical liberal sense of personal freedom and freedom from government control on the market. Liberalism and capitalism are progressive ideas when they first came out, as these ideas were opposing the aristocratic hierarchy and government control of economy to turn profit (mercantilism). Now, with aristocracy pretty much gone, personal liberty is practically non-questionable, and free market is widely adopted, these are given and hence became "conservative" in the modern sense.
Certain Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, tend to be considered moderate Republicans and more centrist than the national party.
And the gop for a time was a lot more moderate, and was more “moderate” before 2016 and 2001
Certain Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, tend to be considered moderate Republicans and more centrist than the national party.
Certain Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, tend to be considered moderate Republicans and more centrist than the national party.
Whatever your views on him as an actor or his political affiliation, you should watch the original speech in its entirety, rather than keep this soundbite in and of itself and hijack its meaning. It's also worth noting this was recorded in early 2023, so a lot of things have changed since then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsETTn7DehI
I think it's a powerful message and well delivered. Something the hardline MAGA crowd definitely needed to heed. And all around the world, as more of these populist movements rise or have risen.
Schwarzenegger may have had a very specific niche he fit within as an actor, but when he worked within that niche he was excellent. If you look at Conan the Barbarian, it should not have worked as a movie, and yet it absolutely does, and no small part of that is his acting. Dude can smolder stoically. Terminator, T2, Running Man, Total Recall, Predator, they're all excellent uses of his very specific type.
Then jump ahead to True Lies and Last Action Hero, where he's arguably at his height of fame, and he makes basically a couple of parodies of his acting persona, during a time when action heroes were largely taken much more seriously than they are today, and he nails both of those roles, too.
Sure, he's got a bad habit of trying to make movies he maybe shouldn't have, and yeah, he's always a huge muscly Austrian with a thick accent, but I think he might be the best Western action star who's ever lived.
As a person or a politician... ehh... could be a lot worse.
Hes a really great example of what you can achieve when you put literally all your time and energy into one thing. Gotta give him credit.
Certain Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, tend to be considered moderate Republicans and more centrist than the national party.
Yeah, well, the people who need to hear it wont because of algos.
That's what no leaders seem to get. Twitter or YouTube is shouting into the void.
Not that I have a good solution for someone like him.
The term "semite" has two definitions, one traditional and one modern. Palestinians are semitic according to both of them.
No but don't you understand? Criticizing the Israeli government for slaughtering Palestinians is anti-Semitic for... reasons.
Those semitics should stop their semantic bukakke of oppression.
Words change their meaning over time, in context, and with other words. When people say antisemitic nowadays, we know what they mean. No need to go all ackshyually
Yes, if they convince you good enough, then black would mean white, war would mean peace.
I mean that's how language works, if everybody started calling White, Black; Black would would have a new definition, see literally. That said fuck Israel, Jews are cool unless they support what Israel is doing. All religion is bad and used to justify terrible things but not all religious people are bad.
What is wrong with you? What are you, some kind of new-age hippy? Why are you using these new-fangled words like white, war, and peace? What ever happened to albus, bellum, and pax?
Actually I don't know at all what someone means when they say that anymore because for the last two years when the media or a public figure mentions antisemitism it is nearly always criticizing Zionism and Israel for their genocide.
But the word has ties to Nazi germany, it's more rhetoric than word.
MAGA/GOP? Losers. Zionists? Losers.
And yet they cause incomprehensible suffering. We must stop them now.
I wouldn't say either of those groups are losers right now as they control the most powerful government on earth right now.
The issue is, if you care at all about how the Palestinian people are treated, you’re labeled an antisemite. That word is being used to shut down ANY discourse.
While real antisemitism is also on the rise
It sounds like victim blaming, but a lot of the rise of antisemitism is being fueled by the actions of the Israeli state itself. Over the course of the last few years the state has burned through 80 years of good will and hard work put in by groups devoted to fighting real antisemitism.
A lot of the behaviour like flexing control over the media, and political systems that antisemitic groups have been falsely accusing them of have been made true through the acts of the Israeli far right government. Furthering the idea that these antisemitic groups have been correct the whole time. The worse thing is that the state is intentionally conflating the idea that the actions of Israel represent the intent of all Jewish people, labeling any criticism against the state antisemitic behavior. This only serves to validate the behaviour of real antisemitic actors, giving them cover to disguise their racism under a veil of righteous criticism.
Israel spent significant resources propagandizing that they speak for every jewish people on earth. As a part ashkenazi, I was called blood traitor many times for suggesting that maybe genocide shouldn't be happening actually. And I can't even betray any blood, I wasn't even rised jewish and I don't look the part.
Yep, after Palestinians this propaganda campaign is most dangerous for ethnic Jews. It always amazes me that people who survived the consequences of people attempting to create an ethnostate are so quick to want to create one themselves.
Apparently so is genocide.
At least now we're talking about it negatively, instead of quietly ignoring it for decades.
I can label someone a sociopath for wearing red shoes, doesn't make them one.
Agreed. But that doesn’t change the fact that it shuts down discourse.
Why is that an issue? Who cares what people think of you?
Because it’s being used to shut down discourse.
It’s not the label.
This is personal for him. IIRC his dad was a Nazi and during his childhood he remembered him being a sad angry man, never getting over the loss.
He forgot to say MAGA are losers didn't he?
Iirc, I think I remember this speech of his. It was about magas and telling them to go the fuck home, shut the fuck up, and grow up. Basically trying to Daddy them and tell them to stop acting like the losers they are.
IIRC this is from quite a while ago, I’m not sure but it might even be from before 2016.
It was specifically about that movement getting big. Like, around the years following the period where some guy in a car ran through an anti-far right protest and killed a woman, and where a neo-nazi protest marched through a town with tiki torches. This was about them.
MAGA is losing, they haven't lost yet like the Nazis have.
The Nazis didn't lose, they are still here and going strong. They are called maga now, or just republicans
Then why are you a Republican?
Because he immigrated to the US after hearing a speech from Reagan and promptly went from having almost nothing to starting his own business and becoming a multi-millionaire before he got into acting. He's what the Republican party used to advertise itself as. He is to the Republican Party what Worf is to the Klingon Empire.
Ahh finally an analogy my Lemmy brain can understand.
Ok but why is he republican today?
Because he's old and he's always been a Republican.
Because the dem primary in CA would have been too crowded. Same reason Bloomberg ran as a republican his first NYC mayoral election. As a republican he could get to the general election uncontested. They're both independent types, it was just easier to win as a republican than an actual no party Independent. And if they had run as Democrats they would have been blue dog clinton conservative democrats. (IIRC Bloomberg did run as an independent when he could run as an incumbent.)
Now he just hates brown people. It's the circle of life.
Unfortunately he’s confusing antisemites with antizionists
Palestinians are semites too!
Quit it with the semitics
Now you are being anti-semantic
I know, hence my comment.
Given how much he reversed on after speaking with experts on other things when he was govenor, I think he could be convinced he isn't defending the right people if he talked to a 3rd party expert about it.
Despite him being a Republican he seems to be a reasonable guy. Usually.
I think he's one of those Rinos republicans are yapping about.
Yeah.... Morally he wasn't as repugnant as your average Republican, especially compared to today's standards. However, there isn't really a way to be a Republican and still be a truly empathetic person. His tenure as governor was all about cutting taxes and services for his constituents.
He massively cut funding for schools, healthcare, and social services which, all while racking up a huge amount of debt for the state. Imo you can't systemically make the lives of hundreds of thousands poor families even harder and still be considered a good person. Being "fiscally conservative" is just short hand for wanting to starve children and deprive them of healthcare and equitable futures, just to make rich people richer.
Yeah, my bar got so low, I genuinely considered that not openly supporting fucking kids already made him not a republican. I'm kind of forgetting that it's a new development for those folks.
Time flies, crazy to think his governorship started +20 years ago.
Is he? That phrase isn't in the quote, variety added it.
(It's still possible, but idk the rest of the context)
Well alright could you please also forward that note to the genocidal child killers that are ranzig Gaza and Lebanon?
I really don't want more antisemitism but that's not something I can control as Israel itself is currently the biggest driver of antisemitism in the world
Also they're apartheid by definition.
So Israel is a loser then.
No, he means weak like the weak diaspora 'jews'.
Just swinging through to say fuck Schwarzenegger.
Anti-semitism is a bankrupt term. Its being weaponized by nazi-Israel against anyone who criticize Israel. We should rather use a plain term like judeophobia so that we are clear in our speech.
he also endorsed orban before election. he can fuck himself.
I dont know how true this is but i also heard his dad was a nazi(not all that uncommon in austria...) and he basically based his worldview on being a better person than him and helping people who nazis hurt. He also got a lot of shit and got called gay for bodybuilding by his dad and basically single handedly redeemed the sport so id say he was successful.
Israel is an apartheid state though…
I remember the comments in that video. Dog whistle after dog whistle
Something all of us have to keep in mind, especially based on many of the comments here generalizing about MAGA, Jews (and the guilt by association angle), immigrants more broadly (for the rare conservative about these parts), etc..
I see a lot of rationalization and emotionally strong trigger words being used to justify acting the way Arnold is being celebrated for saying people should not act.
Lmao does that mean he's against the apartheid in Israel or playing into their propaganda? Cause It could really be either lol
you can fight an enemy without hating them
As if they'll listen to him.
Arnold must lick Zio Hollywood boots in order to stay in his place. Arnold cannot talk about the real fucking losers who cry antisemitism in the same time they literally kill kids and shoot them in the testicles twice, and rape hostages and burn civilians alive, kill medics and jourmalists, academics, peace negotiotors, and flatten and steal homes, bomb hospitals and schools and places of worship, occupy neighboring countries, enable corrupt dictatorships, impose aparthied, genocide, torture prison camps, besieged and starved ethnic population.... fuck the list is too long
The omission of zionists makes me think he's conflating terms here.
I hate the Israeli government and a specific Jewish man named Aaron Edelman. Fuck you, Aaron, you know what you did.
The rest of the Jewish community is cool though.
Weren't the allied powers a movement joined together in their hatred of Nazis?
Nah Nazism was totally fine and even applauded until they started expanding and were going to pose a competition problem for established capitalists. The allies won because they had the common interest of crushing a competitor that would cost them profit and power. The axis lost because the 3 of them were empire building and didn't have common interest beyond "don't fight over the same stuff. Maybe help each other?"
I think this is probably the best response. The allies wanted to protect the status quo including their own colonial empires. There was talk of "self determination", but that did not apply to their own colonies.
Here is a list of British Colonies, Protectorates and Dominions in WWII
When Japan attacked the US, they were actually attacking their colonies of Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, Midway Island and Wake Island.
No, joined together because of them all being threatened by Nazis.
Don't forget, the Soviet Union was totally fine with the Nazis marauding in Eastern Europe until they started invading their territory. Only after that, they decided the Nazis had to go.
That's very reductionist. I'm no tankie but you have to admit the soviet leadership were no bad strategists. They were well aware that there would be war and they needed every bit of time to build up their heavy industry to be prepared. Without the masses of tanks they had by 1941, the soviet union wouldn't have stood a chance.
And acting as if the Western Allies were any better is quite laughable. They were acting out of pure self-preservation as well, not for some great ideals or honor or something.
No?
Britain and France declared war in Germany on Sept 3, 1939.
This was triggered by Germany invading Poland. The USSR and Germany signed a pact and Britain signed a pact with Poland in response. When Germany invaded Poland, Britain had to respond.
Before this, Britan, France and Italy signed a treaty with Germany which basically let them have Sudetenland??. This is an example of appeasement. There was no appetite for war after WWI. People were kind of hoping Hitler would just chill tf out of they gave him some stuff, including permission to re-militarize. LMAO.
Italy wanted to take advantage of the war to gain territory, so they linked up with Hitler. They were also colonizers in Africa (along with Britian, Germany, France) so fighting happened there too. Italy's war in the Balkans got Britain to respond (gotta protect the oil!) which then got Germany involved.
Other aggressions that were largely ignored but the allies:
Germany invaded the USSR in June 1941. And that point the USSR joined the Allies with the Anglo-Soviet agreement.
For some reason the US was taking part in the Atlantic Charter (August 1941) months before they entered the war?? The US and China didn't enter the war until December 1941, but this was because they were attacked by Japan. The US declared war on Germany and Italy a few days after they declared war on Japan, the did so after Germany and a Italy declared war on them.
I'm not an expert or even really an enthusiast, so this is pretty simplified. If I want to take it a step further I would say the war was about protecting empires (including colonies), more than opposition to Nazis.
There's a picture of a young Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth) being taught by her uncle, the then King, how to make a NAZI salute.
At least the British upper classes actually liked NAZIsm, they only started having a problem with NAZIs when Hitler invaded Poland.
More broadly, the white supremacist ideas have always been appealing in Britain - even Churchill himself committed a Genocide in India years before he became PM and the Battle Of Britain. Certainly a continued love for such ideas would explain Britain's posture even since: unwaveringly supporting Pinochet in Chile, the Apartheid Regime in South Africa and right now the Zionist Genocide in Palestine.
At least for Britain their relation with NAZIs wasn't hate, it was mainly geopolitics and actual fear when Hitler blitzed through France and ended up on the other side of the Channel from Britain.
Don't get me started on the US: from the NAZI movements in the US to how long they kept selling to both sides (famously IBM supplied the computer systems used to manage the Holocaust), only turning against the Axis and entering the War after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
And then there's of course how Stalin actually had a pact with the NAZIs until Hitler broke it and invaded the USSR.
Yeah, when you consider a nationals an entity sure, but pretty sure the hundreds of thousands in the trenches and their families back home had a pretty solid hatred for nazis
Same as today, now isn't it?
Most of the population leans one way but those in power de facto lean the other way.
Wasn't he republican governor?
Edit: Also doesn't that mean that movement based on hate towards capitalism is bunch of losers too?
A repub gov in CA. That probably makes him more left than Manchin in WV or some other dem elected in a red state. He was more open about hearing from everyone and working to get things accomplished.
For your second question. Probably, idk. He is a capitalist.
One thing I will say he doesn't get enough flack for is being a part of the body dysmoprhia machine. Soo many young men are taking steroids now and have body image issues. What used to be great physiques are now seen as scrawny partly due to these guys blasting gear and making it seem glamorous.
On the positive side, decades of underground gym bro steroid compounding resulted in the infrastructure and community practices that the trans homebrew community now uses to get HRT to trans people shut out by the medical system. The majority of trans people have used or use DIY HRT at some point in their lives, and that infrastructure comes right out of the gym bro steroid culture.
Yeah I always joke that anyone on steroids is technically undergoing gender affirming therapy lol. They hate that but it's true so..
Wow brave. \s
decrepit clueless sexual abuser tells pedophile cult not to be antisemitic while not understanding its not the same as STOP HOLOCAUSTING
he is a deep, deeply stupid human