Got a report on this post about the top left photo calling it a "nazi style jew caricature". It appears the photo is real/legit. As in, it's not an AI-generated image, it's a photo, and it's not edited to speak of, and it documents a real incident that really happened. Not that that specifically determines whether it's antisemitic or not. Jews are human, and bigotry against humans is unacceptable. The question here in my mind is "is this image a dehumanizing representation of a Jewish person or does does image tell a story of a soldier heavily-armed settler committing atrocities?" And after the research I've done, I feel it leans pretty heavily toward the latter and I don't think action is warranted in this case.
I would question any reports by someone who would report that image. It's real, and it was the topic of much discourse when it came out recently. I'd go so far as that this meme humanizes the soldier by not including the victim in the photo.
The classic problem of racist stereotypes and caricatures do actually exist in real life. While they are taken to an extreme to dehumanize they are almost always based on either a real fact about a culture or a major figure in that culture.
The stripping of context and exaggeration is the problem. Which in turn means when you come across someone who genuinely is the exact definition of the stereotype if you lack the correct context it looks racist.
But with the context it's just a reminder that yes, humans are infact that diverse and your preconceived notions and assumptions are wrong and you need to step back and remember.
Never assume, always search for the context and never default to the worse or best possible explanation.
Hell a great one I enjoy is if you explained who snoop Dogg is with out the context of who he actually is. You would think I'm describing a racist stereotype of a made up characterature.
Gotta love the familiar backhanded tactic lying directly to mods and admins (hoping they'll be ignorant dumbasses) about something being anti-semetic; while never bringing the accusation to the thread because they know that it would be ripped to shreds in a second.
So when something happens to these lovely people, the Israelis get to call them innocent civilians. He carries a weapon, wears a uniform, has a side; he's a combatant, perfectly legitimate target.
I prefer to keep the traditional enlisted with orders distinction to not blur the lines. For similar reasons that smuggling cocaine in a boat does not make you a valid military target.
„AI slop commissioner” wait wait wait what? People really commission AI images from others? Isn’t the whole point of AI image gen that everyone can do it themselves?
There do exist the thirsty who will pay for anything to get their dopamine high, rather than even trying to use LLMs, believing it's beyond their skill level.
I imagine it's like photography, where the main skill is in positioning and such. Or like any art, where having the right eyes and good taste is what makes good art great. A real artist could make prettier slop than a layman could.
That one there. Those promptbros and their fanbases not stopping to constantly produce the latest shiny cheesecake with the maximum possible dimensions.
We could say the same about MAGAts and Christian Nationalists. All MAGAts are Christian Nationalists. I'm not saying the post should be different nor do I have an immediate idea for an alternative panel though.
No they're not. Plenty of MAGAts are just monarchists, or think that Trump will fix the USA, without having a specifically Christian ideal. Also a handful of them are Jewish, e.g. Ben Shapiro.
The biggest difference is qanon actually believed that politicians running a pedophile ring was a bad thing. They were just misinformed as to who was running it.
They're the part of maga that bailed when the first Trump/Epstein files dropped.
This isn't specifically about qanon and/or MAGA, but there was definitely a subset of conspiracy theorists who saw Epstein revelations and asked what it was a distraction from. It's pretty crazy to me that they got their holy grail and then decided to doubt it. (Again, not a universal thing.)
Id add a 5th for vocal fans of any major franchise, particularly Star Wars, but that's neithere here nor there.
My reasoning mostly from a laughably idiotic lie about some idiot supposedly being laughed at by Kathleen Kennedy when she was at a convention, and the fans lapped up that crybaby nonsense.
All i can say "magats" is a nice wordplay. Like combination of maga & rats, but at the same time it reads like "maggots". And maggots can be interpreted as removeds kremlin puppet parasite worms poisoning soil (land and it's inhabitants). Whoever came up with "magats" pun is clever enough 😁
P. S. Yes, it was that f-gg-word, which displays as "removed's" 🌚
Today, Zionism is often seen in a negative light, and “Zionist” is regularly used as an insult. A common misconception is that Zionism is the same as colonizing Palestinian territories. That is not correct: at its core, Zionism means the aspiration for a Jewish state. At the same time, there are indeed settlers in Israel who seize Palestinian land, and the war in Gaza is often viewed in this context. It is important to distinguish between these settlers and the broader meaning of Zionism.
Then don't be that guy. You're quoting a Zionist source that is desperately trying to redefine Zionism in real time. Zionism is colonizing Palestinian land and building that joke of a country on top of it. Zionism is a colonization project.
(And no, all Jews are not Zionists, but the Zionists are very happy to try and conflate the two as much as possible.)
Are you kidding me? The Anne Frank House is a fucking museum in memory of Anne Frank. Your allegations are not only absolutely baseless, but an insult to Anne Franks legacy.
How is this Anne Frank's legacy? Did she advocate for this during her lifetime? She was killed by people seeking to establish an ethno-state, so how does "her legacy" involve defending the desire for an ethno-state?
Even if she had been an advocate of a Jewish state, would her fate automatically sanitise those views? Does the violence done to her justify the violence done to others? Do we need to agree with the convictions of everyone who fell victim to atrocities?
Or is this someone parading her corpse around as shield against criticism? Should I pick a victim of genocide too, so we can both bludgeon each other with the names of dead people in some fucked up battle of Pokémartyrs?
Leave Frank out of this. She has suffered enough. This is our conflict to fight with our arguments.
that's a fun spin on the accepted historical context that zionism was started by nationalists who banded together to get the jews out of their own countries and dump them somewhere nobody cared about. rabbis of the time even rejected the idea.
They thought Herzl was too radical with his idea of a homeland, as they were then pushing towards assimilation and acceptance within their respective adopted countries in Europe until Hitler came to power.
Ok sure I'll bite. How do today's Zionists define said state? Does it include occupied Palestinian territories? Can you see how that might be an issue for the people who are being occupied?
This is like the "Civil War was fought about states' rights and not slavery" argument. Technically true I guess but states' rights to do WHAT exactly?
Don't blame the world for conflating Zionism with genocide, when a large enough portion of Israelis support genocide that people like Netanyahu and Smotrich are in positions of power and are publicly calling for genocide on an almost daily basis.
The genocidal maniacs could, you know, stop genociding and support a two state solution, then maybe the exact definition of Zionism wouldn't be a punchline for the angry goose meme.
Depends of the type of Zionism you ask. Post-Zionism wants a multi-ethnic democratic Israel, Cultural Zionism doesn't want a nation state at all and the contemporary Liberal Zionism is roughly in favor of a two state solution, so a sovereign Palestine state as well as equal rights for Arab citizen in Israel.
And yes I blame the world for conflating Zionism with the genocidal right-wing politics of the Israeli government because it's simply lazy and not true. There are many historical and contemporary types of Zionism and only Religious and Revisionist Zionism are what Israels government is currently pushing.
Yeah that is before they got their state, how bout now? If that's what it is, why are they still colonising west bank and bombing gaza? This is like arguing for the white guy with a swastika, because they're 100% not use it as a buddhism/hinduism symbol.
That's because different types of Zionism define Israel differently. Those right wing maniacs like Netanyahu and Smotrich are Religious and Revisionist Zionists and want the racist ideal of a Greater Israel while other Zionists define the goal of a Jewish state as accomplished when Israel was first founded. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_Zionism
Considering those are the type of zionism that lead the state today, and many people within it believing it, its safe to say none of the other type really exists these day, and even if it were still here, it's very very few and far between to make any distinction.
Probably because coexistence has failed and the radical left that founded Israel has died and is replaced by radicals due to external pressures. "Allah is great. Death to America. Death to Israel. Cursed be the Jews. Victory Islam" does not bode well for coexistence.
Didn't start off that way. It was constructed due to persistent attacks on Israeli citizens. It's a shit idea since it does not provide a pathway forward into a unified Israel/Palestine. But it didn't manifest out of evil.
Israel's Gaza policy is shit because it is a bunch of halve assed attempts to reduce violence while creating further systemic reasons for violence. They dug themselves in a hole. And there is no way out. Parts of the world want to see their state burn and parts of their populus suffer. That must not happen from their view. I have no idea on what to do for all pathways suggest genocide may occur. In particular after the horrific actions against the Palestinian people.
If I were Israel (as in, the whole govt of the country) and I wanted to act in good faith to resolve the Gaza situation, here's what I would do:
Find Palestinians to manage an interim govt (that is friendly to Israel), and recognise+empower them.
Seize parts of Gaza (this part is already done) and transfer control to said govt. Lift the seige on the parts of Gaza that are controlled by the friendly govt (a necessary precursor to repairing their economy and recognising their sovereignty without being in a permanent state of war with them).
With support from the friendly govt, push out the rest of Hamas territory
Spend a bunch of money rebuilding Palestine's economy and rebuilding relations with them.
Keep doing that a while and then negotiate in good faith, since you've clearly demonstrated good faith.
Modern day Israel's majorities indicate a support for right wing politics with the extreme right being in government and saying the quiet part out loud. Such as that 30some Palestinians must die every day for some forsaken, genocidal reason.
Equating "the desire for a jewish colonial ethnostate in the middle east as part of and supported by a Christian nationalist attempt to fulfill misinterpreted prophecy about the end times" to "a people culturally connected to and practicing a 5000 year old Semitic religion" is antisemitism because it equates the brutalities of colonialism and genocide with Judaism as a whole and puts innocent Jewish people in harms way who have no desire to create a jewish colonial ethnostate.
They need to accept something every other group of people realized long ago: when assholes steal your word, you need a new word, otherwise you'll be associated with assholes.
Ok? But you also think the swastika argument is ridiculous? You can't have it both ways. Don't give those Nazis so much leverage, rock that swastika loud and proud!
You'd have a point if all the other examples you gesture to were also colonizing within the borders of other nations, the Kurds were explicitly screwed over by Sykes-Picot to purposefully set up the middle east for maximum civil unrest following the fall of the ottoman empire, likewise with Palestine, and Tibet is being invaded by Chinese colonists.
All other examples you've listed don't have a bunch of pasty white New Yorker saying "my ancestors lived here 3000 years ago" and kicking people out of their homes half a globe away.
There's already people everywhere, they can't just designate some patch of land and say "Jews only!" without either physically removing or exterminating the people already living there.
Jewish people have lived in the levante for literal centuries and were displaced as well. In recent history the part of land which is now Israel was under British mandate for the longest time. I don't want to say that Palestinians have no right to claim that land but Jewish people have at least an equivalent right to claim the same land. That's basically the whole conflict. Therefore we need a two state solution or a one state solution in the sense that Palestinians and Jewish people can peacefully live together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel
The Muslims and Christians that live in Palestine are mostly descended from the Jews that lived in the Levant, it's not like literally everyone was expelled. There's a reason Israel doesn't require a DNA test to determine if someone is actually descended from people from the Levant, there's a reason Israel has some of the highest skin cancer rates in the world (on par with other white settler colonies like Australia), and there's a reason they pretended Palestine was "a land without a people for a people without a land."
They're white colonizers stealing land. They don't have any right to take it, they can either become Palestinian or go back to Europe.
There were people there, and they have a right to the land. Europeans can move there and join a single multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious democracy where Jews live with everyone else. They don't need to steal land from people already living there, they don't get to make a nation where Jews have special rights and everyone else is second class, they don't get to have apartheid.
Colonialism is the practice of extending and maintaining political, social, economic, and cultural domination over a territory and its people by another people in pursuit of interests defined in an often distant metropole, who also claim superiority.
Well, guess what. The definition has changed and Zionist now means "people who like Israel killing children". That original definition is the old, inaccurate one now.
Because words are defined by how they're used, and when self identifying Zionists are using the new definition, and everyone else is using the new definition, your "technically that's incorrect" statement means nothing.
The meme is using the word Zionist to mean "people who like Israel killing children" and you, me, and everyone else knows it.
Sorry but that's not how language works. Definitions change. You might be technically correct, but I'm this context, we know what Zionism means, and it's not what your said it is.
Had that exact discussion a while ago. Maybe you can take something away from the comments. It absolutely made me think about how the current state (as in modus) of Israel is literally not what I support. Even though I do support the existence of a state that actively hinges itself on being a safe space for the jewish ethnicity/culture/religion.
Then stop supporting them by splitting hairs I guess? The guy you are responding to is a supporter of the current Israel government. Like just don't call yourself that.
Thanks for the rational reply. And I definitely don't support the second definition and never said so. I just don't like the baseless generalization of the term "Zionism" because it has more than one meaning.
Listen, you're like Richard Stallman railing against the word "hacker" being used to describe security crackers instead of meaning just "tinkerer", because that's what it originally meant.
You're like him in that outside of a tiny subculture you'll be completely ignored, and you're better off coining a new word and promoting use of that instead of waging war against the semantic tide.
"I'm not a Zionist, I'm a leptozionist" or something, then define your new term. That way people can speak concisely without having to guess what the other people thinks the definition of their word is. Your new term means either your new meaning or "what's that?".
And keep in mind that every minute fighting for your word back is a minute not promoting its merits. It's makework. It's not actually productive.
100 replies
Got a report on this post about the top left photo calling it a "nazi style jew caricature". It appears the photo is real/legit. As in, it's not an AI-generated image, it's a photo, and it's not edited to speak of, and it documents a real incident that really happened. Not that that specifically determines whether it's antisemitic or not. Jews are human, and bigotry against humans is unacceptable. The question here in my mind is "is this image a dehumanizing representation of a Jewish person or does does image tell a story of a
soldierheavily-armed settler committing atrocities?" And after the research I've done, I feel it leans pretty heavily toward the latter and I don't think action is warranted in this case.I would question any reports by someone who would report that image. It's real, and it was the topic of much discourse when it came out recently. I'd go so far as that this meme humanizes the soldier by not including the victim in the photo.
If you read the article you linked: this isn't a soldier.
The real soldiers were there and supporting that guy though.
The classic problem of racist stereotypes and caricatures do actually exist in real life. While they are taken to an extreme to dehumanize they are almost always based on either a real fact about a culture or a major figure in that culture.
The stripping of context and exaggeration is the problem. Which in turn means when you come across someone who genuinely is the exact definition of the stereotype if you lack the correct context it looks racist.
But with the context it's just a reminder that yes, humans are infact that diverse and your preconceived notions and assumptions are wrong and you need to step back and remember.
Never assume, always search for the context and never default to the worse or best possible explanation.
Hell a great one I enjoy is if you explained who snoop Dogg is with out the context of who he actually is. You would think I'm describing a racist stereotype of a made up characterature.
Instead of the complex human he actually is.
Gotta love the familiar backhanded tactic lying directly to mods and admins (hoping they'll be ignorant dumbasses) about something being anti-semetic; while never bringing the accusation to the thread because they know that it would be ripped to shreds in a second.
Not a soldier of the Israeli military, but a misguided frontiersman yokel, y’all queda douchebag on a mission “blessed by God”.
So when something happens to these lovely people, the Israelis get to call them innocent civilians. He carries a weapon, wears a uniform, has a side; he's a combatant, perfectly legitimate target.
I prefer to keep the traditional enlisted with orders distinction to not blur the lines. For similar reasons that smuggling cocaine in a boat does not make you a valid military target.
aka "Persecution complex"
I was gonna say, if this was a Venn Diagram, it'd be a circle.
„AI slop commissioner” wait wait wait what? People really commission AI images from others? Isn’t the whole point of AI image gen that everyone can do it themselves?
I think it's synonymous with "ai slop generators". You can't really call them artists, and they are paying to have art made for them.
There do exist the thirsty who will pay for anything to get their dopamine high, rather than even trying to use LLMs, believing it's beyond their skill level.
Or their budget, have you seen the cost of hardware nowadays?! Fuck man!
Even if you wanted to learn to make slop that shit has priced out most wanna be sloppsters.
I imagine it's like photography, where the main skill is in positioning and such. Or like any art, where having the right eyes and good taste is what makes good art great. A real artist could make prettier slop than a layman could.
Cuck porn
leave us cucks out of this, we’d rather watch
"I wanna watch" and "I want a watch" sound similar but the divorce rates are probably higher for one of them.
Honestly I would assume willful cucks have very happy marriages.
You don't get to that point with out having a really strong and healthily kinky relationship.
It's the unwillful cucks that have problems.
WOAH that's a really weird political compass meme
That one there. Those promptbros and their fanbases not stopping to constantly produce the latest shiny cheesecake with the maximum possible dimensions.
Can I abopt the zionist and use him as a horse?
You can try, but he might just try to murder you and your family and claim your house was promised to him 3000 years ago
I am quite confident that my potato chips filled Homo Sapiens ass is superior to that donkey looking, land stealing desert Neanderthal.
Top right was Qanon.
A distinction without a difference
We could say the same about MAGAts and Christian Nationalists. All MAGAts are Christian Nationalists. I'm not saying the post should be different nor do I have an immediate idea for an alternative panel though.
No they're not. Plenty of MAGAts are just monarchists, or think that Trump will fix the USA, without having a specifically Christian ideal. Also a handful of them are Jewish, e.g. Ben Shapiro.
I don't think being Jewish means you can't be a Christian Nationalist.
The face-eating leopard reports of tasting other religions
The biggest difference is qanon actually believed that politicians running a pedophile ring was a bad thing. They were just misinformed as to who was running it.
They're the part of maga that bailed when the first Trump/Epstein files dropped.
This isn't specifically about qanon and/or MAGA, but there was definitely a subset of conspiracy theorists who saw Epstein revelations and asked what it was a distraction from. It's pretty crazy to me that they got their holy grail and then decided to doubt it. (Again, not a universal thing.)
Actually yeah, you're not wrong. The guy in the photo has since come out in opposition to Trump and Israel, so that's quite something
The ironic thing is that the Q they were all listening to originally was likely Epstein himself bragging on 4chan.
Id add a 5th for vocal fans of any major franchise, particularly Star Wars, but that's neithere here nor there.
My reasoning mostly from a laughably idiotic lie about some idiot supposedly being laughed at by Kathleen Kennedy when she was at a convention, and the fans lapped up that crybaby nonsense.
Behold the masterrace
The four things youre allowed to think about on lemmy
AI slop commissioner is so cute, how do I become one?
Give me $500 and I'll commission an artist then send the resulting art through a
fax machineAI generator.The 4 Horseman are called Stupidity, Ignorance, Fanatism and Greed
Top left is the missing link. Didn't realize it'd be a hateful fuck though.
Ah yes some kids making harmless pictures is the same as political oppresors. You guys are so fucking cringe.
All i can say "magats" is a nice wordplay. Like combination of maga & rats, but at the same time it reads like "maggots". And maggots can be interpreted as
removedskremlin puppet parasite worms poisoning soil (land and it's inhabitants). Whoever came up with "magats" pun is clever enough 😁 P. S. Yes, it was that f-gg-word, which displays as "removed's" 🌚Hate to be that guy:
https://www.annefrank.org/en/topics/antisemitism/are-all-jews-zionists/
Then don't be that guy. You're quoting a Zionist source that is desperately trying to redefine Zionism in real time. Zionism is colonizing Palestinian land and building that joke of a country on top of it. Zionism is a colonization project.
(And no, all Jews are not Zionists, but the Zionists are very happy to try and conflate the two as much as possible.)
Easy, just call the Anne Frank house "Zionist" and devalue whatever the say.
Anne Frank is no longer alive and anyone using her name to give themselves unearned political legitimacy is a monster.
Are you kidding me? The Anne Frank House is a fucking museum in memory of Anne Frank. Your allegations are not only absolutely baseless, but an insult to Anne Franks legacy.
How is this Anne Frank's legacy? Did she advocate for this during her lifetime? She was killed by people seeking to establish an ethno-state, so how does "her legacy" involve defending the desire for an ethno-state? Even if she had been an advocate of a Jewish state, would her fate automatically sanitise those views? Does the violence done to her justify the violence done to others? Do we need to agree with the convictions of everyone who fell victim to atrocities?
Or is this someone parading her corpse around as shield against criticism? Should I pick a victim of genocide too, so we can both bludgeon each other with the names of dead people in some fucked up battle of Pokémartyrs?
Leave Frank out of this. She has suffered enough. This is our conflict to fight with our arguments.
Museums aren’t typically in the business of current politics, but this one is.
Huh? Have you read the news in the last couple years?
Saying that museums aren't in the business of current politics is somewhat naive.
At a minimum, current politics is crashing into the museum's business every other week. Most obvious recent example is Trump vs the Smithsonian.
But it's by no means the only recent case of politicians trying their hand at historical revisionism, or making partisan issues out of science.
Of course museums are! Culture of Remembrance is a highly political field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Remembrance
Stop blaming a museum in memory of a Jewish victim of the Holocaust.
that's a fun spin on the accepted historical context that zionism was started by nationalists who banded together to get the jews out of their own countries and dump them somewhere nobody cared about. rabbis of the time even rejected the idea.
They thought Herzl was too radical with his idea of a homeland, as they were then pushing towards assimilation and acceptance within their respective adopted countries in Europe until Hitler came to power.
"You know, a swastika can also be a symbol of peace in India" says the guy with the shaved head that is constantly defending Hitler.
Half your comments are mossad talking points. You are literally the bad kind of Zionist.
That's such a dumb comparison. And what the heck are 'Mossad talking points' supposed to be? That's simply absurd.
Ok sure I'll bite. How do today's Zionists define said state? Does it include occupied Palestinian territories? Can you see how that might be an issue for the people who are being occupied?
This is like the "Civil War was fought about states' rights and not slavery" argument. Technically true I guess but states' rights to do WHAT exactly?
Don't blame the world for conflating Zionism with genocide, when a large enough portion of Israelis support genocide that people like Netanyahu and Smotrich are in positions of power and are publicly calling for genocide on an almost daily basis.
The genocidal maniacs could, you know, stop genociding and support a two state solution, then maybe the exact definition of Zionism wouldn't be a punchline for the angry goose meme.
Depends of the type of Zionism you ask. Post-Zionism wants a multi-ethnic democratic Israel, Cultural Zionism doesn't want a nation state at all and the contemporary Liberal Zionism is roughly in favor of a two state solution, so a sovereign Palestine state as well as equal rights for Arab citizen in Israel.
And yes I blame the world for conflating Zionism with the genocidal right-wing politics of the Israeli government because it's simply lazy and not true. There are many historical and contemporary types of Zionism and only Religious and Revisionist Zionism are what Israels government is currently pushing.
Yeah that is before they got their state, how bout now? If that's what it is, why are they still colonising west bank and bombing gaza? This is like arguing for the white guy with a swastika, because they're 100% not use it as a buddhism/hinduism symbol.
That's because different types of Zionism define Israel differently. Those right wing maniacs like Netanyahu and Smotrich are Religious and Revisionist Zionists and want the racist ideal of a Greater Israel while other Zionists define the goal of a Jewish state as accomplished when Israel was first founded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_Zionism
Considering those are the type of zionism that lead the state today, and many people within it believing it, its safe to say none of the other type really exists these day, and even if it were still here, it's very very few and far between to make any distinction.
Probably because coexistence has failed and the radical left that founded Israel has died and is replaced by radicals due to external pressures. "Allah is great. Death to America. Death to Israel. Cursed be the Jews. Victory Islam" does not bode well for coexistence.
Coexistence is never possible considering they basically hold Palestine in an open air prison for decades.
Didn't start off that way. It was constructed due to persistent attacks on Israeli citizens. It's a shit idea since it does not provide a pathway forward into a unified Israel/Palestine. But it didn't manifest out of evil.
Israel's Gaza policy is shit because it is a bunch of halve assed attempts to reduce violence while creating further systemic reasons for violence. They dug themselves in a hole. And there is no way out. Parts of the world want to see their state burn and parts of their populus suffer. That must not happen from their view. I have no idea on what to do for all pathways suggest genocide may occur. In particular after the horrific actions against the Palestinian people.
"they hate us so much, we have to genocide them!"
If I were Israel (as in, the whole govt of the country) and I wanted to act in good faith to resolve the Gaza situation, here's what I would do:
This is annexing Palestine. And installing a government by force. Hamas has sufficient support as to where that would not work in all likelihood.
I think that's likely to be the best bet as well. Decisive action, even if against the international law, is probably better than the status quo.
Noted radical leftist Ben-Gurion
A leninist is usually rather left wing.
holy shit, you actually believe this.
What part is wrong? Israel being founded in part by a bunch of secular leftist? The Jews were enemy of the Nazis for their political opinions in part.
The sarkha does exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarkha
Modern day Israel's majorities indicate a support for right wing politics with the extreme right being in government and saying the quiet part out loud. Such as that 30some Palestinians must die every day for some forsaken, genocidal reason.
There's enough people here with thoughtful rebuttals
All I have to add is fuck you, you deplorable genocide apologist
You're fucking scum
Why do you think I apologize genocide?
Equating "the desire for a jewish colonial ethnostate in the middle east as part of and supported by a Christian nationalist attempt to fulfill misinterpreted prophecy about the end times" to "a people culturally connected to and practicing a 5000 year old Semitic religion" is antisemitism because it equates the brutalities of colonialism and genocide with Judaism as a whole and puts innocent Jewish people in harms way who have no desire to create a jewish colonial ethnostate.
What's about the Jewish people that have a desire to create a Jewish state that's not colonial and/or genocidal? Because those are Zionists too.
They need to accept something every other group of people realized long ago: when assholes steal your word, you need a new word, otherwise you'll be associated with assholes.
That's giving a lot of leverage to assholes.
Ok? But you also think the swastika argument is ridiculous? You can't have it both ways. Don't give those Nazis so much leverage, rock that swastika loud and proud!
Anyone who wants to create an ethnostate is de facto bigoted.
So Palestinians too? Or Kurds? What's with Tibetans?
You’re really telling on yourself by putting all 4 of these situations in the category of ethnostate.
Well how do you define the term "Ethnostate" and what do you think the Palestinian cause is in contrast to that?
The Palestinian “cause”? Why don’t you start by sharing your idea of what that is?
You'd have a point if all the other examples you gesture to were also colonizing within the borders of other nations, the Kurds were explicitly screwed over by Sykes-Picot to purposefully set up the middle east for maximum civil unrest following the fall of the ottoman empire, likewise with Palestine, and Tibet is being invaded by Chinese colonists.
All other examples you've listed don't have a bunch of pasty white New Yorker saying "my ancestors lived here 3000 years ago" and kicking people out of their homes half a globe away.
Where? Mars?
There's already people everywhere, they can't just designate some patch of land and say "Jews only!" without either physically removing or exterminating the people already living there.
Jewish people have lived in the levante for literal centuries and were displaced as well. In recent history the part of land which is now Israel was under British mandate for the longest time. I don't want to say that Palestinians have no right to claim that land but Jewish people have at least an equivalent right to claim the same land. That's basically the whole conflict. Therefore we need a two state solution or a one state solution in the sense that Palestinians and Jewish people can peacefully live together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel
The Muslims and Christians that live in Palestine are mostly descended from the Jews that lived in the Levant, it's not like literally everyone was expelled. There's a reason Israel doesn't require a DNA test to determine if someone is actually descended from people from the Levant, there's a reason Israel has some of the highest skin cancer rates in the world (on par with other white settler colonies like Australia), and there's a reason they pretended Palestine was "a land without a people for a people without a land."
They're white colonizers stealing land. They don't have any right to take it, they can either become Palestinian or go back to Europe.
There were people there, and they have a right to the land. Europeans can move there and join a single multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious democracy where Jews live with everyone else. They don't need to steal land from people already living there, they don't get to make a nation where Jews have special rights and everyone else is second class, they don't get to have apartheid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism
Great argument. Of course Israel is practicing colonialism, but that doesn't make it the necessary definition of Zionism.
Well, guess what. The definition has changed and Zionist now means "people who like Israel killing children". That original definition is the old, inaccurate one now.
Because words are defined by how they're used, and when self identifying Zionists are using the new definition, and everyone else is using the new definition, your "technically that's incorrect" statement means nothing.
The meme is using the word Zionist to mean "people who like Israel killing children" and you, me, and everyone else knows it.
No, you can't just change the definition of a word because you're (rightfully so) angry. Especially not a word that's mostly defined by Jewish people.
Sorry but that's not how language works. Definitions change. You might be technically correct, but I'm this context, we know what Zionism means, and it's not what your said it is.
see also: moot, nonplused, literally, "beg the question", etc
also "euphemism treadmill"
Had that exact discussion a while ago. Maybe you can take something away from the comments. It absolutely made me think about how the current state (as in modus) of Israel is literally not what I support. Even though I do support the existence of a state that actively hinges itself on being a safe space for the jewish ethnicity/culture/religion.
https://feddit.org/post/35550078/14988338
Then stop supporting them by splitting hairs I guess? The guy you are responding to is a supporter of the current Israel government. Like just don't call yourself that.
How am I a supporter of the current Israel government? Please tell me because I never said that in any fucking way.
Thanks for the rational reply. And I definitely don't support the second definition and never said so. I just don't like the baseless generalization of the term "Zionism" because it has more than one meaning.
Listen, you're like Richard Stallman railing against the word "hacker" being used to describe security crackers instead of meaning just "tinkerer", because that's what it originally meant.
You're like him in that outside of a tiny subculture you'll be completely ignored, and you're better off coining a new word and promoting use of that instead of waging war against the semantic tide.
"I'm not a Zionist, I'm a leptozionist" or something, then define your new term. That way people can speak concisely without having to guess what the other people thinks the definition of their word is. Your new term means either your new meaning or "what's that?".
And keep in mind that every minute fighting for your word back is a minute not promoting its merits. It's makework. It's not actually productive.
Zionist immediatelly clocked