|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On June 20 2024 04:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 03:59 Magic Powers wrote:On June 20 2024 02:57 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2024 00:11 Magic Powers wrote:On June 19 2024 23:58 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2024 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On June 19 2024 23:38 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2024 20:42 Magic Powers wrote:
The US is also antisemitic, that is if you ignore the Americans who aren't. It’s not a great counterpoint. There are significant differences between the US and 19th century Germany. For example the US doesn’t have dozens of laws on the books regulating the conduct, religious practices, professions, names, registrations, and property of Jews. The argument isn’t that Germany was antisemitic because of the presence of antisemites, an argument that could be applied to anywhere as you say, it’s that Germany was antisemitic because it was antisemitic. 19th century Germany was pre-Holocaust, and it was also prior to plenty of other genocides and terrible wars. It was a completely different time. If you compare the US today to the 19th century, of course you won't find that many similarities. Compare 19th century Germany to 19th century US though, suddenly everything looks very different. The US was very racist and slavery was still legal. It could've gone a completely different direction, very similar to that of Germany. The fact that it didn't is an incredible privilege. Germany went the other direction and turned fascist because of a powerful group called the "Nazis", which claimed power and turned the whole country into a totalitarian shithole. After WW2, Germany went the opposite direction, just as the US did prior. Many of these events took place within just a few generations. History and politics are extremely fickle, and fortunately in Western countries in particular people were able to go in a more progressive, liberal direction instead of holding on to an oppressive past. So maybe you shouldn't put the US on a pedestal. You’re arguing against something completely different to anything I said. When did I put the US on a pedestal? You brought up the US and I said it was irrelevant. "For example the US doesn’t have dozens of laws on the books regulating the conduct, religious practices, professions, names, registrations, and property of Jews." The US in the 19th century was a horrible place for black people. That's your pedestal right there. You're completely ignoring US's oppressive, racist history and fingerwagging at Germany for having gone in a direction that lots of other fascist or totalitarian countries also did. These things didn't happen because every single person in every country loved racism and oppression so much, it was because there were oppressive groups and dictators in power that forced everyone to obey. What are you talking about? Reread the exchange and try again. I did reread it multiple times. Not sure why you're assuming otherwise? Your argument makes no sense because pre-WW2 Germany didn't put Jews in concentration camps, that only happened in WW2 after the Nazis came to power. Meanwhile the US is an example of a country that did the exact opposite with its black population, by fighting a war for their liberation. That war was fortunately won by the liberators, but it could've ended very differently. And then what? Do you think black people would be free now? It's the people in power who call the shots. You don't understand historic events because you don't look at the individual people of a country as separate from the country's rulers. You don't understand why the Nazis came to power and exterminated the Jews while the US did the opposite and liberated its slaves. You don't understand it because you conflate the leadership of a country with the people of a country. This will never result in you understanding the history of any of the countries. I said that antisemitism was prevalent in Germany before the Nazis, rather than being created by the Nazis. You brought up the US (presumably today) and claimed that it was also true of the US if you ignore where it was not true. I said that there are significant differences between the US and historical Germany that make that comparison fail. You then brought up historical United States and slavery. I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Why did you bring up the US? Why did you bring up slavery? How does any of this relate in any way to my extremely clear and simple statement that To summarize, what the fuck are you talking about?
You still don't get it. The point I made was that parts of a country can be racist, that doesn't make the whole country racist. Large parts of the US are antisemitic, but most of the country isn't. The US is not antisemitic just because lots of Americans hate Jewish people and would like to expel them.
Saying "Germany was antisemitic before the Nazis" doesn't mean that Germans were exterminating Jewish people. Jews were still able to live in Germany, just as black people were able to live in America. Widespread racism by itself doesn't equate to genocidal intent.
You're creating a completely ridiculous argument that leads from racism directly to genocidal intent, when in reality it's the leaders of the country that push for genocide and not generally racist people themselves. It's the ones in power that we have to be most afraid of.
You don't even realize how many antisemitic Americans there are because you don't have an antisemitic leadership. But that can change very, very quickly. And if or when it happens it'll not be pretty for Jewish people. Biden is right when he says that Israel is the safe haven for Jewish people and they'd be in big trouble without it. He makes a valid point.
|
Norway28675 Posts
Antisemitism was so wide-spread in Europe pre ww2 that 'Germany was antisemitic before ww2' shouldn't be a controversial statement. Norway's constitution from 1814 was pretty liberal and 'enlightened' for the time and age but we still had a paragraph stating that jews (and jesuits and some other monks) were not allowed entry into the country. Granted that was removed later in the 19th century so a good while before ww2, but it's not like the attitudes were entirely gone.
MP, you seem to be equating antisemitism with genocide. Kwark didn't do that. Antisemitism has been present to various degrees in various countries for like, a couple thousand years. Plenty examples of it manifesting as 'kick them out of the country/region' or 'don't let them come', I'm guessing there are even more examples of 'random hate crime committed' and then anti-semitic stereotypes will be even more prevalent than that again. The holocaust however only happened once, but all these are examples of antisemitism. Racism has also been prevalent in lots of countries for a long period of time and the black guy who doesn't get a job interview because of his african name suffers from it, but it's not the same as chattel slavery or colonization under the guise of civilizing the savages.
If your point is that 'a country' is only the laws/leadership of that country then I'm going to argue that this isn't really how most people will describe cultures or values in various countries - if a country has no formal laws against homosexuality but homosexuals in that country are very likely to be victim to hate crimes if they hold hands then saying 'x country isn't fond of gay people' is a perfectly normal way of communicating this.
|
United States42802 Posts
On June 20 2024 06:09 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 04:20 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2024 03:59 Magic Powers wrote:On June 20 2024 02:57 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2024 00:11 Magic Powers wrote:On June 19 2024 23:58 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2024 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On June 19 2024 23:38 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2024 20:42 Magic Powers wrote:
The US is also antisemitic, that is if you ignore the Americans who aren't. It’s not a great counterpoint. There are significant differences between the US and 19th century Germany. For example the US doesn’t have dozens of laws on the books regulating the conduct, religious practices, professions, names, registrations, and property of Jews. The argument isn’t that Germany was antisemitic because of the presence of antisemites, an argument that could be applied to anywhere as you say, it’s that Germany was antisemitic because it was antisemitic. 19th century Germany was pre-Holocaust, and it was also prior to plenty of other genocides and terrible wars. It was a completely different time. If you compare the US today to the 19th century, of course you won't find that many similarities. Compare 19th century Germany to 19th century US though, suddenly everything looks very different. The US was very racist and slavery was still legal. It could've gone a completely different direction, very similar to that of Germany. The fact that it didn't is an incredible privilege. Germany went the other direction and turned fascist because of a powerful group called the "Nazis", which claimed power and turned the whole country into a totalitarian shithole. After WW2, Germany went the opposite direction, just as the US did prior. Many of these events took place within just a few generations. History and politics are extremely fickle, and fortunately in Western countries in particular people were able to go in a more progressive, liberal direction instead of holding on to an oppressive past. So maybe you shouldn't put the US on a pedestal. You’re arguing against something completely different to anything I said. When did I put the US on a pedestal? You brought up the US and I said it was irrelevant. "For example the US doesn’t have dozens of laws on the books regulating the conduct, religious practices, professions, names, registrations, and property of Jews." The US in the 19th century was a horrible place for black people. That's your pedestal right there. You're completely ignoring US's oppressive, racist history and fingerwagging at Germany for having gone in a direction that lots of other fascist or totalitarian countries also did. These things didn't happen because every single person in every country loved racism and oppression so much, it was because there were oppressive groups and dictators in power that forced everyone to obey. What are you talking about? Reread the exchange and try again. I did reread it multiple times. Not sure why you're assuming otherwise? Your argument makes no sense because pre-WW2 Germany didn't put Jews in concentration camps, that only happened in WW2 after the Nazis came to power. Meanwhile the US is an example of a country that did the exact opposite with its black population, by fighting a war for their liberation. That war was fortunately won by the liberators, but it could've ended very differently. And then what? Do you think black people would be free now? It's the people in power who call the shots. You don't understand historic events because you don't look at the individual people of a country as separate from the country's rulers. You don't understand why the Nazis came to power and exterminated the Jews while the US did the opposite and liberated its slaves. You don't understand it because you conflate the leadership of a country with the people of a country. This will never result in you understanding the history of any of the countries. I said that antisemitism was prevalent in Germany before the Nazis, rather than being created by the Nazis. You brought up the US (presumably today) and claimed that it was also true of the US if you ignore where it was not true. I said that there are significant differences between the US and historical Germany that make that comparison fail. You then brought up historical United States and slavery. I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Why did you bring up the US? Why did you bring up slavery? How does any of this relate in any way to my extremely clear and simple statement that Germany was antisemitic long before the Nazis. To summarize, what the fuck are you talking about? You still don't get it. The point I made was that parts of a country can be racist, that doesn't make the whole country racist. Large parts of the US are antisemitic, but most of the country isn't. The US is not antisemitic just because lots of Americans hate Jewish people and would like to expel them. Saying "Germany was antisemitic before the Nazis" doesn't mean that Germans were exterminating Jewish people. Jews were still able to live in Germany, just as black people were able to live in America. Widespread racism by itself doesn't equate to genocidal intent. You're creating a completely ridiculous argument that leads from racism directly to genocidal intent, when in reality it's the leaders of the country that push for genocide and not generally racist people themselves. It's the ones in power that we have to be most afraid of. You don't even realize how many antisemitic Americans there are because you don't have an antisemitic leadership. But that can change very, very quickly. And if or when it happens it'll not be pretty for Jewish people. Biden is right when he says that Israel is the safe haven for Jewish people and they'd be in big trouble without it. He makes a valid point.
I’m sorry, is your argument now that 19th Century Germany was no worse to Jews than 19th Century America was to their slaves? And this is your idea of a defence? You’re saying this to minimize and mitigate German antisemitism? Because if I go ahead and condemn them then I’d be caught in a trap and would also have to condemn slavery?
|
On June 20 2024 06:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Antisemitism was so wide-spread in Europe pre ww2 that 'Germany was antisemitic before ww2' shouldn't be a controversial statement. Norway's constitution from 1814 was pretty liberal and 'enlightened' for the time and age but we still had a paragraph stating that jews (and jesuits and some other monks) were not allowed entry into the country. Granted that was removed later in the 19th century so a good while before ww2, but it's not like the attitudes were entirely gone.
MP, you seem to be equating antisemitism with genocide. Kwark didn't do that. Antisemitism has been present to various degrees in various countries for like, a couple thousand years. Plenty examples of it manifesting as 'kick them out of the country/region' or 'don't let them come', I'm guessing there are even more examples of 'random hate crime committed' and then anti-semitic stereotypes will be even more prevalent than that again. The holocaust however only happened once, but all these are examples of antisemitism. Racism has also been prevalent in lots of countries for a long period of time and the black guy who doesn't get a job interview because of his african name suffers from it, but it's not the same as chattel slavery or colonization under the guise of civilizing the savages.
If your point is that 'a country' is only the laws/leadership of that country then I'm going to argue that this isn't really how most people will describe cultures or values in various countries - if a country has no formal laws against homosexuality but homosexuals in that country are very likely to be victim to hate crimes if they hold hands then saying 'x country isn't fond of gay people' is a perfectly normal way of communicating this.
Kwark's response didn't come in isolation, it was a comment on the discussion that was going on between stilt, BJ and Uldridge.
stilt said this: "Supporting a racist state which commits mass murdering is racist just like supporting nazi germany is."
BJ responsed: "Oh yeah well if you support the Palestinian cause then you support Hamas and the mass murder of jews on 7/10! You must be an anti-Semite if you don't realize this!"
Basically BJ's point is that it's possible to support a people's cause without supporting everything their leaders do. A very valid point.
That above part of the discussion came after BJ said this: "See how quickly you've pivoted from "there is no Palestinian antisemitism" to "Palestinian antisemitism is the result of the conditions they live in"?"
A nuanced discussion, I think it's not exactly easy to make a clear and concise statement on that.
Uldridge chimed in addressing the "Palestinian antisemitism" remark and eventually asked a question to BJ: "Then what do you mean with "Palestinian antisemitism"? And what's the difference with "Palestinian antisemitism is the result of the conditions they live in" and how do you conclude those are contradictory?"
(Note that BJ also clarified: "Nobody said anti semitism was an inherent property of the Palestinian people. That's something you've made up." Lets keep that clarification in mind.)
BJ responded to Uld: "You can't argue that antisemitism only exists among Palestinians because of the conditions Israel has put them in and also argue that antisemitism doesn't exist among Palestinians at all. These two statements are contradictory. It can't both exist and not exist. The reason it exists is irrelevant."
Ok, so far all I can see is a valid discussion on the nuances of the original remark of "Palestinian antisemitism".
But then Uld accuses BJ of something: "Sure, but you did to Stilt as I've done to you. You've put words in his mouth. I don't think Stilt argues that there is no Palestinian antisemitism. I think he implies that alot of the current Palestianian strife is with Israelites instead of a propagandized hatred for Jews instilled by Hamas."
Uld explains that BJ was misrepresenting stilt's point. While BJ's reasoning may be valid, stilt's may be valid as well. So perhaps there was a misunderstanding, we don't know for sure as the discussion was still ongoing.
stilt's point - according to Uld - is that Palestinians legitimately oppose "Israelites", not necessarily a hatred for Jews born out of Hamas propaganda.
At that point I chime in and say: "Please remember that most Palestinians are not Hamas. It's a fairly simple nuance, not very hard to understand." This is how I follow up my explanation that Palestinians have a right to hate Israel, and beating them with the "antisemitism" card is not a valid counter to their hatred.
I believed that to be the core point of the discussion, that's why I addressed that in particular.
(Jock then added a very insightful interview of a freed hostage which I would recommend reading because it sheds light on some of the missed nuance in the relations between Palestinians and Hamas)
KwarK then responded to Uld's comment. This one:
On June 19 2024 15:52 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2024 03:16 BlackJack wrote:
See how quickly you've pivoted from "there is no Palestinian antisemitism" to "Palestinian antisemitism is the result of the conditions they live in"? These are blatantly contradictory statements. You've just admitted that you were wrong but you still want to feel good about calling people anti-arab racists for disagreeing with your wrong statements. I don't really see these as contradictory because you simply can't have inherent Palestinian antisemitism. Claiming an inherent property to an entire demography is kind of self defeating. However, just like there was no German antisemitism, the German antisemitism arose through well constructed propaganda, and this is also how Hamas is able to (next to the Israelites not being the most friendly neighbors), make antisemitism arise in Palestinians. Lay bare where it hurts and point to a common enemy. It's a contemporary framework, not baked into their genetic blueprint.
KwarK says: "Germany was antisemitic long before the Nazis."
Now, I know KwarK is well known for posting snappy one-liners which are sometimes insightful and other times merely infuriating (perhaps depending on the viewpoint of the reader). But it is very clear that he was saying this specifically in the context of the ongoing discussion following the "Palestinian antisemitism" remark.
KwarK is responding to Uld's statement that there is no inherent Palestinian antisemitism and likewise there was no inherent German antisemitism (it arose through propaganda), which also applies to Hamas. Uld argues this is where antisemitism arises among Palestinians. The common enemy is Hamas, not Palestinians.
KwarK's response is meant as a refutation, and I translate it into the following: "Germany was antisemitic long before the Nazis, therefore the rise of antisemitism in Germany that resulted in genocide was not created by the Nazis, but by the German people."
That's the way I interpreted his words, because that's the most obvious contradiction to Uld's argument. It also implies that, according to KwarK, Germany's antisemitism was inherent, because he responded to the whole comment, not only one part of it. The very first sentence of Uld's comment says that there is no inherent Palestinian antisemitism. That means KwarK believes Germany's antisemitism was inherent, not propagated by the Nazis.
This is where my response come in. I say: "The US is also antisemitic, that is if you ignore the Americans who aren't."
I explain that racism being widespread in a country doesn't make the whole country racist. The racism in Germany wasn't "inherent". It was a widespread, that's what it was. It was practically a global phenomenon. It would be one hell of an "inherent antisemitism" if it was able to manifest basically across half the globe.
In truth the antisemitism of that time was born out of a combination of different fears and anxieties. The fear of the foreign and the distrust of the wealthy (the communists had very similar ideas). People turned against the Jews because they were an easy target of their suspicions. It culminated later in the idea that Jews are destroyers of nations (Hitler's idea basically).
The fear of the foreign was never new, it always existed. Jews were an obvious target because they were foreign literally everywhere, as they had no country for themselves. Jews became an especially easy target because of jealousy. People's xenophobia mixed with hatred for wealthy people. It was still the time of slavery, bare in mind. Foreigners weren't "supposed" to be rich and successful. That was the privilege of the locals. So in many countries Jews were both feared for being foreign and despised for not living on the fringes of society.
KwarK's comment doesn't make any sense. The argument that German's were antisemitic because, well, they were Germans, is absurd. It wasn't inherent racism, there was nothing inherent about it.
|
|
|
On June 20 2024 07:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 06:09 Magic Powers wrote:On June 20 2024 04:20 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2024 03:59 Magic Powers wrote:On June 20 2024 02:57 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2024 00:11 Magic Powers wrote:On June 19 2024 23:58 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2024 23:41 Magic Powers wrote:On June 19 2024 23:38 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2024 20:42 Magic Powers wrote:
The US is also antisemitic, that is if you ignore the Americans who aren't. It’s not a great counterpoint. There are significant differences between the US and 19th century Germany. For example the US doesn’t have dozens of laws on the books regulating the conduct, religious practices, professions, names, registrations, and property of Jews. The argument isn’t that Germany was antisemitic because of the presence of antisemites, an argument that could be applied to anywhere as you say, it’s that Germany was antisemitic because it was antisemitic. 19th century Germany was pre-Holocaust, and it was also prior to plenty of other genocides and terrible wars. It was a completely different time. If you compare the US today to the 19th century, of course you won't find that many similarities. Compare 19th century Germany to 19th century US though, suddenly everything looks very different. The US was very racist and slavery was still legal. It could've gone a completely different direction, very similar to that of Germany. The fact that it didn't is an incredible privilege. Germany went the other direction and turned fascist because of a powerful group called the "Nazis", which claimed power and turned the whole country into a totalitarian shithole. After WW2, Germany went the opposite direction, just as the US did prior. Many of these events took place within just a few generations. History and politics are extremely fickle, and fortunately in Western countries in particular people were able to go in a more progressive, liberal direction instead of holding on to an oppressive past. So maybe you shouldn't put the US on a pedestal. You’re arguing against something completely different to anything I said. When did I put the US on a pedestal? You brought up the US and I said it was irrelevant. "For example the US doesn’t have dozens of laws on the books regulating the conduct, religious practices, professions, names, registrations, and property of Jews." The US in the 19th century was a horrible place for black people. That's your pedestal right there. You're completely ignoring US's oppressive, racist history and fingerwagging at Germany for having gone in a direction that lots of other fascist or totalitarian countries also did. These things didn't happen because every single person in every country loved racism and oppression so much, it was because there were oppressive groups and dictators in power that forced everyone to obey. What are you talking about? Reread the exchange and try again. I did reread it multiple times. Not sure why you're assuming otherwise? Your argument makes no sense because pre-WW2 Germany didn't put Jews in concentration camps, that only happened in WW2 after the Nazis came to power. Meanwhile the US is an example of a country that did the exact opposite with its black population, by fighting a war for their liberation. That war was fortunately won by the liberators, but it could've ended very differently. And then what? Do you think black people would be free now? It's the people in power who call the shots. You don't understand historic events because you don't look at the individual people of a country as separate from the country's rulers. You don't understand why the Nazis came to power and exterminated the Jews while the US did the opposite and liberated its slaves. You don't understand it because you conflate the leadership of a country with the people of a country. This will never result in you understanding the history of any of the countries. I said that antisemitism was prevalent in Germany before the Nazis, rather than being created by the Nazis. You brought up the US (presumably today) and claimed that it was also true of the US if you ignore where it was not true. I said that there are significant differences between the US and historical Germany that make that comparison fail. You then brought up historical United States and slavery. I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Why did you bring up the US? Why did you bring up slavery? How does any of this relate in any way to my extremely clear and simple statement that Germany was antisemitic long before the Nazis. To summarize, what the fuck are you talking about? You still don't get it. The point I made was that parts of a country can be racist, that doesn't make the whole country racist. Large parts of the US are antisemitic, but most of the country isn't. The US is not antisemitic just because lots of Americans hate Jewish people and would like to expel them. Saying "Germany was antisemitic before the Nazis" doesn't mean that Germans were exterminating Jewish people. Jews were still able to live in Germany, just as black people were able to live in America. Widespread racism by itself doesn't equate to genocidal intent. You're creating a completely ridiculous argument that leads from racism directly to genocidal intent, when in reality it's the leaders of the country that push for genocide and not generally racist people themselves. It's the ones in power that we have to be most afraid of. You don't even realize how many antisemitic Americans there are because you don't have an antisemitic leadership. But that can change very, very quickly. And if or when it happens it'll not be pretty for Jewish people. Biden is right when he says that Israel is the safe haven for Jewish people and they'd be in big trouble without it. He makes a valid point. I’m sorry, is your argument now that 19th Century Germany was no worse to Jews than 19th Century America was to their slaves? And this is your idea of a defence? You’re saying this to minimize and mitigate German antisemitism? Because if I go ahead and condemn them then I’d be caught in a trap and would also have to condemn slavery?
No, my argument is that your snappy one-liner was completely misplaced. Either you didn't understand what Uld was saying, or you actually believe that German antisemitism was inherent in the 19th century. Because that's the point that Uld was disputing. So your comment being a contradiction to Uld's point is an implication of inherent racism. You're saying that Germans were simply racist because that's what 19th century Germans apparently did all day. They loved being racist as it was simply the German way. A German baby is a racist baby. One could say they were practically born with it. Really, is that so.
Either you didn't catch that part in Uld's argument, or if you did understand it then you expressed your ignorance of history and of people in general. And I responded to that. I responded to your one-liner in a very reasonable manner, and I'm fed up with you pretending that I didn't. You love posting snappy one-liners that often derail entire discussions, and it's honestly infuriating that you're getting away with that all the time because you can hide behind your accusations of people "misunderstanding" your misplaced one-liners.
Because sometimes your one-liners are brilliant. But other times they're just absolutely disgusting.
|
United States42802 Posts
Given that you seem extremely enthusiastic about providing both sides of the exchange I see little value in participating. You’re already providing words for me and no amount of my own words seem to change what you’ve decided my side is. I wish you the best of luck with it.
|
On June 20 2024 08:19 KwarK wrote:
Given that you seem extremely enthusiastic about providing both sides of the exchange I see little value in participating. You’re already providing words for me and no amount of my own words seem to change what you’ve decided my side is. I wish you the best of luck with it.
Ah yes, it's my assumptions that are the problem. It's definitely not your comment style that derails discussions until they no longer resemble the argument that triggered them in the first place.
You're free to argue your position. This is the exact right place to be if you want to have nuanced discussions. With few exceptions, people here tend to be very capable of that.
Just don't expect me to let you get away with whatever the hell this escapade just was. Shitting in someone's food, then acting like it doesn't even smell.
Your initial response was directed at Uld. Maybe it's time for you to clarify what exactly you meant, instead of acting upset that I've interpreted your words in a fairly obvious way.
|
United States42802 Posts
My post was a snappy one liner intended only to address a historical misconception. Uldridge seemed confused about which came first, German antisemitism or Nazis. I corrected him and provided further reading. That was the end of that exchange.
The problem came when you seemed to take offence to this undisputed historical fact. That’s curious to me, especially in light of your previous defence of Russians troops in Ukraine by comparing them to the innocent Wehrmacht in WW2. One instance is a datapoint, two is a pattern.
I’ll make a new position. In this topic and in a previous one where you defended and absolved the participation of the Wehrmacht in the Holocaust you’ve displayed an extremely problematic strain of denialism. You seem to think that antisemitism in Germany was a Nazi problem, as if the Germans couldn’t imagine doing such a thing until naughty Hitler and his SS led them astray. You seem very determined to argue that, even attempting to flip the script by attempting the laughable argument that by calling pre WW2 Germany antisemitic I am making blanket statements about the innate qualities of all Germans which actually makes me the real racist.
I sincerely suggest that you read more history books, unlearn some of these myths you seem attached to, and spend time reflecting on why you are so emotionally invested in these falsehoods. This is not a debate, this is me calling out problematic behaviour and giving you advice on personal growth.
|
On June 20 2024 08:50 KwarK wrote:
My post was a snappy one liner intended only to address a historical misconception. Uldridge seemed confused about which came first, German antisemitism or Nazis. I corrected him and provided further reading. That was the end of that exchange.
The problem came when you seemed to take offence to this undisputed historical fact. That’s curious to me, especially in light of your previous defence of Russians troops in Ukraine by comparing them to the innocent Wehrmacht in WW2. One instance is a datapoint, two is a pattern.
I’ll make a new position. In this topic and in a previous one where you defended and absolved the participation of the Wehrmacht in the Holocaust you’ve displayed an extremely problematic strain of denialism. You seem to think that antisemitism in Germany was a Nazi problem, as if the Germans couldn’t imagine doing such a thing until naughty Hitler and his SS led them astray. You seem very determined to argue that, even attempting to flip the script by attempting the laughable argument that by calling pre WW2 Germany antisemitic I am making blanket statements about the innate qualities of all Germans which actually makes me the real racist.
I sincerely suggest that you read more history books, unlearn some of these myths you seem attached to, and spend time reflecting on why you are so emotionally invested in these falsehoods. This is not a debate, this is me calling out problematic behaviour and giving you advice on personal growth.
Are you turning this around against me because of an old grudge you have against me when people overwhelmingly sided against your accusation of me being a Wehrmachtphile?
|
United States42802 Posts
I’m not interested in debating your denialist arguments or rehashing the past. I am simply drawing your attention to what appears to be a pattern in your beliefs. Take the feedback as a learning opportunity or don’t.
|
On June 20 2024 09:04 KwarK wrote:
I’m not interested in debating your denialist arguments or rehashing the past. I am simply drawing your attention to what appears to be a pattern. Take the feedback as a learning opportunity or don’t.
If you insists on spreading false accusations (you've done this several times) while almost no one sides with you on it, I think we can safely assume that learning is required on your part. You're lucky because you're a mod so you can't get banned. I don't have that privilege, so I can't get away with accusing you of outrageous things. Consider yourself lucky.
|
United States42802 Posts
On June 20 2024 09:11 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 09:04 KwarK wrote:
I’m not interested in debating your denialist arguments or rehashing the past. I am simply drawing your attention to what appears to be a pattern. Take the feedback as a learning opportunity or don’t. If you insists on spreading false accusations (you've done this several times) while almost no one sides with you on it, I think we can safely assume that learning is required on your part. You're lucky because you're a mod so you can't get banned. I don't have that privilege, so I can't get away with accusing you of outrageous things. Consider yourself lucky.
I didn't seek you out to relitigate anything or to accuse you of anything. I replied to someone else and you were so incensed by the suggestion that Germany (fucking Germany, really?) might have a history of antisemitism that you jumped in and picked a fight with me over me saying it to someone else. All I'm doing is noting that there is a denialist pattern in your posts when read in the context of this shit.
|
On June 20 2024 09:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 09:11 Magic Powers wrote:On June 20 2024 09:04 KwarK wrote:
I’m not interested in debating your denialist arguments or rehashing the past. I am simply drawing your attention to what appears to be a pattern. Take the feedback as a learning opportunity or don’t. If you insists on spreading false accusations (you've done this several times) while almost no one sides with you on it, I think we can safely assume that learning is required on your part. You're lucky because you're a mod so you can't get banned. I don't have that privilege, so I can't get away with accusing you of outrageous things. Consider yourself lucky. I didn't seek you out to relitigate anything or to accuse you of anything. I replied to someone else and you were so incensed by the suggestion that Germany (fucking Germany, really?) might have a history of antisemitism that you jumped in and picked a fight with me over me saying it to someone else. All I'm doing is noting that there is a denialist pattern in your posts when read in the context of this shit.
The reality is that nobody agrees with your accusation. Everybody agrees that you completely misinterpreted what I said about the Wehrmacht, and after all this time you bring it up over and over and over again. You are obsessed, and someone needs to tell you to stop. If other mods don't do it, then you'll never stop, and that's the reason why I keep saying that mods should stay out of these topics unless they don't have mod privileges. Your exact behavior is the reason. If you can't get banned for your behavior, then you need to stop doing this. You're completely out of line.
|
I don't know the whole backstory in the Russo-Ukraine thread, although based on the link Kwark posted it looks like you're correct that most people in that thread agree Kwark was unfairly representing your posts.
But clearly to me you're the one off-base in this exchange. Kwark's point was simple, literally a single sentence. You don't get to assume he's claiming a bunch of other things like German people are innately racist by their nature. That idea in itself is a racist idea so ascribing it to Kwark when he said no such thing is akin to calling him racist for no good reason. Your reasoning that Kwark was replying to Uld's post and Uld mentioned something about Palestinians not being innately racist by their nature therefore Kwark must disagree makes no sense. You're allowed to correct small mistakes in posts without everyone getting to assume you have the opposite position of everything else that was said in the post.
|
On June 20 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:
I don't know the whole backstory in the Russo-Ukraine thread, although based on the link Kwark posted it looks like you're correct that most people in that thread agree Kwark was unfairly representing your posts.
But clearly to me you're the one off-base in this exchange. Kwark's point was simple, literally a single sentence. You don't get to assume he's claiming a bunch of other things like German people are innately racist by their nature. That idea in itself is a racist idea so ascribing it to Kwark when he said no such thing is akin to calling him racist for no good reason. Your reasoning that Kwark was replying to Uld's post and Uld mentioned something about Palestinians not being innately racist by their nature therefore Kwark must disagree makes no sense. You're allowed to correct small mistakes in posts without everyone getting to assume you have the opposite position of everything else that was said in the post.
Uld was talking about inherent antisemitism. He repeated that word and even ended his comment with the term "genetic blueprint" which cannot be misunderstood in the context of his comment.
Here's Uld's comment:
"I don't really see these as contradictory because you simply can't have inherent Palestinian antisemitism. Claiming an inherent property to an entire demography is kind of self defeating. However, just like there was no German antisemitism, the German antisemitism arose through well constructed propaganda, and this is also how Hamas is able to (next to the Israelites not being the most friendly neighbors), make antisemitism arise in Palestinians. Lay bare where it hurts and point to a common enemy. It's a contemporary framework, not baked into their genetic blueprint."
"inherent antisemitism"
"inherent property to a demography"
"baked into their genetic blueprint"
This is clearly what he was arguing against. His entire comment is about antisemitism not being inherent to Germans.
KwarK is not going to convince me that he completely missed the term "inherent" twice and "genetic blueprint" once. He just cannot make me buy that, and he should know that perfectly well.
Here's KwarK's response to my response:
"It’s not a great counterpoint. There are significant differences between the US and 19th century Germany. For example the US doesn’t have dozens of laws on the books regulating the conduct, religious practices, professions, names, registrations, and property of Jews. The argument isn’t that Germany was antisemitic because of the presence of antisemites, an argument that could be applied to anywhere as you say, it’s that Germany was antisemitic because it was antisemitic."
=> "The argument is that Germany was antisemitic because it was antisemitic."
KwarK isn't even making an effort to deny it. He proposes that the 19th century German antisemitism was inherent, and despite my disagreement he didn't think it would be reasonable to clarify that this was in fact not his position. Instead he just kept arguing that I misrepresented him, even though my read on his initial response to Uld is completely logical and not in bad faith.
If KwarK wanted to clarify, he could've done it. If he wanted to not be misunderstood, he could've made sure of it. If he wanted to distance himself from the idea that Germany's antisemitism was inherent, he could've done it.
He didn't do it.
Instead he went on the offensive and accused me of the same old same old. He's been doing this for years. He's been out of line for years. And once again he's completely out of line, just as he was back then. He hasn't changed one bit.
|
Germany doesn't have a history of antisemitism, Christian Europe has a history of antisemitism. Even ignoring the context of prior posts, to word it the way Kwark did makes it sound like even in the absence of the Nazis, Germany was still antisemitic to a degree that is worth singling out -- which is simply untrue. During Weimar years, German Jews actually significant legal protections & support from the state, they were well off economically and held many positions of influence. Post-WW2, antisemitism instilled by the Nazis did not persist outside of shunned fringe groups, either.
And really, if Kwark doesn't want people to misunderstand his comments he could maybe, I don't know, write better posts instead of shitty one-liners and incensed, 'ThAt'S nOt WhAt I sAiD!!!!11' retorts (which, more often than not, don't actually elaborate on the prior shitty one-liners and just push the conversation further out into the trollwoods). What was that line, 'Do better'?
|
On June 20 2024 10:32 Magic Powers wrote:
If KwarK wanted to clarify, he could've done it. If he wanted to not be misunderstood, he could've made sure of it. If he wanted to distance himself from the idea that Germany's antisemitism was inherent, he could've done it.
He didn't do it.
On June 20 2024 08:19 KwarK wrote:
Given that you seem extremely enthusiastic about providing both sides of the exchange I see little value in participating. You’re already providing words for me and no amount of my own words seem to change what you’ve decided my side is. I wish you the best of luck with it.
On June 20 2024 08:50 KwarK wrote:
You seem very determined to argue that, even attempting to flip the script by attempting the laughable argument that by calling pre WW2 Germany antisemitic I am making blanket statements about the innate qualities of all Germans which actually makes me the real racist.
He did clarify, more than once, that you're misinterpreting his posts or putting words in his mouth. You're just not listening.
|
United States42802 Posts
On June 20 2024 10:40 Salazarz wrote:
Germany doesn't have a history of antisemitism, Christian Europe has a history of antisemitism.
Are you somehow confused about where Germany is? This seems a really weird distinction to make. If I had asserted that squares have four corners would you be here correcting me that actually it is quadrangles that have four corners.
|
On June 20 2024 10:44 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 10:32 Magic Powers wrote:
If KwarK wanted to clarify, he could've done it. If he wanted to not be misunderstood, he could've made sure of it. If he wanted to distance himself from the idea that Germany's antisemitism was inherent, he could've done it.
He didn't do it.
Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 08:19 KwarK wrote:
Given that you seem extremely enthusiastic about providing both sides of the exchange I see little value in participating. You’re already providing words for me and no amount of my own words seem to change what you’ve decided my side is. I wish you the best of luck with it. Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 08:50 KwarK wrote:
You seem very determined to argue that, even attempting to flip the script by attempting the laughable argument that by calling pre WW2 Germany antisemitic I am making blanket statements about the innate qualities of all Germans which actually makes me the real racist.
He did clarify, more than once, that you're misinterpreting his posts or putting words in his mouth. You're just not listening.
Alright, I'll go to bed. If you think I'm out of line, I won't argue. But one thing's for sure, this was definitely not entirely my own doing. I may've contributed, but KwarK escalated this situation as much as I did, there's no denying it. And it's also clear that he has it out for me, because he loves bringing up the Wehrmachtphile nonsense that no one agrees with. I never do that to him, it's 100% a personal grudge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
