|
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. |
Northern Ireland25497 Posts
On June 20 2024 10:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
It’s a perfectly reasonable observation to throw out there given that it differentiates between a Germany that was atypically anti-Semitic, or merely kicking along at a European batting average. Considering recent ‘conversation’ was very German-centric
Indeed in terms of wider, more general public perception what those wider problems actually were back in the day would be better served by that than ‘yeah the Nazis were bad and we got rid of the bad guys and that’s what happened’. It serves right wing politics very well to have Nazism as this lightning rod that redirects from a whole slew of other ugliness of that period, or indeed before, or indeed now.
Don’t really think it’s something all that required in this specific thread given its composition and the interests in these topics, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to drop in or needlessly pernickety
|
United States42803 Posts
On June 20 2024 11:12 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 10:50 KwarK wrote: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. It’s a perfectly reasonable observation to throw out there given that it differentiates between a Germany that was atypically anti-Semitic, or merely kicking along at a European batting average. Considering recent ‘conversation’ was very German-centric Indeed in terms of wider, more general public perception what those wider problems actually were back in the day would be better served by that than ‘yeah the Nazis were bad and we got rid of the bad guys and that’s what happened’. It serves right wing politics very well to have Nazism as this lightning rod that redirects from a whole slew of other ugliness of that period, or indeed before, or indeed now. Don’t really think it’s something all that required in this specific thread given its composition and the interests in these topics, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to drop in or needlessly pernickety
There's a context clue to why I specified Germany if we examine the post I responded to.
On June 19 2024 15:52 Uldridge wrote:
there was no German antisemitism
|
Northern Ireland25497 Posts
On June 20 2024 11:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 11:12 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2024 10:50 KwarK wrote: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. It’s a perfectly reasonable observation to throw out there given that it differentiates between a Germany that was atypically anti-Semitic, or merely kicking along at a European batting average. Considering recent ‘conversation’ was very German-centric Indeed in terms of wider, more general public perception what those wider problems actually were back in the day would be better served by that than ‘yeah the Nazis were bad and we got rid of the bad guys and that’s what happened’. It serves right wing politics very well to have Nazism as this lightning rod that redirects from a whole slew of other ugliness of that period, or indeed before, or indeed now. Don’t really think it’s something all that required in this specific thread given its composition and the interests in these topics, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to drop in or needlessly pernickety There's a context clue to why I specified Germany if we examine the post I responded to.
Aye fair enough
|
So now we've got an explanation. KwarK was quoting a whole comment that included the term "inherent" twice and "genetic blueprint" once (in a conversation that was specifically about the term "inherent antisemitism"). But KwarK was actually just quotemining a specific sentence (without actually making the effort to quotemine it) and expected people to understand that without clarifying it.
Does anyone see the problem now?
|
I used Germany as an example because I thought Germans aren't intrinsically antisemitic, but their society became more antisemitic with the fascist ideology.
Kwark corrected me, telling me that German society was more antisemitic than I thought. There's nothing quotemining here, my idea about history was simply incorrect.
His corrections stems from the fact that societies, not just the German one (but because I used Germany for my seemingly obvious but flawed example), have since long distrusted outsiders with their own traditions, for Jews this would translate into systemic antisemitic rules/legislation/...
So, I simply think you've misinterpreted why he quoted what he quoted. Especially strange since you've explained it in a follow up post, but then fail to extend this understanding to Kwark's post. You've interpreted him literally, instead of contextually.
To clarify one last time and then we'll just drop this stupid discussion:
I said that Germany became antisemitic because of fascism. Kwark said, no, it was there before. A systemic antisemitism due to fears and anxieties from "strange people" doing "strange things". That's it. Nothing more to it. You've admitted to interpreting it in a different way, but here me - and basically everyone else - are telling you that you've done so incorrectly. Time to drop it and move on.
|
On June 20 2024 18:19 Uldridge wrote:
I used Germany as an example because I thought Germans aren't intrinsically antisemitic, but their society became more antisemitic with the fascist ideology.
Kwark corrected me, telling me that German society was more antisemitic than I thought. There's nothing quotemining here, my idea about history was simply incorrect.
His corrections stems from the fact that societies, not just the German one (but because I used Germany for my seemingly obvious but flawed example), have since long distrusted outsiders with their own traditions, for Jews this would translate into systemic antisemitic rules/legislation/...
So, I simply think you've misinterpreted why he quoted what he quoted. Especially strange since you've explained it in a follow up post, but then fail to extend this understanding to Kwark's post. You've interpreted him literally, instead of contextually.
To clarify one last time and then we'll just drop this stupid discussion:
I said that Germany became antisemitic because of fascism. Kwark said, no, it was there before. A systemic antisemitism due to fears and anxieties from "strange people" doing "strange things". That's it. Nothing more to it. You've admitted to interpreting it in a different way, but here me - and basically everyone else - are telling you that you've done so incorrectly. Time to drop it and move on.
KwarK quotemined your comment without actually quotemining it. Then he didn't own up to it when he was criticized for it. And here you defend him for it. All that after he once again called me a Nazi lover when he couldn't handle my criticism, as he has done multiple times over the years.
I'll say it very clearly now:
If KwarK ever accuses me again of being a Nazi lover, I'll leave this forum for good. Not that many people would think this is a loss, I'm just expressing my reasoning.
Despite my heavy disagreements with JimmiC, I'm starting to understand why he left this forum. And I definitely know why plasmidghost left.
|
On June 20 2024 18:19 Uldridge wrote:
I used Germany as an example because I thought Germans aren't intrinsically antisemitic, but their society became more antisemitic with the fascist ideology.
Kwark corrected me, telling me that German society was more antisemitic than I thought. There's nothing quotemining here, my idea about history was simply incorrect.
His corrections stems from the fact that societies, not just the German one (but because I used Germany for my seemingly obvious but flawed example), have since long distrusted outsiders with their own traditions, for Jews this would translate into systemic antisemitic rules/legislation/...
So, I simply think you've misinterpreted why he quoted what he quoted. Especially strange since you've explained it in a follow up post, but then fail to extend this understanding to Kwark's post. You've interpreted him literally, instead of contextually.
To clarify one last time and then we'll just drop this stupid discussion:
I said that Germany became antisemitic because of fascism. Kwark said, no, it was there before. A systemic antisemitism due to fears and anxieties from "strange people" doing "strange things". That's it. Nothing more to it. You've admitted to interpreting it in a different way, but here me - and basically everyone else - are telling you that you've done so incorrectly. Time to drop it and move on.
There was no 'systemic antisemitism' in Germany, though. Several key politicians of Weimar republic were Jewish, something like 15% of the largest business owners in Germany were Jewish, an outsized portion of university professors, etc.
Of course general xenophobia existed, particularly in the 'unwashed masses' of poorly uneducated, rural populations, but it's quite a stretch to call Germany pre-Hitler an 'antisemitic society.'
|
On June 20 2024 18:34 Magic Powers wrote:
I'll say it very clearly now:
If KwarK ever accuses me again of being a Nazi lover, I'll leave this forum for good. Not that many people would think this is a loss, I'm just expressing my reasoning.
Despite my heavy disagreements with JimmiC, I'm starting to understand why he left this forum. And I definitely know why plasmidghost left.
I don't understand how you can say he quotes me out of context without actually doing it?
I think he simply wanted to correct my faulty representation of historic Germany. I don't really see how you can see it any other way.
You seem to think Kwark was countering a point I was making about Germany, while he in fact was correcting my statement not going back far enough. Something you and many other also addressed. In any case, you don't seem to be on the same page as the rest of us. Perhaps you can PM me to clarify how you're so hung up on it because these last pages are just mostly semantics/syntax issues and are polluting the thread and its core subject.
|
On June 20 2024 19:00 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 18:34 Magic Powers wrote:
I'll say it very clearly now:
If KwarK ever accuses me again of being a Nazi lover, I'll leave this forum for good. Not that many people would think this is a loss, I'm just expressing my reasoning.
Despite my heavy disagreements with JimmiC, I'm starting to understand why he left this forum. And I definitely know why plasmidghost left. I don't understand how you can say he quotes me out of context without actually doing it? I think he simply wanted to correct my faulty representation of historic Germany. I don't really see how you can see it any other way. You seem to think Kwark was countering a point I was making about Germany, while he in fact was correcting my statement not going back far enough. Something you and many other also addressed. In any case, you don't seem to be on the same page as the rest of us. Perhaps you can PM me to clarify how you're so hung up on it because these last pages are just mostly semantics/syntax issues and are polluting the thread and its core subject.
Your whole comment was about inherent antisemitism, you literally said "inherent" twice and you ended your comment with "genetic blueprint" in a discussion that was precisely about the matter of inherent antisemitism. Meanwhile KwarK says he only addressed one specific sentence in the middle of your comment:
On June 20 2024 11:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 11:12 WombaT wrote:On June 20 2024 10:50 KwarK wrote: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. It’s a perfectly reasonable observation to throw out there given that it differentiates between a Germany that was atypically anti-Semitic, or merely kicking along at a European batting average. Considering recent ‘conversation’ was very German-centric Indeed in terms of wider, more general public perception what those wider problems actually were back in the day would be better served by that than ‘yeah the Nazis were bad and we got rid of the bad guys and that’s what happened’. It serves right wing politics very well to have Nazism as this lightning rod that redirects from a whole slew of other ugliness of that period, or indeed before, or indeed now. Don’t really think it’s something all that required in this specific thread given its composition and the interests in these topics, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to drop in or needlessly pernickety There's a context clue to why I specified Germany if we examine the post I responded to.
This is a clear case of quotemining without the quotemining. There's no denying it. He has no reason to be upset at me for this, he should just admit that he made a mistake.
Instead he went above and beyond to act like I'm the one who's out of line and ended up attacking me personally.
Here's what he said during my discussion with him:
"Germany was antisemitic because it was antisemitic."
That's a quote from this comment:
On June 19 2024 23:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
This is him doubling down on German antisemitism in the 19th century being an inherent aspect of the country. By that point he hasn't made any effort to clarify that he's not talking about it being inherent, so I had no way of knowing he meant a specific sentence that he never specifically quoted. So up to this point I have every reason to think he's still talking about inherent antisemitism (because that's what the part of the discussion was about that he responded to).
Later he gets so upset that he yet again accuses me of being a Nazi lover as he has done multiple times over the years. A completely baseless accusation that almost no one in this forum believes. So now we've reached abusive mod behavior (because he can't get banned for this, and it's a recurring behavior).
I don't understand why you're defending him. Yes, your comment was not perfect. But KwarK's response and handling of criticism was the lowest of lows. There is no denying it.
To clarify why I'm not bringing this to DMs: KwarK has displayed abusive mod behavior for several years (not just towards me), and this case is especially egregious. Since he's unwilling to take responsibility for his actions, I don't think it'd be right to stay silent about it. If I keep this locked behind DMs, people aren't going to take notice of what's been going on. This is important.
|
I'm just going to excuse myself from trying, because I don't have the capabilities to explain to you how Kwark simply corrected a gap in my knowledge, regardless of the the fact that I used "inherent" twice in that post. He didn't address the "inherent" part, he addressed the gap in my knowledge that antisemitism came before fascism. He pointed out my ignorance, that's it.
This is the last time I'm addressing it.
I'm not going to speak about the latter interaction between you two. That's for you to hash out. Clearly you have history and things seem to get quite aggressive.
And to be clear, I'm not defending him whatsoever. I'm pointing out that he was correct in pointing out a gap in my knowledge. There was nothing behind it, the exchange was over at that point. He even linked a book (even though he clearly wanted to talk about pre-WW2 antisemitic Germany)!!!
|
On June 20 2024 18:58 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2024 18:19 Uldridge wrote:
I used Germany as an example because I thought Germans aren't intrinsically antisemitic, but their society became more antisemitic with the fascist ideology.
Kwark corrected me, telling me that German society was more antisemitic than I thought. There's nothing quotemining here, my idea about history was simply incorrect.
His corrections stems from the fact that societies, not just the German one (but because I used Germany for my seemingly obvious but flawed example), have since long distrusted outsiders with their own traditions, for Jews this would translate into systemic antisemitic rules/legislation/...
So, I simply think you've misinterpreted why he quoted what he quoted. Especially strange since you've explained it in a follow up post, but then fail to extend this understanding to Kwark's post. You've interpreted him literally, instead of contextually.
To clarify one last time and then we'll just drop this stupid discussion:
I said that Germany became antisemitic because of fascism. Kwark said, no, it was there before. A systemic antisemitism due to fears and anxieties from "strange people" doing "strange things". That's it. Nothing more to it. You've admitted to interpreting it in a different way, but here me - and basically everyone else - are telling you that you've done so incorrectly. Time to drop it and move on. There was no 'systemic antisemitism' in Germany, though. Several key politicians of Weimar republic were Jewish, something like 15% of the largest business owners in Germany were Jewish, an outsized portion of university professors, etc. Of course general xenophobia existed, particularly in the 'unwashed masses' of poorly uneducated, rural populations, but it's quite a stretch to call Germany pre-Hitler an 'antisemitic society.'
Jews were a very successful minority in Germany, just like everywhere where there are Jews really. That doesn't take away from the fact that Germany was more antisemitic than most places. In general, theories about race as we understand the term originated in the 19th century. They found a particularly fertile ground in what was going to become Germany since the Germans had a strong sense of being a people (ethnicity, language, culture) without a country. The geopolitical strategy of all the other great nations was to keep them from uniting (pretty smart in hindsight).
Oh, and by the way, antisemitism in Germany wasn't predominantly a phenomenon among the "unwashed masses", as you put it. It was extremely popular in the German universities in particular. One of the big reason for this was that the Jews were so successful, as you point out. Bullying them out of office was simply a great way to make a career (not unlike how the high priests of DEI make careers for themselves in today's academia).
Why are we talking about this again?
|
Holy shit you guys can we move on? Is there really nothing else of import going on in Gaza to discuss right now?
|
United States42803 Posts
On June 20 2024 21:45 Ryzel wrote:
Holy shit you guys can we move on? Is there really nothing else of import going on in Gaza to discuss right now?
Were we going to fix it?
|
|
|
I am curious how the rhetoric from TikTok activism will adapt to Hezbollah rather than Hamas. The situation with Hezbollah is very different and we have already seen people waving Hezbollah flags at "Pro Palestinian" protests. Hezbollah is very powerful, but it is still nothing close to what is needed to succeed against Israel. Especially if things get serious and the US moves a carrier group over. Israel has already shown the ability to launch missile strikes without issue deep within Hezbollah territory. And of course the US could do all that and much more.
I think Iran knows Hezbollah is 10000x more useful as a threat than an active pawn on the board. And without the whole "genocide! occupation!" stuff to control the narrative, I don't think Israel will need to hold back nearly as much as they have in Gaza. I know it is easy for people to point to Gaza as an example of widespread destruction, and I agree with that assessment. But Israel can go way beyond what was done in Gaza with ease. And the US has significantly more freedom to openly assist with Hezbollah compared to Gaza due to the completely different history of the conflict.
Overall, I think "actual war" with Hezbollah has no positive outcome for Iran. I think Iran will do their absolute best to be as aggressive as possible while still being able to hide behind "escalation!!!!!". But as described above, the US and Israel have so much freedom to operate against Hezbollah that I think Hezbollah's arms are still very tied. The US and Israel can respond with a great deal of extra force to anything Hezbollah does without all of the baggage associated with Gaza.
|
Update on Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign in the West Bank.
JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel has approved the largest seizure of land in the occupied West Bank in over three decades, a settlement tracking group said Wednesday, a move that is likely to worsen already soaring tensions linked to the war in Gaza.
Israel’s aggressive expansion in the West Bank reflects the settler community’s strong influence in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the most religious and nationalist in the country’s history. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a settler himself, has turbocharged the policy of expansion, seizing new authorities over settlement development and saying he aims to solidify Israel’s hold on the territory and prevent the creation of a Palestinian state.
Settlement monitors said the land grab connects Israeli settlements along a key corridor bordering Jordan, a move they said undermines the prospect of a contiguous Palestinian state.
It is in an area of the West Bank where, e ven before the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war, settler violence was displacing communities of Palestinians. That violence has only surged since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack ignited the war in Gaza. Settlers have carried out more than 1,000 attacks on Palestinians since October in the West Bank, causing deaths and damaging property, according to the U.N.
The land seizure, which was approved late last month but only publicized on Wednesday, comes after the seizure of 8 square kilometers (roughly 3 square miles) of land in the West Bank in March and 2.6 square kilometers (1 square mile) in February.
That makes 2024 by far the peak year for Israeli land seizure in the West Bank, Peace Now said.
By declaring them state lands, the government opens them up to being leased to Israelis and prohibits private Palestinian ownership. This year’s land seizures are contiguous, linking two already existing settlements to create a solid block near the border with Jordan. The lands were declared to be closed Israeli military zones before they were declared state land.
The 3 million Palestinians in the West Bank live under seemingly open-ended Israeli military rule. The Palestinian Authority administers enclaves scattered across the territory, but is barred from operating in 60% of the West Bank, which includes the settlements as well as areas with a population of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
Prominent human rights organizations have pointed to Israel’s rule over the West Bank in accusing it of the international crime of apartheid, allegations Israel rejects as an attack on its legitimacy.
Smotrich was granted expanded powers over Israel’s administration of the occupied territory under Netanyahu’s governing coalition. Smotrich laid out his plans for the West Bank at a conference for his ultranationalist Religious Zionism Party last month, a recording of which was obtained by Peace Now. He said he intended to appropriate up to 15 square kilometers (nearly 6 square miles) of land in the West Bank this year.
“We came to settle the land, to build it, and to prevent its division and the establishment of a Palestinian state, God forbid,” he said during the conference. He vowed to “change the map dramatically” by claiming more West Bank land than ever before as state land.
apnews.com
|
Northern Ireland25497 Posts
Depressingly shameless stuff
|
|
|
|
|
sorta random aside, started watching Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and the episode "The gang goes Jihad", opens with an Israeli biz owner claiming territory that stretches well into the gangs bar. ep is almost 20 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
