|
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 November 17 2025 00:14 Ryzel wrote:
I’m sorry, I’ve been trying to catch-up on the thread for the last several pages and I’ve found myself thoroughly confused by the subject matter. Is there a reason to believe that calling someone an anti-Semite actually provides meaningful analysis of that person’s arguments? Because to me it seemed like an ad-hominem intended to discredit the speaker without addressing their points.
If it’s the latter, why are we talking about this? It’s thoroughly uninteresting. I’m more interested in hearing cogent reasons why I shouldn’t believe that slow encroachment from Israel on the West Bank is wrong.
We were talking about antisemitism as a possible factor in what makes the I/P conflict more "popular" (for lack of a better word) than other conflicts of similar proportions or greater.
The thread more full of people complaining about accusations of antisemitism than people actually calling others antisemites.
|
On November 17 2025 00:14 Ryzel wrote:
I’m sorry, I’ve been trying to catch-up on the thread for the last several pages and I’ve found myself thoroughly confused by the subject matter. Is there a reason to believe that calling someone an anti-Semite actually provides meaningful analysis of that person’s arguments? Because to me it seemed like an ad-hominem intended to discredit the speaker without addressing their points.
If it’s the latter, why are we talking about this? It’s thoroughly uninteresting. I’m more interested in hearing cogent reasons why I shouldn’t believe that slow encroachment from Israel on the West Bank is wrong.
Does anyone on this thread hold that position? Or is it just people afraid of peoples actual positions using it to discredit the speakers positions without addressing their points?
This is why your friend left, almost no one was interested in discussing his actual positions, or the words he was actually writing. Just personal attack after personal attack.
|
On November 17 2025 00:23 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 00:14 Ryzel wrote:
I’m sorry, I’ve been trying to catch-up on the thread for the last several pages and I’ve found myself thoroughly confused by the subject matter. Is there a reason to believe that calling someone an anti-Semite actually provides meaningful analysis of that person’s arguments? Because to me it seemed like an ad-hominem intended to discredit the speaker without addressing their points.
If it’s the latter, why are we talking about this? It’s thoroughly uninteresting. I’m more interested in hearing cogent reasons why I shouldn’t believe that slow encroachment from Israel on the West Bank is wrong. We were talking about antisemitism as a possible factor in what makes the I/P conflict more "popular" (for lack of a better word) than other conflicts of similar proportions or greater. The thread more full of people complaining about accusations of antisemitism than people actually calling others antisemites.
Okay, so the one method I could see working to make this conflict more talked about than similar conflicts would be antisemites working for major media organisations, promoting this kind of content.
This I could see happening.
However, I think it far more likely that anti-islam people are high up in news organisations promoting exactly the same kind of content would be way more common in the west, because anti-islam views are far more common than antisemitic views.
|
On November 17 2025 04:00 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 00:23 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 00:14 Ryzel wrote:
I’m sorry, I’ve been trying to catch-up on the thread for the last several pages and I’ve found myself thoroughly confused by the subject matter. Is there a reason to believe that calling someone an anti-Semite actually provides meaningful analysis of that person’s arguments? Because to me it seemed like an ad-hominem intended to discredit the speaker without addressing their points.
If it’s the latter, why are we talking about this? It’s thoroughly uninteresting. I’m more interested in hearing cogent reasons why I shouldn’t believe that slow encroachment from Israel on the West Bank is wrong. We were talking about antisemitism as a possible factor in what makes the I/P conflict more "popular" (for lack of a better word) than other conflicts of similar proportions or greater. The thread more full of people complaining about accusations of antisemitism than people actually calling others antisemites. Okay, so the one method I could see working to make this conflict more talked about than similar conflicts would be antisemites working for major media organisations, promoting this kind of content. This I could see happening. However, I think it far more likely that anti-islam people are high up in news organisations promoting exactly the same kind of content would be way more common in the west, because anti-islam views are far more common than antisemitic views.
On the right yes, on the left no. So it depends where people are getting their news. This is even more exaggerated the further you get away from "MSM".
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 17 2025 00:23 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 00:14 Ryzel wrote:
I’m sorry, I’ve been trying to catch-up on the thread for the last several pages and I’ve found myself thoroughly confused by the subject matter. Is there a reason to believe that calling someone an anti-Semite actually provides meaningful analysis of that person’s arguments? Because to me it seemed like an ad-hominem intended to discredit the speaker without addressing their points.
If it’s the latter, why are we talking about this? It’s thoroughly uninteresting. I’m more interested in hearing cogent reasons why I shouldn’t believe that slow encroachment from Israel on the West Bank is wrong. We were talking about antisemitism as a possible factor in what makes the I/P conflict more "popular" (for lack of a better word) than other conflicts of similar proportions or greater. The thread more full of people complaining about accusations of antisemitism than people actually calling others antisemites.
It was quite discussion-light and ultimately completely pointless.
As that tangent often is. People just couldn’t be fucked, for many of us it’s not exactly our first rodeo here, or indeed elsewhere.
Not a criticism of you incidentally, I find you engage earnestly and discussions tend to actually evolve.
But like ‘you’re completely wrong about Ireland, it’s anti-Semitism look at the history of the Catholic Church’ and just dismissing the entirety of what I actually said as irrelevant and anecdotal.
Ceases to become a discussion if people don’t want to actually discuss, but pontificate. As that great sage Yoda once said ‘Do, or do not, there is no try.’
Never mind other potential factors for it being ‘bigger’ in the consciousness. The US having Israel’s back, as well as many of the governments in places we live in, and not just that, but saying so. Sentiment gets tied into that link, in a way that it wouldn’t be if Israel was just over there doing its thing. It becomes a tangible goal to protest on, versus one of mere discontent and solidarity. The British government ain’t gonna fix Israel/Palestine, but our firms could stop selling arms to Israel, there’s a link there. There may be an equivalently horrendous conflict elsewhere that we’ve no involvement in, I mean sure I can protest that but it’s not really doing much necessarily.
And as I’ve said before ‘Israel’ can’t have it both ways. If Israel, correctly to be fair holds forth its relatively social and liberal bona fides versus other states in its vicinity as a shield of sorts, then it becomes judged by that standard by many. And by ‘Israel’ I don’t necessarily mean the state, or Israelis themselves, but people who employ that rationale.
Now, there are other factors, it is worth noting that they don’t preclude anti-Semitism also being a factor.
To clarify on previous remarks, I have merely proffered the observation that Ireland being something of a European hotbed for anti-Israel or alternatively pro-Palestinian sentiment is, IMO broadly not down to anti-Semitism. Not that it doesn’t exist here.
Conversely, the UK is a bit more mixed, and the US has a pretty strong cohort of avowedly pro-Israel folks, but I’d argue there’s simultaneously more anti-Semitism as well.
I mean hey, it’s a a general discussion thread about a complex and evolving issue, not my personal fiefdom, that’s just my half a dollar.
|
I didn't actually mean to revive that topic. I find it as boring as discussing racism. It's a constant that we gotta live with until generations pass.
The only point of contention there is how prevalent it actually is, but I would rather poke my own eyes out than have a debate about it with a western pro-palestinian leftist.
|
On November 14 2025 23:59 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2025 12:59 RvB wrote:On November 13 2025 21:18 stilt wrote:On November 13 2025 13:31 RvB wrote:On October 27 2025 20:08 Jankisa wrote:On October 25 2025 02:10 RvB wrote:
You're wrong. Uyghurs live in a police state. There are no Uyghur who live a nice and stable life except some of the elite that cooperate with the CCP. See for instance part of the article below. It's long but describes it well.. There is not much there that has anything more then what West bank Palestinians don't have, just a different flavor of repression, and from everything I've read, less violent. Also, another thing that crossed my mind when reading this, China, in general is a police state for most of it's citizens, obviously not to the extent of what is being done to Uyughurs but way more then what Israel does to non-West bank Palestinian citizens. China being a police state in general isn't an argument in favour of your point. Israel's occupation does not take the form of a police state. It has no control over the education system, the press, or civil administration in area A and B. Their control is mostly in area C (largest by landmass but lowest by population), and overall security control of the West Bank. In area A and B that's primarily via frequent raids and checkpoints. You also, haven't really provided any evidence for what you wrote, yes, this city has all this, there is 12 million Uygurhs, going around and providing one article and extrapolating it to "no Uyghur who live a nice and stable life" is quite a leap, especially when you put it after an arrogant "you're wrong".
In general you are trying to project some sort of "factually you are wrong" stance when you are obviously quite ignorant on this outside of "how can this guy say something I disagree with". The article is about Xinjiang as a whole. It uses Hotan as a case study. That's how articles like this are frequently structured. It specifically says so as well. If you want more evidence then there's a lot. China has locked up an estimated 0.9m - 1.8m in the detention camps [1] specifically targetting heads of households and community figures pushing their families into poverty, hundreds of thousands of their children are put into boarding schools and schools are transformed into prisons [2], up to half a million, most of them not detained, are in forced labour [3], birth control via intrauterine devices, sterilization and abortion is forced on hundreds of thousands [4]. That's on top of the 1.1 million government officials living with half of families and grid system as mentioned in the Economist article. Then there's the pomegrenate flower policy that does the same thing for children [5], forced labour where they're sent outside of Xinjiang, and the deaths inside the camps. All of which I could not find numbers for but which are significant. In one camp alone 150 detainees died in a period of 6 months [6]. Xinjiang spans over 1.6 million square kilometers, Uyghur dominated areas are about a quarter of that, still bigger then any European country.
Average GDP for a Palestinian in 2024 according to IMF is $2,440.
Average for Xinjiang is around $10,500. The size of Xinjiang is not relevant. I dont understand why you mention it. The statistics from the IMF are for the West Bank and Gaza [7]. The argument is specifically about the West Bank. It's also not adjusted for PPP. Aditionally, China has a huge rural/urban and Han/minority disparity. E.g. Hotans gdp per capita was 20k yuan [8] (approximately 2.8k USD) in 2023 compared to 74k [9](approximately 10.3k USD) for Xinjiang as a whole. Unless you can adjust for that using an average is meaningless. There is plenty of programs that aren't just incredibly repressive to Uyghurs, such as affirmative action that actually help them, there are plenty of Uyghurs who have a much better chance of a good life then Palestinians.
And then there is the random and state sponsored violence and living under a military occupation.
This is why I'd much rather be a Uyghur. Maybe I don't have a problem with saying fuck my religion or national identity, so it's easier for me to imagine having a better life, but it's very wrong to say "You're wrong" on saying that on average there are both who live normal lives and I'd like my chances in China more.
Again, fuck the CCP for doing this shit, it's a slow roll Ethnic Cleansing and Cultural Genocide, too bad that people like you who attack me for saying it's not as bad as West Bank can't say the same about policies that Israel implements there. I dont see much of an argument to respond here. As to Israel and their violations in the West Bank I've been critical of it in this thread. It's a long thread and you were not there so it's not a surprise that you did not read it but I'm also not going to reiterate them. It's a very weird post. Israel has the whole control over the west bank economy and has a puppet at the head of this administration who cooperates in the repression. How on earth Israel has no control there ? It's not all uyghurs neither just the elites who can escape, it's the ones who reject or accept to totally depoliticize their culture which is very close to the same. It is a political and cultural repression of a central state which can indeed be interpreted as colonial logics. This is what is asked for now not to palestinian citizen but to arabs israelis, the latter however are asked to leave. To be fair, the israeli far right who is gaining more and more traction asks the same to every arab israeli while "moderate" scholar are very ambiguous to say the very least. As for the obvious subtext of this discussion which is why caring for palestine and not the uyghur or others people, basically the good old whataboutism :. Here's what herzl, daddy of the zionism has to say : We... as representatives of Western civilization, would bring cleanliness, order and the well-distilled customs of the Occident." He presented palestine as "plague ridden" which will become then an "outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism." Herzl is presented as a "paternalist colonist" by scholar like edward saïd but this kind of speech belongs as well to a eugenistic thought. Since him, all the israeli leaders from Ben Gourion, Meier, Begin and of course "Bibi" as he is affectionately called there have constantly used this rhetoric of the "war of civilization" and has constantly ignated all the racists and supremacists dumbfucks who regreat the good old time where blacks, arabs and all other "inferior races" were subversient. The direct consequence is the diplomatic, economic and military support Israel is enjoying from the west against the palestinian population which China, the houthis and the belligerants in Sudan don't enjoy at all. And as to justify this, we are forced to align our views with Israel. Hence, we gave a academic censorships of almost all the western governements, as it is my field I can confirm france is very brutal about it and the judicial repression under false pretext. Furthermore, the extreme surveillance and control the palestinian population is subject to with the project Nimbus by amazon and google is what is awaiting us all as Palestine is a laboratory of the tool used to control us. It's not like alex karp of the surveillance society Palantir is making a secret of it. I hope this is the end of all the "whataboutism". Your post is the weird one mate. On November 02 2025 08:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
My experience is that the genuine anti-semitism I've seen comes from a) nazis and b) muslims, while most criticism of Israel that I encounter comes from a) leftists and b) muslims. The nazis don't like palestine any more than they like Israel, so they hate jews without caring about the conflict. The leftists dislike/hate Israel without disliking/hating jews, and among muslims, a large majority have a negative view of Israel and there, antisemitism is fairly common as well.
*this isn't to say that belief in some tropes or whatnot is entirely absent among leftists, but 'disliking someone for being part of a particular ethnic group' isn't really compatible with being a leftist. You're a reasonable guy though so your experience is not very representative. The (far) left has always had a significant problem with antisemitism. E.g. The antisemitism of the USSR is well documented [1]. Many of the current anti semetic tropes originated in the USSR. The usage of anti zionist Jews, equating Israeli policy with nazism, and using zionism interchangeably with Jews is still seen today. More recently there was the anti semitism in Corbyn's labour [2]. To Labours credit they took it seriously. That theoretically racism is incompatible with leftist thought does not mean it doesn't happen in practice. Killing millions of your own people is also not compatible, yet it still happened. To be clear antisemitism is also a huge issue on the right. It is an issue on the left, but it is a way way bigger one on the right.
Yes it is a larger problem on the right.
On November 15 2025 00:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2025 18:02 RvB wrote:On November 14 2025 14:29 Nebuchad wrote:On November 14 2025 12:59 RvB wrote:You're a reasonable guy though so your experience is not very representative. The (far) left has always had a significant problem with antisemitism. E.g. The antisemitism of the USSR is well documented [1]. Many of the current anti semetic tropes originated in the USSR. The usage of anti zionist Jews, equating Israeli policy with nazism, and using zionism interchangeably with Jews is still seen today. More recently there was the anti semitism in Corbyn's labour [2]. To Labours credit they took it seriously. That theoretically racism is incompatible with leftist thought does not mean it doesn't happen in practice. Killing millions of your own people is also not compatible, yet it still happened. To be clear antisemitism is also a huge issue on the right. Your link does not claim that many of the current antisemitic tropes originated in the USSR, it connects the origins a lot more to the end of imperial Russia, under the last tsars (for example the Protocols of the Elders of Zion), which is in line with my understanding. Stalin then uses the undercurrent of antisemitism that already exists to consolidate his power. There are multiple examples of what I mentioned: 1. The KGB and its subservient Eastern Bloc intelligence agencies also dedicated significant resources to cultivating antisemitic and anti-U.S. hatred in the Islamic world. The primary objective of these campaigns
was to prove “the connection between the U.S.A., ‘American capital,’ ‘American imperialism,’ etc., and
Zionism … using interchangeably ‘Zionism,’ and ‘Jews’ or ‘Judaism’” in their narratives. 2. Resolution 3379 narrowly passed384 on November 10, 1975, with 72 in favor, 35 against, and 32 abstaining.
The Kremlin considered the resolution’s passing a major diplomatic victory and a demonstration of the
Soviet Union’s support for Arab countries.385 Soviet propaganda outlets across the USSR — some of which
still exist in Russia today — hailed the resolution in a slew of antisemitic articles comparing Zionism to
fascism and Hitler’s Third Reich as well as channeling the essence of The Protocols.386 According to Israeli
scholar Baruch A. Hazan, in the mid-1970s, “virtually all instruments of international propaganda [had] been
mobilized to battle Zionism.” The Soviet media spread disinformation equating Zionism with Nazism and
Israeli soldiers with Nazis, dismissing acts of antisemitism as Zionist “provocations,” and portraying Zionists
as spies.387 3. In 1984, the Committee took on an even more aggressive role and extreme rhetoric. State propaganda
outlet Pravda published an article featuring “specialist” commentator on “anti-Zionist questions” Vladimir
Bolshakov’s thesis on Zionism, which formulated Zionism as the overall equivalent of Nazism in terms of its
alleged aggression and Nazi-like subversive ideology. Days after the Pravda article, TASS reported the Committee had denounced Israel and the United States for its aggression and equated Israel and Zionism to
Nazism and Nazi-like policies and practices. The Committee held another press conference in May 1984 at
the press center of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs. David Dragunsky, the Committee’s head, claimed
to “expose the methods borrowed [by Israel] from the arsenal of Nazi war criminals...” 4. Under Andropov’s occupancy of the Kremlin, on March 29, 1983, the Secretariat of the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) agreed398 to follow the recommendations of the KGB
and of the Central Committee’s Department of Propaganda to establish the Soviet Anti-Zionist Committee
(“the Committee”). The CPSU appointed399 the Committee’s leaders and directed the KGB and the Depart-
ment of Propaganda to supervise and support it. Headed by anti-Zionist Jews, the organ would serve as a
seemingly credible anti-Zionist propaganda mouthpiece for the Soviet state for over a decade. The deploy-
ment of Jews for such a role was an “intentional choice on the part of the KGB, meant to deflect accusations
of antisemitism.400 I had a little Google and found something by the ADL that pertains to your claim and the main bulk seems to be centered around "equating Israeli policy with nazism", as you mentioned yourself. The idea that this is a racist thing to do is quite silly, and it becomes possibly more silly in conjunction with the rest of your sentence because you follow it with something that it is accurate to characterize as racist in my opinion, which is using "Jews" and "zionists" interchangeably. But then if that is a racist thing to do, well, you've just done it. You have just expressed the idea that making a comparison between Israeli policy and nazism is antisemitic, as if it was Jews that were responsible for this policy as opposed to, you know, zionists. Even you should be able to figure out how comparing the only Jewish state, who were the main victims of the Nazi's, to the Nazi's is antisemetic. It'd be a different matter if Israel was murdering minorities on an industrial scale. Not for the first time I'll point out that this isn't really a serious conversation because it doesn't have any context in any of these worldviews. None of the people who talk about this are in the Ukraine thread checking posts for russophobia, none of the people who talk about this have links ready to go about the history of islamophobia in liberal circles. Maybe you should, though? It is interesting what we can hear about muslims in a lot of center and center right spaces. Do I think that if the Fourests and Enthovens of France weren't drowning the waves with their islamophobia, if France didn't have actual ministers of Macron speaking positively about islamoleftism, the conspiracy theory in which leftists and islamists are allied to overthrow and destroy Europe, if we didn't have all of that, then maybe you wouldn't have felt last year that "human shields" was a legitimate argument in defense of what Israel was doing? Eh, who knows. This forum is full of talk about racism in its other forms. Me posting about it contributes little. Your point is especially ironic considering you've barely posted on the atrocities in other conflicts like Sudan, Yemen, Ethiopia. For what it's worth I absolutely deplore the massive amounts of racism and the rise of the far right in our society. Ultimately using antisemitism like this, not in an effort to make Jews safer but in an effort to discredit cool people like Mamdani or Corbyn or to defend otherwise indefensible practices, is dangerous. It creates more hatred, not less. I and others like me will continue to try and fight antisemitism when we see it in the left (which is not very often at all), but a lot of people aren't leftists, or woke, and they'll be hearing this nonsense too. I've only talked about Corbyn in the context of his Labour not dealing with antisemitism. That's a fact. The whole problem is that much of the left is not capable of properly identifying antisemitism. Drone is very reasonable, level headed and clearly not antisemetic. If even he comes to the conclusion that the left dislikes Israel without disliking Jews that gives me very little hope. At the extremes that is simply not the case. Just as on the right criticism of immigration turns into outright racism. That comparison isn’t necessarily anti-Semitic, it can be many things. Apt, wrong, or anti-Semitic. So I think you end up with a categorisation issue. The left’s intellectual tradition is also very influenced by prominent Jewish thinkers, indeed, this is often invoked by prominent anti-Semites. Many things can be true. I’d agree that the left does have some blind spots. But some criticism of Israel can also be conflated with anti-Semitism and defused or deflected that way. Corbyn’s stewardship you see both these at work. Definitely some failings on his watch, as the investigation and report showed. And as to your point, yeah I think people have dismissed some of that too lightly. Equally, for many, the punishment didn’t fit the crime, and a general party direction they were enthused about got completely dismantled. In a crude sense there’s probably some happy medium between not taking it seriously and being over-zealous. Indeed I think the latter can actually be actively counter-productive
I pretty much agree. The term antisemitism is used too easily by some as well.
On November 15 2025 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2025 18:02 RvB wrote:
Even you should be able to figure out how comparing the only Jewish state, who were the main victims of the Nazi's, to the Nazi's is antisemetic. It'd be a different matter if Israel was murdering minorities on an industrial scale. I'm not though? We've just established that it would be antisemitic to equate Jews and zionists. Statements that are about Jews can be antisemitic. Statements that are about zionists can only be antisemitic insofar as they use "zionists" to mean "Jews". This statement could easily just be about Netanyahu or about Israel, in which case it could definitionally not be antisemitic. Using "the only Jewish state" to try and say something, that is just cope isn't it? If there was a second jewish state then it would be a fine thing to say but now it isn't? Please.
I retract the "even you" part. That was unnecessary. If Israel were acting like Nazi's and wanted to occupy all of the middle east, killed minorities on an industrial scale, etc. then the comparison would not be antisemetic. They're clearly not Nazi's though. The comparison is made because they're a Jewish state. If Israel were the Islamic state of Israel and Zionism the movement to create an Islamic state in Israel there'd not be the nazi comparisons.
Show nested quote +This forum is full of talk about racism in its other forms. Me posting about it contributes little. Your point is especially ironic considering you've barely posted on the atrocities in other conflicts like Sudan, Yemen, Ethiopia. For what it's worth I absolutely deplore the massive amounts of racism and the rise of the far right in our society. Moving past me and you because I can't make comments about how you feel, I don't know you. General trends go like this: We take a leftist, who is typically involved in antiracist struggles, has an understanding of social hierarchies around race and other characteristics. They are expected to care about Sudan, Yemen, Ethiopia, misogyny, transphobia. It would be weird if they didn't. Some don't, by the way, and that's a blind spot that they have. In my experience in my region the worst blind spot is misogyny, it's probably the one where I'm the most guilty as well. Now we establish that this leftist is talking about Israel more than they are talking about Sudan, Yemen, Ethiopia, and we have to figure out why. Could it be that they have a bias against Israel? Yeah, it could be, it's one of the possible theories. There is a much more likely explanation however, and it's that the reason why they keep talking about it is because they keep getting pushback by interlocutors who espouse the opposing view, in the media, in real life, on a 500-page thread in a gaming forum. It's the same reason why I know as much as I do about american police killing black people, it's not because I think the swiss police is amazing, it's because I had years of people telling me that actually all the individual black people who were killed by police had it coming for specific reasons connected to the specific circumstances of their deaths. Could it be instead that all of us leftists in Europe who know about this topic, we just hate the police in the United States? Yeah, it could be. It's just not very likely, there is a much simpler explanation. Now we take some other dude who isn't a leftist, is not involved in antiracist struggles, doesn't talk about racism or social hierarchies on the regular at all, in fact in a lot of cases probably thinks that antiracism has gone too far. Suddenly this guy feels concern that the left is very antisemitic? And they do that not out of the blue, not in the context of talking about racism, but specifically in the context of talking about Israel's actions in Gaza? Again, it could be true, no question about it. That's why I don't want to talk about you personally, I don't and I can't know what's in your heart. I just know that in many cases it is a dishonest endeavor and I know that the dishonesty of the endeavor shapes the discourse that it creates. Going back to the ADL, when they have a manifest ready to publish to talk about how they'll study Mamdani like a hawk to protect the Jews in New York, but it takes them sometimes weeks to tepidly condemn any of the crazy shit Trump says and they'll defend nazi salutes by Elon Musk, clearly this isn't serious at all. Of course we're not directly talking to the ADL here, but you're not talking directly to Stalin either are you. Rhetoric just trickles down like this, and shapes the discourse.
I can pose the same question for why leftists that talk about dog whistles, microaggressions and are quick to point out racism everywhere will then easily dismiss everything concerning jews as anti Israel. Mamdani is case in point when he's not willing to condemn the phrase "globalized the intifada". It's an obvious call to violence.
I'll leave it at this since I think most of the arguments have been made.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On November 17 2025 09:27 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2025 23:59 Billyboy wrote:On November 14 2025 12:59 RvB wrote:On November 13 2025 21:18 stilt wrote:On November 13 2025 13:31 RvB wrote:On October 27 2025 20:08 Jankisa wrote:On October 25 2025 02:10 RvB wrote:
You're wrong. Uyghurs live in a police state. There are no Uyghur who live a nice and stable life except some of the elite that cooperate with the CCP. See for instance part of the article below. It's long but describes it well.. There is not much there that has anything more then what West bank Palestinians don't have, just a different flavor of repression, and from everything I've read, less violent. Also, another thing that crossed my mind when reading this, China, in general is a police state for most of it's citizens, obviously not to the extent of what is being done to Uyughurs but way more then what Israel does to non-West bank Palestinian citizens. China being a police state in general isn't an argument in favour of your point. Israel's occupation does not take the form of a police state. It has no control over the education system, the press, or civil administration in area A and B. Their control is mostly in area C (largest by landmass but lowest by population), and overall security control of the West Bank. In area A and B that's primarily via frequent raids and checkpoints. You also, haven't really provided any evidence for what you wrote, yes, this city has all this, there is 12 million Uygurhs, going around and providing one article and extrapolating it to "no Uyghur who live a nice and stable life" is quite a leap, especially when you put it after an arrogant "you're wrong".
In general you are trying to project some sort of "factually you are wrong" stance when you are obviously quite ignorant on this outside of "how can this guy say something I disagree with". The article is about Xinjiang as a whole. It uses Hotan as a case study. That's how articles like this are frequently structured. It specifically says so as well. If you want more evidence then there's a lot. China has locked up an estimated 0.9m - 1.8m in the detention camps [1] specifically targetting heads of households and community figures pushing their families into poverty, hundreds of thousands of their children are put into boarding schools and schools are transformed into prisons [2], up to half a million, most of them not detained, are in forced labour [3], birth control via intrauterine devices, sterilization and abortion is forced on hundreds of thousands [4]. That's on top of the 1.1 million government officials living with half of families and grid system as mentioned in the Economist article. Then there's the pomegrenate flower policy that does the same thing for children [5], forced labour where they're sent outside of Xinjiang, and the deaths inside the camps. All of which I could not find numbers for but which are significant. In one camp alone 150 detainees died in a period of 6 months [6]. Xinjiang spans over 1.6 million square kilometers, Uyghur dominated areas are about a quarter of that, still bigger then any European country.
Average GDP for a Palestinian in 2024 according to IMF is $2,440.
Average for Xinjiang is around $10,500. The size of Xinjiang is not relevant. I dont understand why you mention it. The statistics from the IMF are for the West Bank and Gaza [7]. The argument is specifically about the West Bank. It's also not adjusted for PPP. Aditionally, China has a huge rural/urban and Han/minority disparity. E.g. Hotans gdp per capita was 20k yuan [8] (approximately 2.8k USD) in 2023 compared to 74k [9](approximately 10.3k USD) for Xinjiang as a whole. Unless you can adjust for that using an average is meaningless. There is plenty of programs that aren't just incredibly repressive to Uyghurs, such as affirmative action that actually help them, there are plenty of Uyghurs who have a much better chance of a good life then Palestinians.
And then there is the random and state sponsored violence and living under a military occupation.
This is why I'd much rather be a Uyghur. Maybe I don't have a problem with saying fuck my religion or national identity, so it's easier for me to imagine having a better life, but it's very wrong to say "You're wrong" on saying that on average there are both who live normal lives and I'd like my chances in China more.
Again, fuck the CCP for doing this shit, it's a slow roll Ethnic Cleansing and Cultural Genocide, too bad that people like you who attack me for saying it's not as bad as West Bank can't say the same about policies that Israel implements there. I dont see much of an argument to respond here. As to Israel and their violations in the West Bank I've been critical of it in this thread. It's a long thread and you were not there so it's not a surprise that you did not read it but I'm also not going to reiterate them. It's a very weird post. Israel has the whole control over the west bank economy and has a puppet at the head of this administration who cooperates in the repression. How on earth Israel has no control there ? It's not all uyghurs neither just the elites who can escape, it's the ones who reject or accept to totally depoliticize their culture which is very close to the same. It is a political and cultural repression of a central state which can indeed be interpreted as colonial logics. This is what is asked for now not to palestinian citizen but to arabs israelis, the latter however are asked to leave. To be fair, the israeli far right who is gaining more and more traction asks the same to every arab israeli while "moderate" scholar are very ambiguous to say the very least. As for the obvious subtext of this discussion which is why caring for palestine and not the uyghur or others people, basically the good old whataboutism :. Here's what herzl, daddy of the zionism has to say : We... as representatives of Western civilization, would bring cleanliness, order and the well-distilled customs of the Occident." He presented palestine as "plague ridden" which will become then an "outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism." Herzl is presented as a "paternalist colonist" by scholar like edward saïd but this kind of speech belongs as well to a eugenistic thought. Since him, all the israeli leaders from Ben Gourion, Meier, Begin and of course "Bibi" as he is affectionately called there have constantly used this rhetoric of the "war of civilization" and has constantly ignated all the racists and supremacists dumbfucks who regreat the good old time where blacks, arabs and all other "inferior races" were subversient. The direct consequence is the diplomatic, economic and military support Israel is enjoying from the west against the palestinian population which China, the houthis and the belligerants in Sudan don't enjoy at all. And as to justify this, we are forced to align our views with Israel. Hence, we gave a academic censorships of almost all the western governements, as it is my field I can confirm france is very brutal about it and the judicial repression under false pretext. Furthermore, the extreme surveillance and control the palestinian population is subject to with the project Nimbus by amazon and google is what is awaiting us all as Palestine is a laboratory of the tool used to control us. It's not like alex karp of the surveillance society Palantir is making a secret of it. I hope this is the end of all the "whataboutism". Your post is the weird one mate. On November 02 2025 08:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
My experience is that the genuine anti-semitism I've seen comes from a) nazis and b) muslims, while most criticism of Israel that I encounter comes from a) leftists and b) muslims. The nazis don't like palestine any more than they like Israel, so they hate jews without caring about the conflict. The leftists dislike/hate Israel without disliking/hating jews, and among muslims, a large majority have a negative view of Israel and there, antisemitism is fairly common as well.
*this isn't to say that belief in some tropes or whatnot is entirely absent among leftists, but 'disliking someone for being part of a particular ethnic group' isn't really compatible with being a leftist. You're a reasonable guy though so your experience is not very representative. The (far) left has always had a significant problem with antisemitism. E.g. The antisemitism of the USSR is well documented [1]. Many of the current anti semetic tropes originated in the USSR. The usage of anti zionist Jews, equating Israeli policy with nazism, and using zionism interchangeably with Jews is still seen today. More recently there was the anti semitism in Corbyn's labour [2]. To Labours credit they took it seriously. That theoretically racism is incompatible with leftist thought does not mean it doesn't happen in practice. Killing millions of your own people is also not compatible, yet it still happened. To be clear antisemitism is also a huge issue on the right. It is an issue on the left, but it is a way way bigger one on the right. Yes it is a larger problem on the right. Show nested quote +On November 15 2025 00:36 WombaT wrote:On November 14 2025 18:02 RvB wrote:On November 14 2025 14:29 Nebuchad wrote:On November 14 2025 12:59 RvB wrote:You're a reasonable guy though so your experience is not very representative. The (far) left has always had a significant problem with antisemitism. E.g. The antisemitism of the USSR is well documented [1]. Many of the current anti semetic tropes originated in the USSR. The usage of anti zionist Jews, equating Israeli policy with nazism, and using zionism interchangeably with Jews is still seen today. More recently there was the anti semitism in Corbyn's labour [2]. To Labours credit they took it seriously. That theoretically racism is incompatible with leftist thought does not mean it doesn't happen in practice. Killing millions of your own people is also not compatible, yet it still happened. To be clear antisemitism is also a huge issue on the right. Your link does not claim that many of the current antisemitic tropes originated in the USSR, it connects the origins a lot more to the end of imperial Russia, under the last tsars (for example the Protocols of the Elders of Zion), which is in line with my understanding. Stalin then uses the undercurrent of antisemitism that already exists to consolidate his power. There are multiple examples of what I mentioned: 1. The KGB and its subservient Eastern Bloc intelligence agencies also dedicated significant resources to cultivating antisemitic and anti-U.S. hatred in the Islamic world. The primary objective of these campaigns
was to prove “the connection between the U.S.A., ‘American capital,’ ‘American imperialism,’ etc., and
Zionism … using interchangeably ‘Zionism,’ and ‘Jews’ or ‘Judaism’” in their narratives. 2. Resolution 3379 narrowly passed384 on November 10, 1975, with 72 in favor, 35 against, and 32 abstaining.
The Kremlin considered the resolution’s passing a major diplomatic victory and a demonstration of the
Soviet Union’s support for Arab countries.385 Soviet propaganda outlets across the USSR — some of which
still exist in Russia today — hailed the resolution in a slew of antisemitic articles comparing Zionism to
fascism and Hitler’s Third Reich as well as channeling the essence of The Protocols.386 According to Israeli
scholar Baruch A. Hazan, in the mid-1970s, “virtually all instruments of international propaganda [had] been
mobilized to battle Zionism.” The Soviet media spread disinformation equating Zionism with Nazism and
Israeli soldiers with Nazis, dismissing acts of antisemitism as Zionist “provocations,” and portraying Zionists
as spies.387 3. In 1984, the Committee took on an even more aggressive role and extreme rhetoric. State propaganda
outlet Pravda published an article featuring “specialist” commentator on “anti-Zionist questions” Vladimir
Bolshakov’s thesis on Zionism, which formulated Zionism as the overall equivalent of Nazism in terms of its
alleged aggression and Nazi-like subversive ideology. Days after the Pravda article, TASS reported the Committee had denounced Israel and the United States for its aggression and equated Israel and Zionism to
Nazism and Nazi-like policies and practices. The Committee held another press conference in May 1984 at
the press center of the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs. David Dragunsky, the Committee’s head, claimed
to “expose the methods borrowed [by Israel] from the arsenal of Nazi war criminals...” 4. Under Andropov’s occupancy of the Kremlin, on March 29, 1983, the Secretariat of the Central Committee
of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) agreed398 to follow the recommendations of the KGB
and of the Central Committee’s Department of Propaganda to establish the Soviet Anti-Zionist Committee
(“the Committee”). The CPSU appointed399 the Committee’s leaders and directed the KGB and the Depart-
ment of Propaganda to supervise and support it. Headed by anti-Zionist Jews, the organ would serve as a
seemingly credible anti-Zionist propaganda mouthpiece for the Soviet state for over a decade. The deploy-
ment of Jews for such a role was an “intentional choice on the part of the KGB, meant to deflect accusations
of antisemitism.400 I had a little Google and found something by the ADL that pertains to your claim and the main bulk seems to be centered around "equating Israeli policy with nazism", as you mentioned yourself. The idea that this is a racist thing to do is quite silly, and it becomes possibly more silly in conjunction with the rest of your sentence because you follow it with something that it is accurate to characterize as racist in my opinion, which is using "Jews" and "zionists" interchangeably. But then if that is a racist thing to do, well, you've just done it. You have just expressed the idea that making a comparison between Israeli policy and nazism is antisemitic, as if it was Jews that were responsible for this policy as opposed to, you know, zionists. Even you should be able to figure out how comparing the only Jewish state, who were the main victims of the Nazi's, to the Nazi's is antisemetic. It'd be a different matter if Israel was murdering minorities on an industrial scale. Not for the first time I'll point out that this isn't really a serious conversation because it doesn't have any context in any of these worldviews. None of the people who talk about this are in the Ukraine thread checking posts for russophobia, none of the people who talk about this have links ready to go about the history of islamophobia in liberal circles. Maybe you should, though? It is interesting what we can hear about muslims in a lot of center and center right spaces. Do I think that if the Fourests and Enthovens of France weren't drowning the waves with their islamophobia, if France didn't have actual ministers of Macron speaking positively about islamoleftism, the conspiracy theory in which leftists and islamists are allied to overthrow and destroy Europe, if we didn't have all of that, then maybe you wouldn't have felt last year that "human shields" was a legitimate argument in defense of what Israel was doing? Eh, who knows. This forum is full of talk about racism in its other forms. Me posting about it contributes little. Your point is especially ironic considering you've barely posted on the atrocities in other conflicts like Sudan, Yemen, Ethiopia. For what it's worth I absolutely deplore the massive amounts of racism and the rise of the far right in our society. Ultimately using antisemitism like this, not in an effort to make Jews safer but in an effort to discredit cool people like Mamdani or Corbyn or to defend otherwise indefensible practices, is dangerous. It creates more hatred, not less. I and others like me will continue to try and fight antisemitism when we see it in the left (which is not very often at all), but a lot of people aren't leftists, or woke, and they'll be hearing this nonsense too. I've only talked about Corbyn in the context of his Labour not dealing with antisemitism. That's a fact. The whole problem is that much of the left is not capable of properly identifying antisemitism. Drone is very reasonable, level headed and clearly not antisemetic. If even he comes to the conclusion that the left dislikes Israel without disliking Jews that gives me very little hope. At the extremes that is simply not the case. Just as on the right criticism of immigration turns into outright racism. That comparison isn’t necessarily anti-Semitic, it can be many things. Apt, wrong, or anti-Semitic. So I think you end up with a categorisation issue. The left’s intellectual tradition is also very influenced by prominent Jewish thinkers, indeed, this is often invoked by prominent anti-Semites. Many things can be true. I’d agree that the left does have some blind spots. But some criticism of Israel can also be conflated with anti-Semitism and defused or deflected that way. Corbyn’s stewardship you see both these at work. Definitely some failings on his watch, as the investigation and report showed. And as to your point, yeah I think people have dismissed some of that too lightly. Equally, for many, the punishment didn’t fit the crime, and a general party direction they were enthused about got completely dismantled. In a crude sense there’s probably some happy medium between not taking it seriously and being over-zealous. Indeed I think the latter can actually be actively counter-productive I pretty much agree. The term antisemitism is used too easily by some as well. Show nested quote +On November 15 2025 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:On November 14 2025 18:02 RvB wrote:
Even you should be able to figure out how comparing the only Jewish state, who were the main victims of the Nazi's, to the Nazi's is antisemetic. It'd be a different matter if Israel was murdering minorities on an industrial scale. I'm not though? We've just established that it would be antisemitic to equate Jews and zionists. Statements that are about Jews can be antisemitic. Statements that are about zionists can only be antisemitic insofar as they use "zionists" to mean "Jews". This statement could easily just be about Netanyahu or about Israel, in which case it could definitionally not be antisemitic. Using "the only Jewish state" to try and say something, that is just cope isn't it? If there was a second jewish state then it would be a fine thing to say but now it isn't? Please. I retract the "even you" part. That was unnecessary. If Israel were acting like Nazi's and wanted to occupy all of the middle east, killed minorities on an industrial scale, etc. then the comparison would not be antisemetic. They're clearly not Nazi's though. The comparison is made because they're a Jewish state. If Israel were the Islamic state of Israel and Zionism the movement to create an Islamic state in Israel there'd not be the nazi comparisons. Show nested quote +This forum is full of talk about racism in its other forms. Me posting about it contributes little. Your point is especially ironic considering you've barely posted on the atrocities in other conflicts like Sudan, Yemen, Ethiopia. For what it's worth I absolutely deplore the massive amounts of racism and the rise of the far right in our society. Moving past me and you because I can't make comments about how you feel, I don't know you. General trends go like this: We take a leftist, who is typically involved in antiracist struggles, has an understanding of social hierarchies around race and other characteristics. They are expected to care about Sudan, Yemen, Ethiopia, misogyny, transphobia. It would be weird if they didn't. Some don't, by the way, and that's a blind spot that they have. In my experience in my region the worst blind spot is misogyny, it's probably the one where I'm the most guilty as well. Now we establish that this leftist is talking about Israel more than they are talking about Sudan, Yemen, Ethiopia, and we have to figure out why. Could it be that they have a bias against Israel? Yeah, it could be, it's one of the possible theories. There is a much more likely explanation however, and it's that the reason why they keep talking about it is because they keep getting pushback by interlocutors who espouse the opposing view, in the media, in real life, on a 500-page thread in a gaming forum. It's the same reason why I know as much as I do about american police killing black people, it's not because I think the swiss police is amazing, it's because I had years of people telling me that actually all the individual black people who were killed by police had it coming for specific reasons connected to the specific circumstances of their deaths. Could it be instead that all of us leftists in Europe who know about this topic, we just hate the police in the United States? Yeah, it could be. It's just not very likely, there is a much simpler explanation. Now we take some other dude who isn't a leftist, is not involved in antiracist struggles, doesn't talk about racism or social hierarchies on the regular at all, in fact in a lot of cases probably thinks that antiracism has gone too far. Suddenly this guy feels concern that the left is very antisemitic? And they do that not out of the blue, not in the context of talking about racism, but specifically in the context of talking about Israel's actions in Gaza? Again, it could be true, no question about it. That's why I don't want to talk about you personally, I don't and I can't know what's in your heart. I just know that in many cases it is a dishonest endeavor and I know that the dishonesty of the endeavor shapes the discourse that it creates. Going back to the ADL, when they have a manifest ready to publish to talk about how they'll study Mamdani like a hawk to protect the Jews in New York, but it takes them sometimes weeks to tepidly condemn any of the crazy shit Trump says and they'll defend nazi salutes by Elon Musk, clearly this isn't serious at all. Of course we're not directly talking to the ADL here, but you're not talking directly to Stalin either are you. Rhetoric just trickles down like this, and shapes the discourse. I can pose the same question for why leftists that talk about dog whistles, microaggressions and are quick to point out racism everywhere will then easily dismiss everything concerning jews as anti Israel. Mamdani is case in point when he's not willing to condemn the phrase "globalized the intifada". It's an obvious call to violence. I'll leave it at this since I think most of the arguments have been made.
I mean it’s a question that is going to vary depending on the leftist in question, but fair point.
Young me at pro-Palestine demos, hey ‘from the river to the sea’ was just a catchy slogan. Older me recognises some of the rather problematic connotations there.
I think there is a wider tendency to side with the underdog as it were too, which also leads to pretty problematic views on the conflict. Something I have clashed with people in my social circles on. ‘Globalising the Intifada’ would probably fall under that, although I must confess I’m not familiar with Mamdani’s utterances on that.
All absolutely fair enough. I mean the ADL aren’t some authorities on such things, but their positions do carry some weight. As previously mentioned, their credibility relies on well, being somewhat credible, and yes I recognise they’re not an entirely monolithic institution operation.
You can’t scold people on the most minor invocation of tropes if you can’t rebuke a guest of the President doing a Nazi salute at an inauguration. Even if it’s merely ‘we’re sure Elon Musk isn’t a Nazi, but doing a Seig Heil on such a stage isn’t good craic’.
|
Yes, ADL not calling out that gesture is inexcusable.
|
On November 17 2025 09:27 RvB wrote:
I retract the "even you" part. That was unnecessary. If Israel were acting like Nazi's and wanted to occupy all of the middle east, killed minorities on an industrial scale, etc. then the comparison would not be antisemetic. They're clearly not Nazi's though. The comparison is made because they're a Jewish state. If Israel were the Islamic state of Israel and Zionism the movement to create an Islamic state in Israel there'd not be the nazi comparisons.
I don't think that's the case and I think the easiest counter I have is just Trump. He isn't Jewish, he doesn't act like a nazi under the set of defining actions that you've given here, and his administration, especially in the context of ICE but not exclusively, is regularly compared to nazis.
The way I see it is, it is true that talking about nazis to describe far right projects is not entirely accurate because "nazis" evokes what the nazis did in the height of world war times and we are currently not (yet) in a world war. "Fascist" has a more "neutral" far right connotation and is a more accurate word. But, like, it really really doesn't matter at all, it's a "uhhh actually" to the tenth degree. And it certainly shouldn't, alone, lead you to draw conclusions on people's bias.
I can pose the same question for why leftists that talk about dog whistles, microaggressions and are quick to point out racism everywhere will then easily dismiss everything concerning jews as anti Israel. Mamdani is case in point when he's not willing to condemn the phrase "globalized the intifada". It's an obvious call to violence.
I'll leave it at this since I think most of the arguments have been made.
Well, it's because your perception is wrong on two fronts. You think the left thinks everything is racist, and we don't. And you think that the left thinks nothing is antisemitic, and we don't either. This aligns pretty well with the type of person that I was describing in the last post.
|
On November 17 2025 11:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 09:27 RvB wrote:
I retract the "even you" part. That was unnecessary. If Israel were acting like Nazi's and wanted to occupy all of the middle east, killed minorities on an industrial scale, etc. then the comparison would not be antisemetic. They're clearly not Nazi's though. The comparison is made because they're a Jewish state. If Israel were the Islamic state of Israel and Zionism the movement to create an Islamic state in Israel there'd not be the nazi comparisons. I don't think that's the case and I think the easiest counter I have is just Trump. He isn't Jewish, he doesn't act like a nazi under the set of defining actions that you've given here, and his administration, especially in the context of ICE but not exclusively, is regularly compared to nazis. The way I see it is, it is true that talking about nazis to describe far right projects is not entirely accurate because "nazis" evokes what the nazis did in the height of world war times and we are currently not (yet) in a world war. "Fascist" has a more "neutral" far right connotation and is a more accurate word. But, like, it really really doesn't matter at all, it's a "uhhh actually" to the tenth degree. And it certainly shouldn't, alone, lead you to draw conclusions on people's bias.
Your logic is faulty. Two different entities can be called Nazi for different reasons.
"That dude is at KFC every day" can be a racist statement or a neutral one depending on the context.
Show nested quote +I can pose the same question for why leftists that talk about dog whistles, microaggressions and are quick to point out racism everywhere will then easily dismiss everything concerning jews as anti Israel. Mamdani is case in point when he's not willing to condemn the phrase "globalized the intifada". It's an obvious call to violence.
I'll leave it at this since I think most of the arguments have been made. Well, it's because your perception is wrong on two fronts. You think the left thinks everything is racist, and we don't. And you think that the left thinks nothing is antisemitic, and we don't either. This aligns pretty well with the type of person that I was describing in the last post.
Way to miss the point. Stop being defensive for a moment and think about what he's saying. There is a culture on the left of hyperanalysis of social wrongs and injustices. It is hyper aware and sensitive to any sort of offensive, bigoted or harmful trope or action against minorities.
This sort of sensitivity this does not seem to apply in the same way to Jews, especially in the context of I/P (in my opinion due to western leftists' categorization of Israelis and Jews as white and privileged, but that's beside the point).
That is not to say every leftist is this or that. But as a general trend, it is a blindspot on the left and shows that people are more socially motivated than principled.
Answer me this: where was "believe all women" when Israeli women were found dead with their pants pulled down (and you know what else), when captive women reported sexual violence, when the UN reported on sexual violence on Oct 7th? Would you like to ask the Hasan Pikers of the world? Have you seen leftist reaction to these things?
Like seriously, forget "believe all women", I would've been okay with "trust and verify". Heck, I would've loved just "verify"!
|
United States43534 Posts
On November 17 2025 14:29 mindjames wrote:
"That dude is at KFC every day" can be a racist statement or a neutral one depending on the context.
No it can’t. It’s specifically about an individual, not a group of people. Let’s say, for example, that dude is black. We’re still not talking about a race, just him. “is at” is an assertion of fact, not a supposition or extrapolation or hypothesis. We’re not looking at a random black dude and saying we bet he’s at KFC a lot because he’s black. He is at KFC a lot, we know this. He’s there daily? He probably works at KFC. Or maybe he just really likes fried chicken. But he’s an individual and fried chicken is delicious. That’s why KFC exists as a chain. Some people, even black people, really like KFC, and that’s okay.
|
On November 17 2025 14:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 14:29 mindjames wrote:
"That dude is at KFC every day" can be a racist statement or a neutral one depending on the context. No it can’t. It’s specifically about an individual, not a group of people. Let’s say, for example, that dude is black. We’re still not talking about a race, just him. “is at” is an assertion of fact, not a supposition or extrapolation or hypothesis. We’re not looking at a random black dude and saying we bet he’s at KFC a lot because he’s black. He is at KFC a lot, we know this. He’s there daily? He probably works at KFC. Or maybe he just really likes fried chicken. But he’s an individual and fried chicken is delicious. That’s why KFC exists as a chain. Some people, even black people, really like KFC, and that’s okay.
Congrats on the mental gymnastics. Now imagine that statement being said about a fat black person, where the speaker doesn't know for a fact that he's in KFC every day. Make sense to you now?
Maybe you'd like some other examples of things that can be racist depending on context, or are you keen on contending that context doesn't matter for determining that a statement is racist???
Think for a goddamn moment before you post, seriously.
|
Kwark, I see you, you're about to type some dumb shit about the KFC example.
Stop.
Do you agree that Trump being called a Nazi for one reason is not mutually exclusive with Israelis being called Nazi for another reason, yes or no.
Do you agree that context matters in determining whether something is racist, yes or no.
Thank you.
|
United States43534 Posts
On November 17 2025 15:05 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 14:56 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2025 14:29 mindjames wrote:
"That dude is at KFC every day" can be a racist statement or a neutral one depending on the context. No it can’t. It’s specifically about an individual, not a group of people. Let’s say, for example, that dude is black. We’re still not talking about a race, just him. “is at” is an assertion of fact, not a supposition or extrapolation or hypothesis. We’re not looking at a random black dude and saying we bet he’s at KFC a lot because he’s black. He is at KFC a lot, we know this. He’s there daily? He probably works at KFC. Or maybe he just really likes fried chicken. But he’s an individual and fried chicken is delicious. That’s why KFC exists as a chain. Some people, even black people, really like KFC, and that’s okay. Congrats on the mental gymnastics. Now imagine that statement being said about a fat black person, where the speaker doesn't know for a fact that he's in KFC every day. Make sense to you now? Maybe you'd like some other examples of things that can be racist depending on context, or are you keen on contending that context doesn't matter for determining that a statement is racist??? Think for a goddamn moment before you post, seriously.
You came up with the example, not me. There is no context in which your example of a phrase which you say could be racist is racist.
If I say “that Jewish guy is a lawyer” then it’s also not racist. He’s either a lawyer or he’s not. Jewish lawyers exist. They’re allowed to practice law. They’re not required to, but some do.
It’s not my fault you suck at examples. If the example that you picked doesn’t hold up then do better.
|
United States43534 Posts
On November 17 2025 15:10 mindjames wrote:
Kwark, I see you, you're about to type some dumb shit about the KFC example.
Stop.
Do you agree that Trump being called a Nazi for one reason is not mutually exclusive with Israelis being called Nazi for another reason, yes or no.
Do you agree that context matters in determining whether something is racist, yes or no.
Thank you.
That Israeli sucks at arguing online.
|
On November 17 2025 15:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 15:05 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 14:56 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2025 14:29 mindjames wrote:
"That dude is at KFC every day" can be a racist statement or a neutral one depending on the context. No it can’t. It’s specifically about an individual, not a group of people. Let’s say, for example, that dude is black. We’re still not talking about a race, just him. “is at” is an assertion of fact, not a supposition or extrapolation or hypothesis. We’re not looking at a random black dude and saying we bet he’s at KFC a lot because he’s black. He is at KFC a lot, we know this. He’s there daily? He probably works at KFC. Or maybe he just really likes fried chicken. But he’s an individual and fried chicken is delicious. That’s why KFC exists as a chain. Some people, even black people, really like KFC, and that’s okay. Congrats on the mental gymnastics. Now imagine that statement being said about a fat black person, where the speaker doesn't know for a fact that he's in KFC every day. Make sense to you now? Maybe you'd like some other examples of things that can be racist depending on context, or are you keen on contending that context doesn't matter for determining that a statement is racist??? Think for a goddamn moment before you post, seriously. You came up with the example, not me. There is no context in which your example of a phrase which you say could be racist is racist. If I say “that Jewish guy is a lawyer” then it’s also not racist. He’s either a lawyer or he’s not. Jewish lawyers exist. They’re allowed to practice law. They’re not required to, but some do. It’s not my fault you suck at examples. If the example that you picked doesn’t hold up then do better.
"I don't like them banker types" (speaker doesn't know it's a banker, only that it's a Jewish person) - neutral when said of an actual banker.
"I don't like em gang types" (sees black person, no other information) - neutral when said of an actual gang member.
"I don't wanna ride with that guy" (sees Asian cab driver) - neutral when said about a drunk friend.
Happy?
|
On November 17 2025 15:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 15:10 mindjames wrote:
Kwark, I see you, you're about to type some dumb shit about the KFC example.
Stop.
Do you agree that Trump being called a Nazi for one reason is not mutually exclusive with Israelis being called Nazi for another reason, yes or no.
Do you agree that context matters in determining whether something is racist, yes or no.
Thank you. That Israeli sucks at arguing online.
Never answer any direct question, only make jokes!
Your followed the prompt and proved me right, weasel, congrats.
|
United States43534 Posts
On November 17 2025 15:17 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 15:11 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2025 15:05 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 14:56 KwarK wrote:On November 17 2025 14:29 mindjames wrote:
"That dude is at KFC every day" can be a racist statement or a neutral one depending on the context. No it can’t. It’s specifically about an individual, not a group of people. Let’s say, for example, that dude is black. We’re still not talking about a race, just him. “is at” is an assertion of fact, not a supposition or extrapolation or hypothesis. We’re not looking at a random black dude and saying we bet he’s at KFC a lot because he’s black. He is at KFC a lot, we know this. He’s there daily? He probably works at KFC. Or maybe he just really likes fried chicken. But he’s an individual and fried chicken is delicious. That’s why KFC exists as a chain. Some people, even black people, really like KFC, and that’s okay. Congrats on the mental gymnastics. Now imagine that statement being said about a fat black person, where the speaker doesn't know for a fact that he's in KFC every day. Make sense to you now? Maybe you'd like some other examples of things that can be racist depending on context, or are you keen on contending that context doesn't matter for determining that a statement is racist??? Think for a goddamn moment before you post, seriously. You came up with the example, not me. There is no context in which your example of a phrase which you say could be racist is racist. If I say “that Jewish guy is a lawyer” then it’s also not racist. He’s either a lawyer or he’s not. Jewish lawyers exist. They’re allowed to practice law. They’re not required to, but some do. It’s not my fault you suck at examples. If the example that you picked doesn’t hold up then do better. "I don't like them banker types" (speaker doesn't know it's a banker, only that it's a Jewish person) - neutral when said of an actual banker. "I don't like em gang types" (sees black person, no other information) - neutral when said of an actual gang member. "I don't wanna ride with that guy" (sees Asian cab driver) - neutral when said about a drunk friend. Happy?
Yes, those are acceptable examples of people assuming racist stereotypes. Please continue.
|
I get you homie, answering questions is kinda hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
