| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
KwarK
United States43241 Posts
I entered to provide you correction and upon reading my feedback you chose to actively participate in the learning process. Nobody made you. You have provided me with new examples based on the feedback I provided and after reviewing them I find your new examples are acceptable. I’ve said as much. We’re done now, please continue with whatever you were doing before. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel396 Posts
"I am here to derail the politics topic I started" "I will not be engaging substantively on the subject matter, only shitpost poorly" | ||
|
KwarK
United States43241 Posts
In any case, if one of us is derailing here then it is you. I keep encouraging you to resume whatever it was you were doing before. I’m not sure what that was, I generally skim through your posts while scrolling down, but I’m sure it wasn’t this. I don’t know where this neediness is coming from but I have absolutely no interest in giving you whatever it is you’re looking for. Please resume whatever you were doing before I corrected your shitty example. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel396 Posts
You derailed this when you failed to recognize what I meant with that example (which was extremely obvious) and instead started an argument about black stereotypes, which is not what the thread is about. So instead of going down that path, I gave you other examples. I'll be less derailing than you and offer to explain to you how my original example absolutely works in PM, that could be a learning opportunity for you! | ||
|
KwarK
United States43241 Posts
Please resume whatever you were discussing previously. If you want to continue discussing examples then you might want to make a dedicated topic for that. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel396 Posts
On November 17 2025 16:09 KwarK wrote: It seems like you’re still struggling with examples. I suggest you review the feedback I previously provided on why the example doesn’t hold up. I have nothing new to add at this time. If after reviewing the feedback you’re still struggling then please feel free to review the feedback. Please resume whatever you were discussing previously. If you want to continue discussing examples then you might want to make a dedicated topic for that. Thank you for your incredible contribution to this thread in an attempt to get one over me, every reader has been made better by your educational input. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12348 Posts
On November 17 2025 14:29 mindjames wrote: Your logic is faulty. Two different entities can be called Nazi for different reasons. You haven't shown that my logic is faulty. Two different entities can be called nazi for different reasons, but in this case there is no logical reason to assume that this is what is happening. It's much more likely that they are called nazi for the exact same reason. On top of that, the point of talking about Trump is to adress the incorrect inference that RvB made: "This comparison is made because they're a Jewish state". Clearly, providing examples of the same statement being made to people who are not Jewish, or a Jewish state, shows that the inference is, at the very least, incomplete. This seemed very basic to me, I didn't feel like I needed to explain all of that, I would have expected most people to get it from the first post. But there we are. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18122 Posts
On November 17 2025 15:37 KwarK wrote: I have no interest in your question, I just read your extremely bad example and saw a learning opportunity for you. I entered to provide you correction and upon reading my feedback you chose to actively participate in the learning process. Nobody made you. You have provided me with new examples based on the feedback I provided and after reviewing them I find your new examples are acceptable. I’ve said as much. We’re done now, please continue with whatever you were doing before. I can't help but read this in the voice of GLaDOS. I do hope there's cake, though. This thread needs cake. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel396 Posts
On November 17 2025 16:29 Nebuchad wrote: You haven't shown that my logic is faulty. Two different entities can be called nazi for different reasons, but in this case there is no logical reason to assume that this is what is happening. It's much more likely that they are called nazi for the exact same reason. Why is it more likely? Can one not call Trump a Nazi for his authoritarian and ultranationalistic approach, and Israel for supposedly attempting to genocide Palestinians? If they're called Nazi for the same reason, what is that reason then? On top of that, the point of talking about Trump is to adress the incorrect inference that RvB made: "This comparison is made because they're a Jewish state". Clearly, providing examples of the same statement being made to people who are not Jewish, or a Jewish state, shows that the inference is, at the very least, incomplete. Wrong. I can call Israel a Nazi state because I'm antisemitic and want to delegitimize it in that way, and simultaneously call Trump a Nazi for a completely different reason. Can I not? That is not to say one could only call Israel Nazi for antisemitic reasons, but that's another discussion. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12348 Posts
On November 17 2025 16:43 mindjames wrote: Why is it more likely? Can one not call Trump a Nazi for his authoritarian and ultranationalistic approach, and Israel for supposedly attempting to genocide Palestinians? If they're called Nazi for the same reason, what is that reason then? Wrong. I can call Israel a Nazi state because I'm antisemitic and want to delegitimize it in that way, and simultaneously call Trump a Nazi for a completely different reason. Can I not? That is not to say one could only call Israel Nazi for antisemitic reasons, but that's another discussion. Presenting alternative theories doesn't show that my logic is faulty, it's just presenting alternative theories. You are not arguing for your claim. In RvB's post we can see that he reasoned that if Israel was muslim we wouldn't call it nazi. In your understanding, that wouldn't change anything, because we could call that muslim Israel nazi for a completely different reason. This shows that RvB and I are operating under the same understanding of the parameters of what we're talking about, and you're on your own somewhere else. Have fun being there I guess. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel396 Posts
On November 17 2025 16:35 Acrofales wrote: I can't help but read this in the voice of GLaDOS. I do hope there's cake, though. This thread needs cake. Me too, man. Me too. You know, I'm kind of flattered - the fact that Kwack reads through all of my posts and only chooses to nitpick on the most unimportant and trivial parts, shows that he doesn't really have anything to say to my overall points. And you know how much he wants to! Lil' Kwacky's on my side after all! <3 | ||
|
KwarK
United States43241 Posts
| ||
|
mindjames
Israel396 Posts
On November 17 2025 16:53 Nebuchad wrote: Presenting alternative theories doesn't show that my logic is faulty, it's just presenting alternative theories. You are not arguing for your claim. In RvB's post we can see that he reasoned that if Israel was muslim we wouldn't call it nazi. In your understanding, that wouldn't change anything, because we could call that muslim Israel nazi for a completely different reason. This shows that RvB and I are operating under the same understanding of the parameters of what we're talking about, and you're on your own somewhere else. Have fun being there I guess. We are mixing "could be" and "is likely" statements. Let's be clear. I interpret RvB to be of the opinion that Israel is likely being called Nazi for being Jewish, and likely would not be called that if they were Muslim. He can correct me if I'm wrong, and you can too. I think some examples could be given there to substantiate this, if you wanna go down that road. Next, please answer my questions. Why is it "more likely" that Trump and Israel are called Nazi for the same reason? And if so, what is that reason then? | ||
|
mindjames
Israel396 Posts
On November 17 2025 16:53 KwarK wrote: At first I found it inconceivable why someone would look at a nation that during war displaced an existing population from their land, forced them into camps, and replaced them with settlers, and think Nazi is an appropriate word. But when I looked at the facts I couldn’t see any other conclusion; ethnic cleansing, camps, a need for increased living space for the chosen people. Yes, the evidence is clear. 1940s Germany had some distinctly Nazi traits. Strong words from a guy who routinely denies harmful stereotypes against black people. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43241 Posts
On November 17 2025 17:00 mindjames wrote: Strong words from a guy who routinely denies harmful stereotypes against black people. On November 16 2025 01:27 mindjames wrote: you must think I'm an idiot. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12348 Posts
On November 17 2025 16:58 mindjames wrote: We are mixing "could be" and "is likely" statements. Let's be clear. I interpret RvB to be of the opinion that Israel is likely being called Nazi for being Jewish, and likely would not be called that if they were Muslim. He can correct me if I'm wrong, and you can too. I think some examples could be given there to substantiate this, if you wanna go down that road. You're mixing a "Your logic is faulty" statement with a "Your logic is not faulty" statement. The difference is the "not" in the second sentence. On November 17 2025 16:58 mindjames wrote: Why is it "more likely" that Trump and Israel are called Nazi for the same reason? And if so, what is that reason then? They're both far right governments engaged in far right projects. "Nazi" is a term that describes people on the far right. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel396 Posts
On November 17 2025 17:01 Nebuchad wrote: You're mixing a "Your logic is faulty" statement with a "Your logic is not faulty" statement. The difference is the "not" in the second sentence. Please focus and engage with what I'm saying. They're both far right governments engaged in far right projects. "Nazi" is a term that describes people on the far right. That's a fair assumption. I'm not sure it makes it "more likely", especially when the accusations against Israel are often tied to its treatment of Palestinians. You must see the correlation there. People could not know the makeup of the Israeli government and call it Nazi for said treatment. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12348 Posts
On November 17 2025 17:09 mindjames wrote: Please focus and engage with what I'm saying. That's a fair assumption. I'm not sure it makes it "more likely", especially when the accusations against Israel are often tied to its treatment of Palestinians. You must see the correlation there. People could not know the makeup of the Israeli government and call it Nazi for said treatment. "Its treatment of Palestinians" is the main far right thing that Israel is doing. You are not making a powerful distinction. People don't go "Fuck I hate this nazi Trump, but I have to create a distinction, it's only because he has far right politics and not because of how he treats Latino immigrants". Nobody on the left has ever said this. | ||
|
mindjames
Israel396 Posts
On November 17 2025 17:14 Nebuchad wrote: "Its treatment of Palestinians" is the main far right thing that Israel is doing. You are not making a powerful distinction. People don't go "Fuck I hate this nazi Trump, but I have to create a distinction, it's only because he has far right politics and not because of how he treats Latino immigrants". Nobody on the left has ever said this. Let's be clear that we are talking about perceptions here. I will try to emphasize RvB's position. Here's a controversial topic: Israel's treatment of Palestinians. A strong proponent of Israel will say that its treatment of Palestinians is the most moral that can be, given the circumstances and available alternatives. A strong opponent of Israel will say that its treatment of Palestinians is the least moral, given the same. If I am antisemitic, I will need no evidence of Israel's conduct - I will simply conclude that it is immoral and make the assumption that it is genociding the Palestinians, and/or have been since the beginning (vice versa with a person who is fanatically Zionist, of course). RvB thinks - if I understand him correctly - that this type of occurrence is extremely prevalent. You could say having far-right tendencies is the reason for being called Nazi, let's go with that. The perception of an entity's actions can be affected by the biases of the observer, and that in turn will determine whether it sees them as "far right" in that manner. Your assessment does not preclude RvB being correct. He need only show an anti-Jewish bias and a rejection of evidence that favors Israel, in a group or individual. I will point out that people have called Israel a Nazi state through Rabin's prime ministership, through the 2005 withdrawal, etc. You can argue it was less people (and I would agree there), but people on the far left, as well as much of the Muslim world, has been calling Israel Nazi forever. It is absolutely fair to assume that at least part of that has to do with antisemitism, even if not all. (Fucking hell, how did I get dragged to the antisemitism discussion again? I don't even like making these arguments, it's an incredibly hard thing to assess and measure and I'm not really interested in it. I hope I clarified RvB's position at least.) | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12348 Posts
On November 17 2025 17:45 mindjames wrote: Let's be clear that we are talking about perceptions here. I will try to emphasize RvB's position. Here's a controversial topic: Israel's treatment of Palestinians. A strong proponent of Israel will say that its treatment of Palestinians is the most moral that can be, given the circumstances and available alternatives. A strong opponent of Israel will say that its treatment of Palestinians is the least moral, given the same. If I am antisemitic, I will need no evidence of Israel's conduct - I will simply conclude that it is immoral and make the assumption that it is genociding the Palestinians, and/or have been since the beginning (vice versa with a person who is fanatically Zionist, of course). RvB thinks - if I understand him correctly - that this type of occurrence is extremely prevalent. You could say having far-right tendencies is the reason for being called Nazi, let's go with that. The perception of an entity's actions can be affected by the biases of the observer, and that in turn will determine whether it sees them as "far right" in that manner. Yes, all of that is entirely possible. It's just much less likely than my alternative, because you're trying to explain something that is already in line with what you should expect. The most likely reason why something that makes complete sense happens is probably because it makes complete sense, as opposed to because of some underlying hidden agenda. Let's compare this with something that doesn't make complete sense. Let's take some huge racist in the United States, some Trump guy. He wants to kick all the black and brown people from the US, including muslims. Denying them citizenship, putting them in camps, killing them, everything is fine with him. But suddenly he speaks out against the treatment of Palestinians by Israel? Well, that is inconsistent. We have a reason to wonder why he thinks that, and one of the likely candidates is antisemitism. Let's take the opposite, let's say that instead he applauds the treatment of Palestinians by Israel. Would you think that this individual is more likely to have this approving view of Israel because he loves Jewish people, or because he hates muslims? There's only one correct answer. I want to point out again that all you're doing is creating an alternative theory, and none of this shows that my logic is faulty. If you can't show that my logic is faulty in the next post I will conclude that it wasn't. Your assessment does not preclude RvB being correct. He need only show an anti-Jewish bias and a rejection of evidence that favors Israel, in a group or individual. What you describe here precludes RvB from being correct, because it would then be that anti-Jewish bias that he shows that demonstrates antisemitism, and not the mere act of comparing zionism and nazism. In your own argument in defense of RvB, the claim that RvB defends is wrong. | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
WardiTV Korean Royale
BSL: GosuLeague
The PondCast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Reynor
Maru vs SHIN
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
BSL: GosuLeague
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
