|
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 17:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 17:45 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:14 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2025 17:09 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:01 Nebuchad wrote: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. Please focus and engage with what I'm saying. 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. 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. 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. Show nested quote +
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.
Claim: "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. [...] 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."
Counter-argument: "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."
Your statement is either sufficient or insufficient to refute RvB's claim depending on how you interpret the sentence "The comparison is made because they're a Jewish state".
Do you think RvB is saying:
1. Calling Israel Nazi can only ever be done due to antisemitic views
Or
2. The reason the comparison is this prevalent is because of antisemitic views
So, I will amend my statement: You are either employing faulty logic, or interpreting RvB's statement differently than me. Perhaps he can clarify?
|
On November 17 2025 18:26 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 17:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2025 17:45 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:14 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2025 17:09 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:01 Nebuchad wrote: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. Please focus and engage with what I'm saying. 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. 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. 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. Claim: "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. [...] 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." Counter-argument: "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." Your statement is either sufficient or insufficient to refute RvB's claim depending on how you interpret the sentence "The comparison is made because they're a Jewish state". Do you think RvB is saying: 1. Calling Israel Nazi can only ever be done due to antisemitic views Or 2. The reason the comparison is this prevalent is because of antisemitic views So, I will amend my statement: You are either employing faulty logic, or interpreting RvB's statement differently than me. Perhaps he can clarify?
I think it's 1), I think RvB is saying that calling Israel nazi can only ever be done due to antisemitic views.
|
On November 17 2025 18:28 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 18:26 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2025 17:45 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:14 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2025 17:09 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:01 Nebuchad wrote: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. Please focus and engage with what I'm saying. 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. 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. 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. Claim: "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. [...] 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." Counter-argument: "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." Your statement is either sufficient or insufficient to refute RvB's claim depending on how you interpret the sentence "The comparison is made because they're a Jewish state". Do you think RvB is saying: 1. Calling Israel Nazi can only ever be done due to antisemitic views Or 2. The reason the comparison is this prevalent is because of antisemitic views So, I will amend my statement: You are either employing faulty logic, or interpreting RvB's statement differently than me. Perhaps he can clarify? I think it's 1), I think RvB is saying that calling Israel nazi can only ever be done due to antisemitic views.
Okay well, let's see if he wants to amend his statement or clarify then.
|
On November 17 2025 18:29 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 18:28 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2025 18:26 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:58 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2025 17:45 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:14 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2025 17:09 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:01 Nebuchad wrote: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. Please focus and engage with what I'm saying. 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. 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. 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. Claim: "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. [...] 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." Counter-argument: "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." Your statement is either sufficient or insufficient to refute RvB's claim depending on how you interpret the sentence "The comparison is made because they're a Jewish state". Do you think RvB is saying: 1. Calling Israel Nazi can only ever be done due to antisemitic views Or 2. The reason the comparison is this prevalent is because of antisemitic views So, I will amend my statement: You are either employing faulty logic, or interpreting RvB's statement differently than me. Perhaps he can clarify? I think it's 1), I think RvB is saying that calling Israel nazi can only ever be done due to antisemitic views. Okay well, let's see if he wants to amend his statement or clarify then.
I have an advantage over you on this, I have read the thread so I know that this is already clear.
On November 14 2025 12:59 RvB wrote:
Many of the current anti semetic tropes originated in the USSR. [...] equating Israeli policy with nazism
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.
On November 17 2025 09:27 RvB wrote:
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.
|
All of these can be interpreted as "this is the main culprit" / "this is engaging in antisemitic tropes" (whether knowingly or not). Do you think he would disagree that a person could call Israel a Nazi state if all they knew about it was that the current government was extremely right wing?
He is making a generalization, you are making it absolute. Maybe he means it that way, but I don't think so.
|
On November 17 2025 18:47 mindjames wrote:
All of these can be interpreted as "this is the main culprit" / "this is engaging in antisemitic tropes" (whether knowingly or not). Do you think he would disagree that a person could call Israel a Nazi state if all they knew about it was that the current government was extremely right wing?
I do not know what he would say. I told him that it was silly to say that making comparisons between zionism and nazism was one of the antisemitic tropes that the left introduced, he had the opportunity to say "Yeah of course you're right it is silly, I meant something else with some other specific conditions", but he didn't, he doubled down. I agree with you that it is a silly claim.
|
On November 17 2025 18:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 18:47 mindjames wrote:
All of these can be interpreted as "this is the main culprit" / "this is engaging in antisemitic tropes" (whether knowingly or not). Do you think he would disagree that a person could call Israel a Nazi state if all they knew about it was that the current government was extremely right wing? I do not know what he would say. I told him that it was silly to say that making comparisons between zionism and nazism was one of the antisemitic tropes that the left introduced, he had the opportunity to say "Yeah of course you're right it is silly, I meant something else with some other specific conditions", but he didn't, he doubled down. I agree with you that it is a silly claim.
Well do you agree that the comparison is as common as it is at least partly because it involves Jews?
|
On November 17 2025 18:55 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 18:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2025 18:47 mindjames wrote:
All of these can be interpreted as "this is the main culprit" / "this is engaging in antisemitic tropes" (whether knowingly or not). Do you think he would disagree that a person could call Israel a Nazi state if all they knew about it was that the current government was extremely right wing? I do not know what he would say. I told him that it was silly to say that making comparisons between zionism and nazism was one of the antisemitic tropes that the left introduced, he had the opportunity to say "Yeah of course you're right it is silly, I meant something else with some other specific conditions", but he didn't, he doubled down. I agree with you that it is a silly claim. Well do you agree that the comparison is as common as it is at least partly because it involves Jews?
No
|
On November 17 2025 18:56 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 18:55 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 18:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2025 18:47 mindjames wrote:
All of these can be interpreted as "this is the main culprit" / "this is engaging in antisemitic tropes" (whether knowingly or not). Do you think he would disagree that a person could call Israel a Nazi state if all they knew about it was that the current government was extremely right wing? I do not know what he would say. I told him that it was silly to say that making comparisons between zionism and nazism was one of the antisemitic tropes that the left introduced, he had the opportunity to say "Yeah of course you're right it is silly, I meant something else with some other specific conditions", but he didn't, he doubled down. I agree with you that it is a silly claim. Well do you agree that the comparison is as common as it is at least partly because it involves Jews? No
Wow, not even partly, huh?
Guess that works pretty well with your defense of stilt's incoherent ramblings.
Live your best life, king.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On November 17 2025 17:45 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 17:14 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2025 17:09 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:01 Nebuchad wrote: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. Please focus and engage with what I'm saying. 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. 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. 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.)
I think one needs to show a bias that is specifically anti-Jewish in motivation, which is somewhat trickier. Regular old blind spots and biases exist too after all.
I’d probably feel quite differently re the invocation of Nazism in this context if it wasn’t incredibly, incredibly common already and massively overused already.
This comes right around to what I was saying re tropes versus observations, it really does depend who’s using them and why they are used.
If the claim is that anti-Semites will draw the Nazi comparison to try to delegitimise Israel, then that is probably true, sure. But the former will influence almost anything they say on the topic.
One can’t peer into the souls of people, it’s quite the tricky task, but one can infer certain motivations to at least some degree of accuracy.
I mean person x can observe that the Jewish lobby is quite influential in the US. But I mean, it kind of is. Person y can say the same, but couch it in a worldview that Jews plot to shift the world in their favour.
Or, in a roundabout way, a lot of these tropes require the cooker to be turned on and the soup cooked by an anti-Semite to turn out as an anti-Semitic meal.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On November 17 2025 16:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I read every Kwark post in Harlan Ellison’s voice for AM from I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream
|
On November 17 2025 21:51 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 17:45 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:14 Nebuchad wrote:On November 17 2025 17:09 mindjames wrote:On November 17 2025 17:01 Nebuchad wrote: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. Please focus and engage with what I'm saying. 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. 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. 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.) I think one needs to show a bias that is specifically anti-Jewish in motivation, which is somewhat trickier. Regular old blind spots and biases exist too after all. I’d probably feel quite differently re the invocation of Nazism in this context if it wasn’t incredibly, incredibly common already and massively overused already. This comes right around to what I was saying re tropes versus observations, it really does depend who’s using them and why they are used. If the claim is that anti-Semites will draw the Nazi comparison to try to delegitimise Israel, then that is probably true, sure. But the former will influence almost anything they say on the topic. One can’t peer into the souls of people, it’s quite the tricky task, but one can infer certain motivations to at least some degree of accuracy. I mean person x can observe that the Jewish lobby is quite influential in the US. But I mean, it kind of is. Person y can say the same, but couch it in a worldview that Jews plot to shift the world in their favour. Or, in a roundabout way, a lot of these tropes require the cooker to be turned on and the soup cooked by an anti-Semite to turn out as an anti-Semitic meal.
Great, then you agree with me and disagree with Nebuchad, who thinks absolutely no part of the Nazi comparisons originates in antisemitism.
Well... actually, we do disagree on one thing.
On November 17 2025 21:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2025 16:35 Acrofales wrote: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. I read every Kwark post in Harlan Ellison’s voice for AM from I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream
That story is awful and it offends me more than antisemitism that you like it. At least Arcofales is a man of culture.
|
United Kingdom10014 Posts
Personally if I compare Israel to Nazis it would be primarily to get a big reaction.
I don't know if that's antisemitic or not. Somewhat, but not really is probably my conclusion
|
On November 18 2025 22:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Personally if I compare Israel to Nazis it would be primarily to get a big reaction.
I don't know if that's antisemitic or not. Somewhat, but not really is probably my conclusion
I don’t think it is, it is not nice, and not going to lead to good conversation. Similar to when people call homophobic people gay or fags. In real life that’s usually time to fight. It is a grey area for sure and not good. But sometimes you are just so mad you want to make the other person as mad.
Another reason it might be used is in like a tit for tat. Like if people are calling people racist or islamaphobes for talking about how bad Hamas is. Calling people talking about how bad Israel antisemitic could be used just to piss them off or to piss them off and hope they realize there part in it as well. It doesn’t work, but that’s the thought.
|
United Kingdom10014 Posts
On November 18 2025 23:49 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 22:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Personally if I compare Israel to Nazis it would be primarily to get a big reaction.
I don't know if that's antisemitic or not. Somewhat, but not really is probably my conclusion I don’t think it is, it is not nice, and not going to lead to good conversation. Similar to when people call homophobic people gay or fags. In real life that’s usually time to fight. It is a grey area for sure and not good. But sometimes you are just so mad you want to make the other person as mad. Another reason it might be used is in like a tit for tat. Like if people are calling people racist or islamaphobes for talking about how bad Hamas is. Calling people talking about how bad Israel antisemitic could be used just to piss them off or to piss them off and hope they realize there part in it as well. It doesn’t work, but that’s the thought.
Sometimes getting a reaction is the only way to cut through the bs. It's rare but it does happen!
Especially in threads like this where people will write huge essays over and over just to flood the place and confuse everything.
Sometimes you just have let rip and then sift through the ashes.
|
On November 19 2025 00:12 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2025 23:49 Billyboy wrote:On November 18 2025 22:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
Personally if I compare Israel to Nazis it would be primarily to get a big reaction.
I don't know if that's antisemitic or not. Somewhat, but not really is probably my conclusion I don’t think it is, it is not nice, and not going to lead to good conversation. Similar to when people call homophobic people gay or fags. In real life that’s usually time to fight. It is a grey area for sure and not good. But sometimes you are just so mad you want to make the other person as mad. Another reason it might be used is in like a tit for tat. Like if people are calling people racist or islamaphobes for talking about how bad Hamas is. Calling people talking about how bad Israel antisemitic could be used just to piss them off or to piss them off and hope they realize there part in it as well. It doesn’t work, but that’s the thought. Sometimes getting a reaction is the only way to cut through the bs. It's rare but it does happen! Especially in threads like this where people will write huge essays over and over just to flood the place and confuse everything. Sometimes you just have let rip and then sift through the ashes.
I mean I’m guilty of trying, I just can’t think of a time where it led to productive conversation. Some times that is not the goal though.
|
United States44393 Posts
Nazi/Hitler is also the default for low hanging political criticism. That’s why we see it used across the spectrum. Uneducated right wingers call socialists Nazis.
People aren’t rifling through the box of historical comparisons and finding the one that best matches the antisemitism in their heart. They’re taking the one from the top of the box. Israel isn’t hit disproportionately with Nazi comparisons.
|
We need new words that are as well-known and get the same reaction as nazi. Too much talk about the schematics of what kind of evil each group is. Unfortunately, zionist, Trumpist, MAGA, etc., are yet to reach the level where they cause instant vitriolic reactions in most people. Only incel seems to have become a widely used word with such connotations.
These kinds of words are also needed, as it becomes pointless to write an essay on the evils of the Israeli far-right every time they do something horrific. It is clear that essays won't change opinions. They also reinforce the pointless requirement of being civil and sophisticated when facing atrocities like genocide. Simple fuck these guys who I think are evil scum, should be enough sometimes. Currently, the word nazi gets this reaction, and it is not that far away from the truth. The beliefs of ethnic and religious supremacy, hate and discrimination of the out-group, desire for a strong leader, and so on match pretty well.
|
Friendly reminder that Zionists make up 90% of Jews, is not a monolith and likely doesn’t mean what you think.
|
On November 19 2025 00:49 Legan wrote:
We need new words that are as well-known and get the same reaction as nazi. Too much talk about the schematics of what kind of evil each group is. Unfortunately, zionist, Trumpist, MAGA, etc., are yet to reach the level where they cause instant vitriolic reactions in most people. Only incel seems to have become a widely used word with such connotations.
These kinds of words are also needed, as it becomes pointless to write an essay on the evils of the Israeli far-right every time they do something horrific. It is clear that essays won't change opinions. They also reinforce the pointless requirement of being civil and sophisticated when facing atrocities like genocide. Simple fuck these guys who I think are evil scum, should be enough sometimes. Currently, the word nazi gets this reaction, and it is not that far away from the truth. The beliefs of ethnic and religious supremacy, hate and discrimination of the out-group, desire for a strong leader, and so on match pretty well.
I don't expect this from the general public, but I really wish people who are attempting to have real discussions about political issues just stick to using plain language to explain their positions. It's just superior in every single way.
You can see it in polls, where you ask people about a certain right or subsidy, vs. some popular term that's recognizable as left-wing policy. Even though both refer to the same policy, they might get totally different favorability results.
Another example is people calling politicians fascist. It's been overdone to the point that now, when you have an actual fascist (perhaps through idiocy rather than consciously, but still) in the White House, now that term falls flat instead of helping express real criticism.
Take this as you may, as I clearly have something to lose by having my country's reputation tarnished, but as far as discussion goes, I really wish people would use these historical and academic terms a lot less, and instead simply explain what they take issue with.
One of the biggest offenders in my eyes is "apartheid" - I just don't think people generally know what they're talking about when they use this term (save for few perhaps). If someone instead says "I take issue with Palestinians in the West Bank not being afforded the same rights as the ones in Israel proper, nor Jews in the West Bank". That's objectively true. From there we can explore why that is the case, how it got there, and what we can/should do to change it.
None of that is normally possible with someone who is keen on describing Israel as an apartheid state, because what they're looking for there is to express their view that Israel is illegitimate, period. There's no looking into nuances from there. It's *just* like South Africa back in the day.
I say none of this in an attempt to debate the above topic, just pointing out that language is a very good indicator of how much a certain individual is interested in the nitty gritty and is genuinely into the conversation, versus wanting to shut down discussion and follow a shortcut to their conclusion.
I have a very good friend who likes Trump. I genuinely want to change his mind, and although I've been unsuccessful, he's willing to hear me out because I'm not screaming in his face about how much of a Nazi or Fascist he is. He would instantly think I'm being intentionally hyperbolic or contrarian.
Having said all that, I recognize that some of these terms with regards to Israel are also legal terms, or ones that pertain to IHL, and it's unreasonable to ask someone not to use them if they are indeed found to apply. Still, I wish even in that case that people would have the courtesy to point out what it is that they find objectionable and what they think the alternative is, rather than reducing everything to a singular term and waving off a complex reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
