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 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. .
Do you think the word 'antisemitism' also has the same effects/qualities?
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. .
Do you think the word 'antisemitism' also has the same effects/qualities?
Yes, I do.
I've said before in this thread that I really don't like discussing antisemitism because it's about as detectable/measurable as any other form of racism, which as you know has gotten more and more subtle/dog-whistly over the years. It's pretty pointless to try and discuss peoples' dispositions when you can instead talk about their actions.
I just get tilted to all hell when people engage in denialism. The people who do so wouldn't dare in a million years to stand across from a black or latino person and tell them they're being overly sensitive about perceived hate towards them.
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. .
Do you think the word 'antisemitism' also has the same effects/qualities?
Yes, I do.
I've said before in this thread that I really don't like discussing antisemitism because it's about as detectable/measurable as any other form of racism, which as you know has gotten more and more subtle/dog-whistly over the years.
I just get tilted to all hell when people engage in denialism.
TBH I find it best not to accuse people of BEING racist, rather explain to someone when they are using a racist argument and why its racist.
Partly because right wingers want to be called racist so they can do the whole 'all you ever do is call everyone racist' thing.
And partly because its just more productive and harder to twist into a sidetracked nightmare that lasts pages.
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. .
Do you think the word 'antisemitism' also has the same effects/qualities?
Yes, I do.
I've said before in this thread that I really don't like discussing antisemitism because it's about as detectable/measurable as any other form of racism, which as you know has gotten more and more subtle/dog-whistly over the years.
I just get tilted to all hell when people engage in denialism.
TBH I find it best not to accuse people of BEING racist, rather explain to someone when they are using a racist argument and why its racist.
Partly because right wingers want to be called racist so they can do the whole 'all you ever do is call everyone racist' thing.
And partly because it’s just more productive and harder to twist into a sidetracked nightmare that lasts pages.
That is better but I think similarly ineffective. When it’s been brought up that people are talking about a antisemitic trope the person has acted as if they were called an antisemite. The intention is great, and it should be way better. In practice it just doesn’t seem to be.
It's definitely ineffective in a discussion about or tangential to Israel, because people defending Israel will use antisemitism reflexively, and that wears down the opposition, causing the word to lose its bite in the same manner "fascist" lost its meaning.
It's become immeasurably hard to convince a pro-Palestinian that something is antisemitic if it wasn't already their opinion because they've come to see it as disingenuous.
On November 19 2025 04:00 mindjames wrote: It's definitely ineffective in a discussion about or tangential to Israel, because people defending Israel will use antisemitism reflexively, and that wears down the opposition, causing the word to lose its bite in the same manner "fascist" lost its meaning.
It's become immeasurably hard to convince a pro-Palestinian that something is antisemitic if it wasn't already their opinion because they've come to see it as disingenuous.
Hard agree with this. It's one of the main problems of using words in this fashion.
On November 19 2025 04:00 mindjames wrote: It's definitely ineffective in a discussion about or tangential to Israel, because people defending Israel will use antisemitism reflexively, and that wears down the opposition, causing the word to lose its bite in the same manner "fascist" lost its meaning.
It's become immeasurably hard to convince a pro-Palestinian that something is antisemitic if it wasn't already their opinion because they've come to see it as disingenuous.
Hard agree with this. It's one of the main problems of using words in this fashion.
Thoughts on "genocide", "apartheid", "ethnic cleansing", "Zionist" (derogatory), "settler-colonial"?
I get the strangest feeling that you "agree" with me to the extent that antisemitism is overused in your eyes.
On November 19 2025 04:00 mindjames wrote: It's definitely ineffective in a discussion about or tangential to Israel, because people defending Israel will use antisemitism reflexively, and that wears down the opposition, causing the word to lose its bite in the same manner "fascist" lost its meaning.
It's become immeasurably hard to convince a pro-Palestinian that something is antisemitic if it wasn't already their opinion because they've come to see it as disingenuous.
Hard agree with this. It's one of the main problems of using words in this fashion.
Thoughts on "genocide", "apartheid", "ethnic cleansing", "Zionist" (derogatory), "settler-colonial"?
I get the strangest feeling that you "agree" with me to the extent that antisemitism is overused in your eyes.
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. .
Do you think the word 'antisemitism' also has the same effects/qualities?
Yes, I do.
I've said before in this thread that I really don't like discussing antisemitism because it's about as detectable/measurable as any other form of racism, which as you know has gotten more and more subtle/dog-whistly over the years.
I just get tilted to all hell when people engage in denialism.
TBH I find it best not to accuse people of BEING racist, rather explain to someone when they are using a racist argument and why its racist.
Partly because right wingers want to be called racist so they can do the whole 'all you ever do is call everyone racist' thing.
And partly because its just more productive and harder to twist into a sidetracked nightmare that lasts pages.
Yep.
I mean if Patrick Bateman can do this, there’s hope for us all. Joking aside he is somewhat on the right track. ‘Cool it with the anti-Semitic remarks’ may trigger a bit of self-reflection and correction, where ‘you’re an anti-Semite’ tends towards eliciting a defensive reaction and retrenchment. You can basically swap any ‘ism’ in there and the principle is gonna remain somewhat similar.
I’ll add the caveat that I think this is probably more a factor in peer groups correcting internally within that particular group. And often it’s a case of stamping out certain stereotypes or jokes rather than outright bigotry.
Some rabid anti-Semite isn’t going to particularly care what I say no matter how I package it. Then it’s a matter of ostracising people who hold those kind of ideas from positions of influence.
On November 19 2025 04:00 mindjames wrote: It's definitely ineffective in a discussion about or tangential to Israel, because people defending Israel will use antisemitism reflexively, and that wears down the opposition, causing the word to lose its bite in the same manner "fascist" lost its meaning.
It's become immeasurably hard to convince a pro-Palestinian that something is antisemitic if it wasn't already their opinion because they've come to see it as disingenuous.
Yep. It’s like deploying a nuke but the winds are blowing the wrong direction and all the fallout springs back at times.
This doesn’t preclude many on the left having a blind spot on anti-Semitism either, I think at times that’s a fair charge.
As the bloke who has ‘legitimate concerns about immigration’, so far as it pertains to brown folks doesn’t think they’re racist, so too do many on the pro-Palestine side of the ledger think they don’t have an anti-Semitic bone in their body and be wrong in that assessment.
As I generally advocate for not dancing around bigotry of any kind, it would be anti-Semitic of me to make an arbitrary exception for anti-Semitism.
Which, to simplify hugely is a 1-2 punch of; 1. X thing is bigoted, maybe you weren’t aware there, but that’s probably not behaviour you should be indulging in. 2. Ostracising unapologetic bigots.
I think it’s a reasonable crude approach, a rule of thumb.
The entry point of 1) just has to be vaguely reasonable.
Frankly I don’t think it always is re racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia, Islamophobia as things stand.
In a sense I think many a progressive lefty type is merely experiencing the kind of resentment on charges they’re perhaps happy to levy on others.
I will say I’ve been called an anti-Semite more times on my travels than any other charges of bigotry combined. Which simply wouldn’t be the case if I voiced different views on Israel. Which are pretty moderate ones anyway.
This doesn’t especially bother me, I can disentangle and shrug off such things. My worry is that for every me, there’s someone who gets resentful, and from that resentment anti-Semitism creeps into their worldview
Few days back Hebrew translations were disabled on X/Twitter, the line being that translations were inaccurate.Note Hebrew is the only language which translation features have been disabled.The other side of the argument claims there was such rabid hatred and genocidal intent coming from a lot of these Hebrew accounts towards Palestinians in particular that it was a bad look for Israel and Jews and that having the autotranslate made it easier for non Jews to view the content.
On November 19 2025 19:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Few days back Hebrew translations were disabled on X/Twitter, the line being that translations were inaccurate.Note Hebrew is the only language which translation features have been disabled.The other side of the argument claims there was such rabid hatred and genocidal intent coming from a lot of these Hebrew accounts towards Palestinians in particular that it was a bad look for Israel and Jews and that having the autotranslate made it easier for non Jews to view the content.
1. We're taking grok's word here, an LLM that has been re-trained over and over because Elon didn't like it saying "woke" things, like that the 2020 election wasn't stolen; that has been given a new homegrown repository of information to replace wikipedia; and has recently been asked to describe Elon's physique and responded in a pretty hilarious manner.
2. No official twitter sources cited by grok, only a small pro-palestinian activist group account.
3. Since when does Elon's twitter care about racism and hate on its platform? Shit's been the wild west ever since he took over. Literally the only language he wanted to curb is "cis".
Inaccuracy of translations would be my best guess.
On November 19 2025 19:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Few days back Hebrew translations were disabled on X/Twitter, the line being that translations were inaccurate.Note Hebrew is the only language which translation features have been disabled.The other side of the argument claims there was such rabid hatred and genocidal intent coming from a lot of these Hebrew accounts towards Palestinians in particular that it was a bad look for Israel and Jews and that having the autotranslate made it easier for non Jews to view the content.
1. We're taking grok's word here, an LLM that has been re-trained over and over because Elon didn't like it saying "woke" things, like that the 2020 election wasn't stolen; that has been given a new homegrown repository of information to replace wikipedia; and has recently been asked to describe Elon's physique and responded in a pretty hilarious manner.
2. No official twitter sources cited by grok, only a small pro-palestinian activist group account.
3. Since when does Elon's twitter care about racism and hate on its platform? Shit's been the wild west ever since he took over. Literally the only language he wanted to curb is "cis".
Inaccuracy of translations would be my best guess.
Or accuracy. As per point 3.
It’s very strange, I’m honestly not sure what to make of it.
If it were another, non-Musk-owned social media concern, I’d probably just take whatever rationale they gave at face value.
I can’t remember which, perhaps Irish Gaelic, Scots Gaelic or summat else. Maybe a language even more niche. But anyway, genuine native speakers have been moaning about machine translations.
Let’s assume it is Irish for the sake of argument, there’s probably commonalities. It’s not the mother tongue outside of regions called the Gaeltacht. Everyone else studies at school, and some have a passion for it, it’s a big cultural touchstone in that sense. My partner is in the latter, isn’t fluent but spent summers in the Gaeltacht and can basically operate smoothly there, and she’d be fully fluent if she lived there for like a year or whatever. But she’s atypical, most have nowhere near that proficiency.
If you have a language that not a huge amount of fluent speakers use, and a lot of people that use chunks and phrases who aren’t fluent, and do it wrong, well the LLM doesn’t know who is who right? There isn’t the sheer volume you get with a ‘big’ language like English, French, Spanish, Arabic etc.
I could see that being a problem with Hebrew, but I’m somewhat ignorant there. My understanding is many Jews outside do study it, and it connects them to their heritage. But they ain’t fluent generally. Within Israel it seems there’s actually quite a high level of genuine proficiency, from my cursory Googling. At least more than Irish.
I really don’t know if there’s just a lack of raw data, or alternatively just a poorly configured LLM when it comes to Hebrew. I could certainly see that being the case.
On the flip side if I did want to run PR on behalf of Israel, removing the ability of non-Hebrew speakers to easily read posts in that language may be a good play.
I mean they’re not Navajo code talkers, but you’re not realistically getting too many Hebrew speakers who aren’t Israeli, Jewish, or both.
But I think people have a tendency to arrive at plausible, and then jump to ‘yeah that’s definitely what happened’.
I think there’s also an overemphasis on it being the only language to have auto-translate disabled. That may be true, but I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that there are many languages that haven’t been given that feature to begin with.
Let's perhaps wait more than a few days on this feature to be reenabled before we declare it a conspiracy to protect those wily Jews from themselves.
If it were another, non-Musk-owned social media concern, I’d probably just take whatever rationale they gave at face value.
Twitter never even made a comment about it AFAIK. Again, we're looking at "statements" by an AI.
I really don’t know if there’s just a lack of raw data, or alternatively just a poorly configured LLM when it comes to Hebrew. I could certainly see that being the case.
LLMs are pretty damn good with Hebrew at this point. But you're mixing up two things. I don't think translation models are considered LLMs.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised at this point if an LLM could translate some things better than a translation model, because it can put things in context better. It just wouldn't be as cost-efficient for translations at scale.
On the flip side if I did want to run PR on behalf of Israel, removing the ability of non-Hebrew speakers to easily read posts in that language may be a good play.
Or they could just temp ban people? Why are we immediately assuming some kind of special influence by Jews on a platform owned by a dude who used a Nazi salute to signal how hip he is to 4channers?
Edit: Sorry, I reread your sentence. I'll ask instead: What reason do we have to believe that Twitter would ever want or need to run PR on behalf of Israel?
Well yes, I was being critical of people jumping to that conclusion, or indeed much of any conclusion. One I’ve seen on cursory googling of this quite a bit.
Which I think is pretty daft at best, insidious at worst to be clear.
To feed back into previous chats on anti-Semitism. Would people make such a jump to other conclusions if it were any other language other than Hebrew? Probably not. Russian or Chinese tongues mayhaps.
‘Cui bono?’ is a useful analytical tool. But your conclusion isn’t meant to end up being entirely predicated on the first hit you get. Which people absolutely seem to be doing here.
To be more clear, I wholly reject that conclusion having any solid basis at all.
I find it strange/weird because of the platform. Not sinister, just, strange. Musk is famously hands-on, he’s not exactly a stickler for accuracy, social responsibility etc. He’s got a bit of a mixed record on Israel/Palestine as well.
I mean reality is probably an engineer or two isn’t happy with their Hebrew translation and is overhauling it, and that’s about it.
On November 10 2025 12:52 aseq wrote: Guess you won't last long. Just wondering why the rage, if you're from Chile and the situation has nothing to do with you (or are you muslim?). Why is this conflict so much more interesting than any other conflict in the world? Why are jews so divisive and we need a separate word for hate against them? I'm not defending them, btw, just wondering why they generate so much emotion.
you know Chile has the largest Palestine community in the world?
fucking idiot
im not against races, im against a fucking group that belives that they are the chosen ones by god and based on that belief they go arround bombing little childrens and civilians.
fuck you all that support that shit, i fucking hope u get raped by a gorila
On November 19 2025 22:44 mindjames wrote: I understand you're caveating and trying to remain neutral, but take a step back and realize what we're talking about here. "You know, it's hard to know what sparked the California wildfires, but like, if I were a Rothschild, and I had a space laser..." C'mon, man.
could be multiple causes. there are about 3,356 wildfires per year. prolly some were arson. so it is hard to know the cause of wildfires doing the most damage. of the thousands of natural wildfires did one meet up with an arson wildfire causing exponentially increasing damage? who knows.
So, it is hard to know exactly what is going on with the wildfires in California.
I am glad Candace Owens has started pretending she is crazy. She has destroyed her career, at least, she is protecting her family. She needs to start her own Cooking Show. She can be a 21st Century Martha Stewart. "and, that's a good thing".
EPT
