|
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 02:51 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +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 03:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2025 02:51 mindjames wrote: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 03:31 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2025 03:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 19 2025 02:51 mindjames wrote: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.
|
I vibe with that, definitely.
|
On November 19 2025 03:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2025 03:31 mindjames wrote:On November 19 2025 03:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 19 2025 02:51 mindjames wrote: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 04:39 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +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 05:02 mindjames wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2025 04:39 Nebuchad wrote: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.
You're right yeah.
|
Good attempt at looking principled I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
