domain:kvetch.substack.com
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
14hr ago
Someone born during the Deir Yassin massacre would be in their late seventies today. You are literally talking about acts committed by people who have since died of old age.
This is a farcically shortsighted take. How do you think the children of those victims feel? The children of the survivors who had their homes taken? Do you think that the passage of time just turns this real violence into meaningless "symbolic" violence when the impacts are still tangible and visible? Do you think that this massacre had no impact on history, that it had no long-lasting effects? I struggle to believe that you would apply this standard to any other conflict.
I actually don't think it's reasonable to retaliate against an entire ethnic group for acts committed multiple generations ago. For instance, I wouldn't consider it justified for England to invade France to take revenge for 1066. At some point you have to let history go.
I agree - luckily, "Israeli" isn't actually an ethnic group so that doesn't matter here. Even if it did, that conflict was actually settled and closed, so there's no need for continuing hostilities.
I see that we are again entering a disagreement about what it means to 'attack' someone. You seem to take a symbolic view. When you say the Israelis attacked the Palestinians, you mean some Israelis attacked some Palestinians roughly eighty years ago.
Under this standard, are you aware that the holocaust is further in the past than the Deir Yassin massacre? The passage of time has meant that the holocaust is just "symbolic" violence so you can't even really say that the Nazis did anything bad to the jews! On that note, given that the primary justification for the creation of Israel was the holocaust, we may as well shut the entire enterprise down. At some point you have to let history go, after all.
I take a more practical view. When I say the Palestinians attacked the Israelis, I mean the current regime in Gaza attacked Israel last year. They are still alive, and they are still in power.
No, you just decide to arbitrarily pick the starting point of the conflict, so you can point to a reprisal and claim that it is an offensive strike. You are choosing an approach that allows you to just arbitrarily decide who is responsible for starting a conflict by deciding that anything before a certain date doesn't count. I have trouble believing that this is your actual position, given both how transparently weak that argument is and that if you accept it you also remove the justification for the entire state of Israel to exist.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
14hr ago
I haven't read the novelisations (I hear the RotS one is actually considerably better than the movie), but the movie exchange goes:
Obi-Wan: I have failed you, Anakin. I have failed you.
Anakin: I should have known the Jedi were plotting to take over!
Obi-Wan: Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil!
Anakin: From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!
Obi-Wan: Well then, you are lost!
Spookykou
15hr ago
Interesting link. Does anyone else feel the author writes jokes exactly like ChatGPT?
The difference is that after getting his opinions from (relevant) people on the left, someone went and did shoot all (relevant) Charlie Kirks. And the reaction was mostly (with notable and appreciated exceptions) not a sobering realization of the impact of their words. To compare, no one (relevant) installed, attempted to install or even proposed installing a modern version of Hitler.
That should inform as to which was only banter and which was not.
/* (using relevant here to exclude non-central, lizardman constant people on both sides)
FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
15hr ago
You're not beating the logs-in-eyes allegations. None of anything you said would reflect on how Arabs would treat Jews in a hypothetical one-state solution.
I actually did in fact mention this exact point already earlier in the thread. It's why I usually bring up that any plausible single state solution would have to involve thorough denazification efforts - and I believe that actually putting the members of the IDF who killed civilians through real, serious trials are the best way to handle it. Most defenders of Israel assure me that the IDF is the most moral army in the world and doesn't target civilians, so I'm sure there wouldn't be any objections to real and serious war crime investigations to pick up the few bad apples who believe things like "There are no innocent civilians in Gaza" or who did things like shoot children or rape prisoners.
The evidence we do have is from the expulsion of Mizrahim from all Arab countries to Israel - a pogrom you blame on Zionism.
If I was a member of a dispossessed tribe with no homeland and a new country showed up in our traditional homeland and announced it was a country for our tribe I would likely volunteer to leave even if my home country wasn't particularly nasty. But for all the claims of a pogrom, I'm not aware of any serious sources that refer to this moment in time as a genocide or pogrom. It took place over a long time, in multiple waves and with multiple motivations from multiple places. Were some of those places expelling the jews for the actions of their co-religionists? Sure, they probably were. Were a majority of them, enough that you could characterise this as a genocide? I don't think the evidence supports that claim, and if you want to make that case I'd be interested in reading it.
That was, undeniably, ethnic cleansing at the least.
If you think that meets the bar then what Israel is doing in Gaza clears it easily. If you're willing to accept that compromise I have no problems agreeing with you.
Why should I trust you accusing Israel of genocide when you downplay the Arab one?
You shouldn't! You shouldn't trust anyone when it comes to accusations like that, and instead do your own research. I don't trust any of your claims without actually looking up the facts behind them, and I think discussions work better when both people do that.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
15hr ago
"Nazi" might be diluted as an insult, but it's not diluted as an ideology.
This isn't quite true. Jew-exclusionary white supremacists are universally called, and often own, the label "Nazi" whether or not they're fascists.
If nobody is suggesting that these guys are members of the NSDAP, an organization which was disbanded long before they were born, then there is no honesty or virtue in trying to tar these guys with the moral connotations of members of the NSDAP by equating them with members of the NSDAP by labeling them as members of the NSDAP. Many people do so, including the OP, who repeatedly insists on this connection and the sincerity of their beliefs on the charge.
Now, if you want to accuse the OP of bad faith, lying, incompetence, or of being an irrelevant minority akin to a lizardsmen constant, by all means feel free to do so. It will not change that the behavior cataloged here is not the behavior of the Nazis who made the term Nazi a multi-generational accusation.
Jokes in small groups are a great way to reach a common understanding that Nazis are not icky. Obviously not everyone who plays along is a Nazi, perhaps some only like the jokes because the SJ people are whining about the Nazis all the time, but it is very much a step in the right direction, moving the overton window where you want it to go.
The overton window moving towards 'Nazis are not icky' is a natural and not particularly tragic development if people want to use Nazi for things other than members of the NSDAP or people particularly like them. Whether people who would prefer it remains associated with the past connation so they can tar their political enemies with the connotation want the overton window to shift in the direction they are actually pushing it is rather irrelevant.
ABigGuy4U
15hr ago
If a leftwing group chat made jokes about the Holodomor, Mao or Pol Pot.
They don’t need to. They can just say that to the entire class of students they teach with a straight face.
ZeroPipeline
15hr ago
No no no, it'll be water under the duck once your bridges are in a row.
hanikrummihundursvin
16hr ago
Your position can only be taken as substantive if one believes that there is some degree of separation between X and Y. No one can demonstrate this because no such separation exists. It's just young people. The only real difference is how the Overton Window is positioned.
ulyssessword
16hr ago
Measuring, maybe, but that's hardly all the legislature does.
I didn't set the standards we're discussing here. The claim upthread is "All political action is violence." If you didn't agree with that, then it would've been nice to know earlier. I don't have any reason to debate the fact that some political action is violence.
cjet79
16hr ago
What is your threshold for being convinced? If you don't have one that's fine, that saves me even more time.
magicalkittycat
16hr ago
I think you have a very sad and hateful view of what men are like if you believe they're all joking about how Jews are dishonest and gas chambers.
magicalkittycat
16hr ago
Well I guess we've proven the group chat's fears that any disagreement = getting called a RINO and lib correct.
This "world" I'm living in is also called TheMotte. Every other comment here is agreeing with me.
That's crazy, the place you choose to associate with has similar opinions to you? Incredible! That totally disproves the idea that other people exist with different views.
Also "every other comment" except for the ones like me who are disagreeing with you.
Similar to the percentage of men that jerk off to porn. Sorry if that is also a revelation to you.
If you think the amount of men who joke about their love for Hitler and say Jews are dishonest is the same as men who like porn, you seem to have a very pessimistic and sad view of men. There are lots of fantastic guys. Even lots of fantastic conservative guys who are actively condemning this behavior like Governor Scott, or some of the guys at the Babylon bee or some of the National Review reporters.
I don't think I'm the one lacking in theory of mind. Everyone here is telling you this is a common experience and your response has basically been 'no way!' how many people would you need to hear it from to believe us?
And there are also lots of men who say "No, I don't talk about how Jews are dishonest all the time". Sure maybe they're pretty much all lying, but it's also possible that you are stuck in a Hitler Bubble where you associate with others in the hitler bubble and you can't fathom that there are tons of great and fine men not in the Hitler Bubble.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
16hr ago
A missed element of this discussion is that some people are lambasting these young men for just using the lingo they grew up with. Why are our progressive friends so full of hostility for other cultures? Do they just hate black people? Is there anything in those chats that isn't weak and mild compared to an all time hip-hop banger? (Appologies in advance for scaring the hoes and Will Stancil).
Rex
16hr ago
I don’t want to be the edgy guy here. But hear me out. None of these people are or support neo nazis. But they likely think the actual nazis had some good ideas. Especially since the nazis were dealing with a lot of similar problems like Leftist degeneracy. And were quite successful!
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
16hr ago
Nah. I can recognize the difference between organizing and directing people to assault others, and measuring environmental contaminants. The first one is closer to violence, if it was unclear to you
Measuring, maybe, but that's hardly all the legislature does. Sometimes crime bosses just order lunch too. The legislature makes rules which the direct result of which is violence applied to those who disobey, and no amount of talking about environmental contaminants will change that.
quiet_NaN
16hr ago
We know this not least because Actual-Nazis had a historical record of being murderously serious about their agendas as identified in formal Nazi literature, and openly self-identified as Nazis in very serious contexts.
Come on, that is a strawman you are beating. Nobody is suggesting that these guys are members of the NSDAP, an organization which was disbanded long before they were born. Since 1945, only the very stupid have openly expressed admiration for the NSDAP in the Western world. The ones with a bit of a brain have noticed that openly flying the swastika is a good way to become a social outcast.
In Germany, there are numerous links between the far-right anti-migration AfD and neofascist organizations.
Imagine you are a 25yo white nationalist in today's America. Now you could get a swastika tattoo and join the Aryan Brotherhood or something, but then you will never make a difference. Or you could join one of the two major parties, and the one closer aligned to your views are the Republicans. Of course, merely supporting mainstream Republican policy will not save the White race, you want to increase support for your own world view.
Jokes in small groups are a great way to reach a common understanding that Nazis are not icky. Obviously not everyone who plays along is a Nazi, perhaps some only like the jokes because the SJ people are whining about the Nazis all the time, but it is very much a step in the right direction, moving the overton window where you want it to go.
sodiummuffin
16hr ago
Politico: ‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat
This is apparently the context of the headline "I love Hitler" comment:
AD: Yea I had some back and forth with the VC in Michigan, current chair is a deer in headlights
AD: We have a call Wednesday
PG: Many agree
AD: He did say "My delegates I bring will vote for the most right wing person"
PG: Great. I love Hitler
This is obvious sarcasm mocking the idea of automatically voting for whoever is most right-wing.
Skimming the article seems to indicate this dishonesty is a systematic issue. For instance it specifically claims "the watermelon people" was referring to black people without providing context, when it very likely refers to Gaza supporters in reference to their use of the watermelon emoji as a symbol. If you search "watermelon people" on Twitter every usage I can find before this article is about Gaza, it seems to be an established term.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
16hr ago
Not really much to say but "lighten up, Francis". People do use jokes for that. They also use jokes for other things. For instance, if the members of a group knows that people who don't like them much think certain jokes are beyond the pale, they might use them as a shibboleth. Or if they know what their opponents think of them, they might jokingly adopt that persona as a way of jeering in their general direction.
As Stalin once said, dark humor is like food; not everyone gets it. Doesn't mean everyone who uses it is Stalin (or Hitler)
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
17hr ago
· Edited 17hr ago
Well, the flip side of this is that with the righty reaction to the lefty reaction to the Kirk assassination, the Right has also thoroughly burned its "it's just banter" card. If the two competing party programmes in the US actually start being perceived as "install a modern version of Hitler" vs. "shoot all Charlie Kirks", which one do you figure will have majority support?
(In other words: any fucks you give are for your own sake, not the left's. As with everything in US politics, it doesn't matter what someone who would vote the same party no matter what anyway thinks, except to the extent this thinking becomes known to those who are willing to change their vote.)
The word "historically" is doing a lot of work here. If it happened ten years ago, you might have a point. But Christian violence against accused antichrists has been pretty much nonexistent for 80 years. (This is not so for violent jihads, of course.)
More options
Context Copy link