So there was this deeply leftist kinda communist antizionist guy I met and he was like: ''Oh, I wish there was an organization hunting down old Nazis that got away and properly punishing them'' and I was like ''Yeah... This exists and I don't think you are going to like what you are about to hear...''
Reblogged
all jokes aside. this is what is expected in times of social, political, and ecological unrest. right wing governments around the world, worsening economic prospects, upward mobility less and less attainable — these are the classic conditions that breed antisemitism. but this (the accusation that israel is setting fires in argentina) is the clearest example i’ve yet seen of climate change fueling it. the mechanism here is simple, i think. people see something unusual, a change that doesn’t fit the pattern — in this case, worse wildfires than usual — and when people don’t have an easy immediate explanation they turn to blame the jews.
of course the immediate explanation is climate change, but maybe that’s too abstracted, and people need something that feels more concrete — if the fault is the amorphous trajectory of the agricultural revolution and then industrial revolution and the structures that that encourage humanity’s consumerism and overconsumption, as egged on by capitalism and the power granted to those who’ve acquired capital, that’s too diffuse and it also implicates them. it’s an easier, cleaner-feeling anger to just point to a single group of people or a single country and decide they’re the evil villains of the world. and if the ideas you trade in lead to some of their deaths, well, you already decided they deserve to die. the worse pain you’re in, the more you hate them, and the less you can listen.
I recently started a book (linked below) about the history of climate change and how it's impacted different civilizations in different ways.
I literally paused the introduction or first chapter (I don't remember where exactly since it's an audiobook but regardless somewhere super early in the book) because the author said there's a bunch of research on medieval Europe in particular that indicates a change in growing season temperature of just 1/3 of a degree Celsius correlates with an increased probability of persecution of Jews in the area for the next 5 years. The correlation is even stronger in areas where the soil is already bad to begin with (so presumably the harvest season impacts are worse).
Obviously, correlation and causation are not the same and it's also hard to assess some of this with limited records etc but it's certainly supportive of the theory that when shit gets bad for whatever reason, especially if it's tied to things like climate where you can't magic fix it and/or it's harder to understand the driving forces for change, people start directing their fear of uncertainty at whatever scapegoat around that they can find (as said in the original post). Unfortunately, it seems likely that the worse climate change gets, probably the worse the scapegoating of Jews, Romani, indigenous peoples, queer people, whomever else who is "other" in a particular culture or area is also going to get.
Highly recommend the book (so far, I'm only like 4 chapters in) because it talks about how a lot of different civilizations have reacted in exactly this way (and a variety of other ways) to changes in climate and their environment and while history may not always repeat, it does certainly love to rhyme.
Reblogged nonbinaryjudean
is it a hot take to say that i think you need to understand why something is bad, not just that it simply is?
this is a part of the problem
you need to be able to explain why you shouldnt use ai rather than “oh well its obviously bad and you shouldnt use it or else youre a bad person” because that isn’t logic. “ai generates child porn based off of real children and whether or not it does is entirely up to how it is built and if pedophiles are able to find ways around those safeguards, because ai cannot in itself discern right from wrong” is a genuine criticism. “amazon tried to build a data center the size of tuson outside of tuson just to power their ai that would’ve increased the inability to stay alive outside in parts of arizona” is a genuine criticism. even “using generative ai teaches you not to learn how to do things yourself even when they’re difficult, devaluing necessary skills out of practice” is a genuine criticism when you look at the amount of people who think they are able of doing a difficult major when they couldnt write their own papers in high school.
but “ai is just bad because it’s bad” will convince no one and is a morally lazy position to take. about anything!
you need to know why reading someone’s diary is wrong if you want to learn about privacy and respect. you need to know why child sexual assault is wrong if you want to be able to help children form healthy age appropriate relationships. you need to know why capitalism is bad if you want to replace it with something else. you need actual concrete ideas and ideologies rather than “you should agree with me because i have the right vibe”
Reblogged hermthejewishwyrm
So following Lily’s train of logic here, that means she would also think America was validated with its anti-Japanese stance during WW2 (you know, when we shoved whole families into internment camps), as well as its anti-Islamic rhetoric after 9/11.
Yeah, no.
That was racist and intolerant then, and it’s racist and intolerant now.
Just because some country’s government is fucked, or some assholes share a religion with others, doesn’t mean you suddenly get a free pass to be racist—and if you do, chances are you’re just using current events as an excuse to vent prejudices you’ve always had.
This is racist and stupid and Lily is fucking racist and stupid.
Comparing Israel to Japan or Al Qaeda is inherently dishonest because Israel's actions are more comparable to America's response to both Pearl Harbour and 9/11, which was was extreme and disproportionate and resulted in America being widely hated across the globe.
Japan didn't slaughter children for looking at them funny, but America and Israel did. In fact, I directly compared them to Germany.
You could not be trying harder to twist everything I say. Go outside you stupid sack of shit and stop simping for Nazis.
I'm sorry, but @cd-call-official what are you talking about? Maybe you're just not educated about WW2 besides 'Nazis bad' so I'll try to be relatively polite, but this is some seriously uniformed bullshit.
First off, idk how you can compare the US's reaction to Pearl Harbor to the backdoor wars Bush started after 9/11. Not unless you literally think a few random Japanese guys bombed a military base, while the rest of the Japanese government was oblivious to it, and then the US immediately threw 2 nukes at them?
Japan was literally an imperial power. It had invaded and conquered most of the pacific island nations, and was also actively taking over vast areas of China and Korea.
Japan didn't slaughter children for looking at them funny, but America and Israel did. In fact, I directly compared them to Germany
What do you mean Japan didn't slaughter children for looking at them funny? Have you never heard of the Massacre/ Rape of Nanjing? The Japanese army killed somewhere between 100,000 to 300,000 civilians and POW's (some of which were just men who were simply of military age) and did somewhere between 4,000 and 80,000 rapes. It's considered one of the worst wartime atrocities ever committed.
Have you never heard of Unit 731? This is an excerpt from Wikipedia about it:
"Unit 731 was responsible for large-scale biological and chemical warfare research, as well as lethal human experimentation. The facility was led by General Shirō Ishii and received strong support from the Japanese military. Its activities included infecting prisoners with deadly diseases, conducting vivisection, performing organ harvesting, testing hypobaric chambers, amputating limbs, and exposing victims to chemical agents and explosives. Prisoners—often referred to as "logs" by the staff—were mainly Chinese civilians, but also included Russians, Koreans, and others, including children and pregnant women. No documented survivors are known."
Maybe you didn't know these things happened, but you should have at least thought twice before comparing 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, simply because it is absolutely impossible to not have known Japan was allies with Nazi Germany (you know the people you were comparing the US and Israel too). They were not a non-militarized nation, that the US simply decided to pick on because a few of their ships were bombed. They were a well organized and powerful military nation, who chose to start a military campaign against a country who at that time had not joined the war.
You can debate if the nuclear bombs were necessary, and I won't pretend the US went to war with Japan or even Nazi Germany out of the goodness of their hearts. But that doesn't negate the fact that after Pearl Harbor, the US went to war with the nations responsible for the bombing and that it was a genuine military attack on them. Both were of relatively equal power when the war first started. Unlike 9/11 which was a terror attack that was done by a terror cell that wasn't a governing body of a country at the time (ironically they are now). Nor did the US even go to war with those responsible, instead political leaders used the attack to justify wars with countries not connected to said terror attack what-so-ever.
Idk if OP is aware of these things either, but what they said still stands, and is actually more relevant with this information. Knowing the Japanese government was killing, torturing and raping thousands of people across Asia (with a kill count higher than Israel's), does that justify the US interment camps of its own Japanese American citizens? According to what you said previously, your answer is yes. That the racism that Japanese Americans received was a-ok because Japan--a country they no longer lived in or even openly disagreed with, was 'slaughtering children en masse' (and worse) as you said yourself.
And the only way you can plausibly deny that was what you implied, is to admit you didn't actually read the ask you got. The ask is:
How do you handle the fact that anti-Israel sentiments have resulted in persecution against jews to the point many don't feel safe in the diaspora, and are not allowed in the middle east outside of Israel?
Your answer was to say Anti-Israeli sentiment was fake and Israels fault. That any discrimination they faced was understandable because Israel was evil. Then you bring up how anti-German sentiment was also high during WW 2 because of Nazis. You end by saying it's not your problem because you didn't gleefully bomb children.
There are only 2 options; either you didn't read what the asker said, simply saw 'anti-Israel sentiment' and went off on a tangent about how it's okay to hate everyone from a country whose government's done enough evil things to justify it (which ironically justifies the 2 nukes dropped on Japan). Or you see all Jews as Israelis, and therefore deserving of equal hate as Israelis (which in turn makes the Japanese internment camps a reasonable response due to diaspora Japanese=actual Japanese citizen).
You could not be trying harder to twist everything I say. Go outside you stupid sack of shit and stop simping for Nazis.
Your words were not twisted. You answered an ask specifically about Jews facing persecution due to anti-Israel hate by saying "It's something they have to face because they kill kids" Your answer, intended or not, lumped all Jewish people in with Israelis. OP is not wrong for following that train of logic to its reasonable conclusion, which is that anyone tangentially connected to a country doing horrible things is fair game for discrimination and persecution.
If that isn't what you meant, you could have clarified that you misread the original question and that, no, you do not find how people are lumping diaspora Jews in with Israelis or Israel in general as fair. That you made a mistake/misspoke.
Instead, you doubled down. Your entire reply is an attempt to justify your stance, whether you meant it or not. By deflecting what OP pointed out--that by your own logic Japanese internment was justified, with, "Well, Japan wasn't on the same level as bad as Israel/US/Nazi Germany, so of course Japanese racism bad" it's more than apparent that, yes, you do in fact think racism/discrimination can be justified under certain circumstances. That because of Israeli's bad actions, all Jews should just shrug their shoulders and quietly except being hate-crimed. It's understandable after all, because, as you said, "Israel gleefully kills children".
That is why I pointed out Japan's atrocities, that they killed far more civilians during WW 2, than Israel has--because, by your own words, that makes the Japanese interment an unfortunate outcome of Japan's own actions. Japan killed children, they experimented on pregnant women, they raped thousands of women (and probably children too), therefore the diaspora Japanese should have expected to be persecuted and shoved into camps. They should have accepted it because they were passively connected to a country gleefully killing children. When they were called racist names, or beaten, they shouldn't have blamed the racists--no they couldn't help but be racist because Japan did horrific things--they should have cursed Japan instead because all anti-Japanese racism was their fault.
*Also, OP is not a Nazi--you're just throwing around words because you're mad. All I can assume is that you think they're defending Israel. They're not. They're pointing out your own terrible logic, that essentially boiled down too, racism can be okay if certain people of a group do enough bad shit. Nor am I defending Israel--I'm just pointing out OP is right and that you know nothing about WW 2 besides, I guess the word Nazi (not what a Nazi is, mind you...but you do know the word and know it's an insult, though, clearly why it's an insult eludes you).
Somehow the same people that will defend as necessary the decision of Stalin to sign a pact with Hitler and annex Poland, a sovereign country, toghether, have decided that somehow Zionists trying to negotiate with the Nazis in order to allow Jews to get out safely of an increasingly dangerous and anti-semitic country while also carrying their assets is the worst thing ever.
Like, sorry, I don't get what is so bad with the Haavara agreement. It obviously failed at saving Jews, but it was an effort to do that. And while ig there can be valid criticisms of the agreement and there were criticisms of it at the time from other zionists and non zionist jews, it is important to remember that if you are not jewish and are somehow disturbed that zionists sat down to negotiate with hitler, you are playing high mighty from a position of immense privilege compared to the one jews had in 1933 germany
I hate how when people are called out for not considering nuance and complexity they always resort to ''Oh, but you wouldn't call the Nazis nuanced and complicated!'' Yes, congrats, you found an example of a situation where we could all agree someone was undeniably the bad guy. This doesn't mean that in the majority of times this will be the case. In fact, most of the times, due to human nature, due to competing narratives and interests, due to the incentive to commit evil from both sides, there will be nuance. And even in the times in which there will be no nuance, and one side will just be evil, it's fine if you look for nuance and complexity first and only after you look for it you conclude that there is none. Your first instict should NOT generally speaking be ''this is a simple battle between good and evil''. Especially because it is the first instict humans tend to have (simple good vs evil is a simple story that doesn't demand people to tire themselves thinking, it gives people a clear sense of identity etc) you should counterbalance that natural tendency with the desire to look for nuance. Don't be a leftist that falls from the anti-intellectualism of certainty
I do think we are talking abt the question of who has rights to the land in a very abstract way. You have people spewing bs abt Kazhar theory (which has been repeatedly proven false), you have people talking of who is indigenous, you have people talking abt how the arabs came in during the arab conquests of the 7th cnetury, you have people talking abt whether arabic has a p sound and what that means for palestine, you have discourse abt when the palestinian identity emerged, you have discourse abt what landback means and abt who is indigenous and abt how many years after the construction of the state do they become indigenous and all of that. And don't get me wrong, discussing the history of the Levant and the conflict and getting the info right is absolutely important, especially when it is debunking racist bullshit like Kazhar theory But sometimes I do feel like we treat the question of who has rights to the land as a theoretical moral thought experiment. Rn, the reality is both Israelis and Palestinians are there, none of them have expressed any will to leave, none of them seem to have an alternative place that feels like homeland. So unless you are willing to ethnically cleanse one of the two populations, which I hope you are not, you should be working towards coexistence independelty on how you define the word ''indigenous'' and how many centuries you think have to pass for someone to be considered ''indigenous''
So I think a lot of the problems of the chronically online version of the left stem from the fact that, while in theory they talk about intersectionality, they haven't actually grasped the concept that someone can act in an oppressive way in one context and also be oppressed in another. Marx tried to have his binary of oppressor and oppresed on the criteria of class and economic status. Then I think that a lot of progressive leftists that wanted to also talk abt social issues and race issues and gender issues and not only focus on class (as they should) tried to copy paste the oppressor oppressed binary into social issues. But the problem is, bcs inherently social issues involve a lot of axis, that framework is going to fall short. I think this binary that the world is split into perfect oppressors and perfect oppressed victims has caused a shitton of problems.
It has caused the problem of the leftist who thinks that a white super poor uneducated guy in a Midwestern state is somehow part of the oppressor class bcs he is a white dude that votes for Trump. In some ways he is, bcs his actions are empowring Trump and harming minorities, and he should be held accountable for that. But at the same time, he is also an oppressed person, and calling him classist slurs and white trash and all is BAD. It has caused the problem of antisemitism not being taken seriously on the left. Bcs some chronically online leftists will conclude that because the Israeli government oppresses Palestinians, that automatically means that jewish people are part of the ''oppressor'' class and can never be oppressed by anyone. It has caused some of the soft IRGC apologia. Muslims are genuinely opressed in the context of the USA, especially after 9/11, and to the leftist binary this translates into ''Thus a muslim gov can't be truly oppressive''
Like oppression isn't your little maslow hierarchy, it is actually complex and it is EXTREMELY rare that someone will only be privileged or will only be oppressed Intersectionality btw was meant to explore all of that, but then everyone turned intersectionality into exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to be and used it to claim that what intersectionality proves is that white women are part of the oppressor class. When the fucking point should be there is not one specific perfect oppressor class
So while I am looking into converting to judaism my dad (Greek Orthodox Christian) is looking into converting into Catholicism. It's all super fun bcs we are both very supportive of each other and we both love nerding out abt theological discourse. My father's side of the family are passionate Orthodox Christians so ig it will also be fun when both of us have to yknow, announce it
Reblogged
Niche complaint but I would appreciate it if US Christians (cultural or religious) could get their shit together and learn something about the history of Christianity.
The number of utterly blank stares I get when I mention Oriental Orthodox Christianity is really not normal.
I am a Jew! I should not be teaching you about the Great Schism of 1054. I should not be explaining the Council of Chalcedon to you. How has no one more qualified seen fit to educate you??
Maybe it’s just because my dad grew up Greek Orthodox Christian but I know more about “Old World” Christian denominations than any American Christian I have ever met in my life.
Reblogged
Thanks group of students wearring keffiyehs and staring at the only identifiable Jew on the bus (me). That REALLY helped Palestine and wasn't antisemitic at all!
Oh goodness. So I get on my second bus right? And everything's going fine until the person next to me sees my Star of David and asks me to get up so she can move to another seat.
Am I really so evil in your eyes that you can't even sit next to me? Or leave me alone on my bus ride?
Reblogged
If you want to be an ally to the Jewish people, you’d better be ready to fight the antisemitism faced by all Jews.
Zionist Jews. Anti- and non-Zionist Jews. Observant Jews. Secular Jews. Israeli Jews. Ashkenazi Jews. Sephardic Jews. Mizrahi Jews. Beta Israeli Jews. Desi Jews. Convert Jews. White-passing Jews. Jews of color. Visibly-Jewish Jews. Queer Jews. Left-wing Jews. Right-wing Jews. Patrilineal Jews.
We are one people, and if you only fight antisemitism when it targets the Jews you like, you’re not actually an ally of the Jewish people.
@spacelazarwolf couldn’t let you just leave this in the tags
text for those with screen reader, image doesn’t load, etc:
“Umm why did you include x Jews on this list”
Bc antisemitism is literally never okay. If you consider antisemitism to be okay if it’s directed at political rivals then congrats you are an antisemite. Bc if the problem you have with antisemitism is not that it’s wrong but that it’s directed at the wrong Jews, then you hate Jews and the second the Jews you claim to not hate do something you don’t like or say something you don’t agree with, you will justify antisemitism again there too.
For another example in case people need it:
You know how we've been saying no one should be misgendering Caitlyn Jenner just because she's a right-wing piece of shit? Or not to make fat jokes or other body-shaming comments about shitty politicians who are fat or have other body differences we usually say don't be a dick about because that's shitty to perpetuate in any form no matter who you're targeting?
Yeah.
That.
It's the same damn thing.
You don't get to be antisemitic to a Jewish person. Even if Netanyahu himself walks in the door, you don't get to spout Jew-hatred at him. You just don't. He's done plenty of shitty stuff you could yell about just fine without bringing anything remotely antisemitic into play, same as you should be approaching every other shitty person in the world who happens to be of a demographic or have something about them society has pushed systemic prejudice toward in the past and present.
Not only is it never remotely necessary to wield the tools of the systems of oppression we purport to be fighting, it's just plain wrong. End of.
Reblogged
Look: If you are a self proclaimed leftist that believes there shouldn't be a state for Jewish people and you also think Jews should leave Israel bcs it is ''stolen land'' and yet you live in fucking Thessaloniki you probably live in a Jewish person stolen house and if you are serious about the fact that Jews shouldn't need a seperate state you better fucking return it
I do think that judging a piece of art as propaganda is a bit weird unless it is directly state sponsored with the purpose of promoting the ideology the state wants to promote while the state actively censors other pieces of art. That is propaganda, yes. But if what you mean by labeling a piece of literature or music or anything as propaganda is that the author is trying to propagandize their own ideas abt the world and they don't do so in a fair and balanced to the other side way, I think almost all political art becomes propaganda. Yknow, it is meant to convey a specific opinion and worldview. The people that demonize X or Y book as propaganda are usually just mad that it is propaganda that doesn't agree with their ideology.
So there is no point yapping abt how a piece of media is propaganda bcs duh, the solution is fucking consume ideologically diverse art and ideologically diverse media so that you get ''propaganda'' from all sides of the aisle.