this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
773 points (93.8% liked)
Microblog Memes
5771 readers
2215 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nope, nazi is a specific term for a specific kind of fascist. Dont get me wrong, there are plenty of people who don't understand the words that they use but thats not the same things as them being correct.
So no, the Israeli government are not nazis and only a moron would think that they were.
The word "fascism" comes from Mussolini's ideas and was later used to denote any political system with similar ideas. I think the use of the word "nazism" has been generalized in the same way.
Yup, facsism is the umbrella term under which the different facsist groups, like the nazis, fall under which is what I said already.
I know people who think god is real. They too are mistaken.
Are the Israelis murdering Jewish people on mass? If not, they're not nazis.
I mean, sort of by proxy they might be inspiring a bunch of hate crimes, and I wouldn't be surprised if their actions on sort of a broader geopolitical scale are inspiring a kind of antisemitic cycle of violence, but I dunno if I'd say that makes them more specifically "nazis", in like, the 20th century hitler ideology sense.
In any case, don't be a linguistic prescriptivist, it's cringe.
Lol what you mean is "no, they're not killing Jewish people on mass that way that nazis do." Don't worry, anyone reading your comment will sew thats what you said.
No, words mean what they mean. They dont mean whatever the hell you feel they should whenever you feel like it. Its also antisemitic as fuck to call Jewish people nazis, due to the specific nature of nazis.
We can descend into literary anarchy, if you like but I think you'll find it quite to be quite chocolately and up side down very quickly. BTW, I've just decided that chocolately and up side down now means frustrating and tedious. You must accept this or youre a cringy linguistic prescriptivist. Or is it only OK when you do it?
Like he said, don't be a linguistic prescriptivist. Until you understand what that means, you can't discuss this further.
Oh no, no-one's talking about Jews. Jews are a lovely people. We're talking about Israelis and their government. The Israeli people do not own the Jewish religion. Saying that calling Israeli fascist nazis is antisemitic is beyond pathetic.
No, Israel can't hide behind the "but but the Jews suffered so in WWII". No, it's not an excuse to commit a genocide.
Yes, the Israeli government are nazis. Small n.
Get millions of people to actually use that as a phrase, and it is what it will mean. That's how language works.
"Rizz" is a correct word already. As is using "literally" for emphasis. Just because you're still stuck in your "but I'm 13 and don't know how to google 'prescriptive'" ways doesn't mean language isn't constantly evolving and that this evolving can be whatever. And that whatever has been documented a lot of times.
I understand it just fine. You just don't like having your bullshit called out.
Calling any Jewish person, be it Israeli or otherwise, a nazi is antisemitic, per pretty much every definition of antisemitism in the English speaking world. I know, I know, you like making up your own meaning for words but the rest of us need don't do that.
Yes language is always evolving. That doesn't mean words mean whatever you want them to mean and it doesn't mean that calling Jewish people nazis isn't antisemitic.
"My use is correct, as prescriptive words exist"
Well, you can't argue with that kind of "logic."
Why are you so married to calling the israeli government nazis? You could just call them facsists which would be correct and not fall under most people's understanding of antisemitism but you refuse. Why is this?
Then you don't understand the definition in the slightest, nor have you looked at the several ones I've shown that conform to the exact meaning that's been explained to you over and over and again.
First off, it's beyond a ridiculous statement to say that "calling any jewish person a nazi is antisemitic", because antisemitism is towards a group, whereas calling someone personally a nazi, isn't a thing you're directing at a group.
So you're definition is "anything that's even remotely hostile to anyone who's Jewish, be it related in any way to them being Jewish or not"?
So if a Jewish person rapes someone, and you accuse them of being a rapist, you're being antisemitic? That's your definition of antisemitism? Literally anyone calling out your bullshit. Ironic, isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Neo-Nazis_of_Jewish_descent
So guess those people weren't antisemites, but the people who wrote that article calling them neonazis are antisemites. Because that is literally what you said. ANY Jewish person in ANY context. See what kind of moronic logic you're putting out? Where's your intellectual rigor? Have you ever had any?
You still don't seem to understand how to use "presriptive" and "descriptive" correctly. So are you denying that "nazi" is often used as a synonym for "fascist"? Are you saying that you truly think that does not happen? If so, welcome, how's your first day on the internet? Or are you saying common usage doesn't define what is acceptable? Because... that would be... erroneous.
Literally ALL the dictionaries I can look up mention this use for "nazi." Weird how you can't link anything to support your garbage, isn't it?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi#Noun
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Nazi
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nazi
So yeah. Show me a dictionary which doesn't have that meaning for it?
Because it's extremely ironic that the #neveragain people are literally #doingitrightnowthemselves and the fact that you refuse to see this hints that you're on the side which keeps frantically denying they're not committing the genocide they're very much committing.
You can't have looked very hard.
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/combating-antisemitism/definition-antisemitism_en
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism^___^
Lol at you attempting to paint me as someone denying israels genocide in palestine. Sheer desperation from you here.
Ah, so you accept the reality, which is that Israel is committing a genocide? You'll readily accept that fact, and won't try to dodge the question or pretend there isn't a genocide?
Good.
I'd tell you you need to watch your projection. Youre feeling extremely ashamed, that's why you're talking about desperation. Because you despaired when you realised how wrong you are, from the votes and everyone explaining to you what "prescriptive" and "descriptive" mean. You didn't understand it.
So now you're trying to appeal to authority while not even making an argument. Desperately. You think that link seems authoritative. The EU discussing how antisemitism is defined doesn't change that using nazi doesn't make you antisemitic, and it doesn't change the fact that "nazi" is synonymous with "fascist", so calling Israeli soldiers nazis is not linguistically erroneous.
Defining "nazi" prescriptively as having one single meaning would be linguistically erroneus. Which you will never admit to.
So which part in this EU link which I did actually read through is supposed to say that descriptive rules for a language have gone out the window?
Or is it now the comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany policies that you're saying is antisemitic, and not the colloquial use of "nazi"? Because those aren't the same thing?
Don't be so desperate, you can get out of all this shame simply by not replying. No more humiliation for you, it can all be over. Just lie back and take it.
Wow, you really have some issues you need to work out there. You really went and rage typed all that didn't you?
No, I don't care that I get downvoted for saying that people shouldn't call Jewish people, regardless of whether they're referred to as Israelis or, not nazis. I also didn't say that you or anyone here is an antisemitic person. My point is that the action of doing so is. If I thought you genuinely wanted to be antisemitic, I wouldn't bother telling you now would I?
I love, love how you start off taking about projection and then lost a whole load of emotions that you feel I'm feeling, without a hint of irony.
The part of the equality and human rights commission that says:
Specifically.
Again, if you're just referring to them in the way you would call someone, say, a grammar nazi, why do you HAVE to keep saying it? Why do you feel the need to defend it so vigorously?
Come one now, grow a spine and answer.
Still, so much projection. You're just so angry at being publicly shamed for not knowing the basics of linguistics, even basic terminology such as "prescriptive" and "descriptive". This means that more than likely, you're not highly educated. That's okay, because you're online and you can teach yourself, but it shows just on what level you're discussing this.
Because you were wrong and because everyone pointed it out, you got this tantrum. You were in error, but can never admit that publicly. So you'll dig deeper and more desperate to try and save yourself from this spectacular fail, as you so eloquently put it.
"Defend it so vigorously"? Defend what? How languages work? Again, they don't care for my OPINION. I don't make the rules for the languages. Not prescriptive nor descriptive. Nothing I think will make you be less in error.
You're just not man enough to say "oh I didn't understand the terms you were using as I don't understand language-a-logics at all, thanks for teaching me."
No, instead you at first started arguing as if you understood the subject, DESPERATELY googling things to support you. I'm not Googling shit because I know what I'm talking about. Maybe next time, you'll THINK before you press "reply" or "post" to comments with words which you don't actually understand the meaning of?
I love how you're the one going on about emotions and I'm, apparently, also the one projecting. Its like you don't understand the meaning of the word.
Disagreeing with you isn't a tantrum.
I'm man enough to know the definition of antisemitism and what it includes. One of those things is:
If you reject that definition then thats your choice to make but to pretend the only reason someone would think differently is due to a lack of basic linguistic knowledge is just bizzare and shows that maybe you should have googled some stuff before writing.
You projected all your emotions with words like "desperate" and "spectacular fail". Because you know it's you who failed. Now you're just desperately trying to pretend the spectacular fail didn't happen.
To pretend that you even saw that bit there before I pointed it out to you is ridiculous. And yes, that contention is ridiculous and I personally reject it, because comparisons can be drawn in between anything. Elon Musk and Jesus? Sure thing. Not a flattering comparison for Musk, but that can definitely be made. But we won't even get into the actual politics of this, which you weren't into.
Netanyahu is basically trying to push the agenda that anyone criticising his warcrimes is antisemitic. I would like you to understand how antisemitic pushing that is. Do you now understand how much the global Jewish population is suffering for Netanyahu's nazism? (That's a rhetoric question, I don't think you've the capacity.)
We are talking about the colloquial use of the word "nazi". You don't understand basic linguistics which again, is different from the basics of language (this has to be specified because you thought lacking the basics of linguistics would mean one can't speak the language, not understanding the difference between the terms), and you made an error. That error being corrected by at least half a dozen people each with a half a dozen upvotes at least on them, made you angry. You don't like admitting that you're wrong. You're not trying to convince me now, you know I see through your bullshit. You're trying to convince yourself of it.
"Spectacular fail" isn't an emotion now is it?
Explain how someone can read without knowing the basics of grammar and the structure of the language they're trying to read.
On what basis do you reject the EHRC definition of antisemitism?
Be a man and explain your positions.
The shame you feel from having spectacularly failed certainly is, yes.
So now you're honestly trying to argue that "language" and "linguistics" are synonyms, because you're INCAPABLE of admitting to having been wrong?
Perhaps you can explain how people can manage to drive cars without understanding the basics of mechanical engineering? You can drive a car without understanding even what Newtons measure or even how to weld a basic seam or without understanding how to make petrol out of crude oil. HOW? Perhaps because driving a car and building one are two different things?
Just like using language and studying it? Humans have something called language acquisition. It’s a term you’d definitely hear in any sort of a beginner linguistics class, probably on the first lesson. There’s also a very strong reason why it’s not called “linguistics acquisition”.
Linguistics is the STUDY OF LANGUAGE. Would you call anyone who's ever had a few emotions to be a studier of emotions? Because if so, then all humans everywhere practice psychology. I'm sure you know how silly that sounds, don't you?
You still don't understand what "prescriptive" means. Are you just honestly incapable of understanding it, or are you just so intellectually lazy you haven't read about it for the few minutes it might take for even someone like you to learn it?
Jesus christ you have some real problems.
I do but even if I didn't, their definition includes all uses of the word, due to their being no caveat excluding them.
7/5 for irony, once again
It's all uses of it. I know you want to but you can't just declare it not included because you feel like it and you just really wanna call Jewish people nazis.
You're trying to get out of admitting that you publicly humiliated yourself with your own stupidity by trying to imply I'm an antisemite. Do you know what you've not asked a single time during this childish tantrum you've been having? My ethnicity or religion.
Israelis are nazis. "Hard n" or no. Btw, hilarious that you keep using the phrase "hard N". oh, like.. "the N-word"? "Yeah man, the N word with the HARD N. You know... NAZI!"
I'm pretty sure that's not the N-word bro.
##You said: "If I didn’t understand “the very basis of linguistics, why would you write to me? Come on now. Think before you talk.”
##Do you deny saying that, or do you just deny that it’s in any way wrong? Because it’s either or. I guess you deny there’s anything wrong with it. When there is. Very clearly. Almost as if you had some sort of inability to admit when you’re wrong. ;)
Take your own advice. THINK.
You still can't admit that calling Jewish people nazis is wrong huh? As if you spent all that time writing that bullshit out that no one will read, not even me, to attempt to justify being antisemitic is just tragic.
Its almost as if you have an inability to admit when you're wrong.
"I'm all out of ideas on what to do to cover my childish mistakes. I know; I'll call them an anti-semite!"
Wow. Did you come up with that yourself? Or was it perhaps taught to you by an institution of some sort? Perhaps the Israeli education system? What's your nationality? Being Israeli would sure explain why you're having such a fucking tantrum over Netanyahu being called a nazi.
You never answered; by your logic, calling these people nazis is antisemitic. That's insane.
Remember when you think that "linguistics" meant "language"? Remember when you thought if someone hadn't studied linguistics, it would mean the same as them not being able to speak? :D Remember that? Why are you ignoring it? Are you ashamed of what you wrote? Because it's right there in the comment, still. :) Why are you ignoring it? :)
Why do you defend antisemitism so strongly? Why can't you just admit that calling any Jewish person a nazi is wrong?
Keep typing that bullshit that no one will read. I'm doing a public service by keeping you away from children and small animals.
You're replying it. I don't really care if anyone is reading it, but I'm sure people will check your profile at one point or another.
This is going to look great when you're trying to have a serious discussion with someone. Real show of maturity, spamming the same reply in which you say "I don't read the replies I reply to, I just reply to 'get the last word' even when I can't because I've actually said something incredibly stupid but which I can't accept having said despite it being logged for all to see"
Like how "if I didn't understand linguistics, how could I be speaking" ;:DDD
Why do you defend antisemitism so strongly? Why can't you just admit that calling any Jewish person a nazi is wrong?
Keep typing that bullshit that no one will read. I'm doing a public service by keeping you away from children and small animals.
That's an intelligent looking profile, my man.
Sure you're not having a tantrum and it would just be better to have a snack and a nap?
It's okay to confuse words like "linguistics" and "language". It's okay to not understand what "prescriptive" means. We can learn. But if you're willfully ignorant and won't own up to your own brainfarts, you'll just make yourself look like an idiot. Do you want that?
Why do you defend antisemitism so strongly? Why can't you just admit that calling any Jewish person a nazi is wrong? Imagine having such a sad, lonely and empty life that you even claim to enjoy being wrong about calling Jewish people nazis.
Keep typing that bullshit that no one will read. I'm doing a public service by keeping you away from children and small animals.
I'm going to see Deadpool & Wolverine, so you'll have some 6 hours or so to make other comments in other threads, so your profile doesn't look as crazy.
Just letting you know, I'll be back later to make fun of how you're PROUD to NOT READ things you are replying to while pretending you didn't say the silly shit that 's out there for all to see. "If I didn't understand basic linguistics, how could you write to me?!?!?! THINK!" :;DDDD
Have fun debating people who will definitely check your profile. It's looking very sane. :D
Why do you defend antisemitism so strongly? Why can't you just admit that calling any Jewish person a nazi is wrong? Imagine having such a sad, lonely and empty life that you even claim to enjoy being wrong about calling Jewish people nazis.
Keep typing that bullshit that no one will read. I'm doing a public service by keeping you away from children and small animals.
If you think no-one will read it, you pretend you don't read it, and you actively ignore everything in the comment, then why continue replying?
For me, this is fun. I do this because I sort of studying the human condition. Your stubbornness is fascinating to me. The fact that you say dumb shit and now pretend that you didn't, while getting so tantrum-y that you spam "ANTISEMITISM ANTISEMITISM" without being address a single thing or even changing your reply? It's hilarious.
You thought "linguistics" means "language", and that's okay. But you can't admit to it, even though everyone can see it, and everyone who's gonna check your profile, ever, will see this inane spam of "ANTISEMITE ANTISEMITE" from you and get curious as to why a (supposedly) adult person can get that mad, and they'll come here to read it. :)
So. Why are you in this thread?
"Spectacular fail" isn't an emotion now is it?
Again with the ad populums. I suppose its the best you've got but still, have some intellectual integrity.
How can someone read without knowledge of basic grammar and the structure of the language they're reading?
OK, so now we're getting somewhere. You think you know better than the European equality and rights commission. More people agree with that definition that your "not a hard N" argument. By your own "logic" wouldn't that make you wrong?
.>That error being corrected by at least half a dozen people each with a half a dozen upvotes at least on them, made you angry. You don’t like admitting that you’re wrong. You’re not trying to convince me now, you know I see through your bullshit. You’re trying to convince yourself of it.
Sorry, what was that you were saying about projection?