this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
773 points (93.8% liked)
Microblog Memes
5727 readers
3617 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
I never said they were just anti Jewish.
Why are people here so married to calling Israeli Jewish people nazis? Such a weird hill to choose to die on.
Because it's an extremely valid and apt comparison.
The Nazis were not defined by being anti-Jewish, yet you make out that because Israel is not discriminating against Jews they cannot be Nazis. The Nazis are defined by ethno fascism preferring a single race. For the Nazis, it's Aryans; for Israel, it's Jews. They're so incredibly similar that you can pretty much call them the same - they're basically two sides of a single coin.
Also, strictly speaking we're not calling all Israelis Nazis, but the people running the country and committing genocide.
They were defined by both their hatred of Jewish people and their ethno fascism. Their hatred of Jewish people is a fundamental part of everything they did and the justification for all of it. If they didn't like something, they declared it to be a Jewish conspiracy and attacked it.
Why are you so married to calling them a term that ensures everyone outside of certain cliques will automatically dismiss anything you have to say about the subject?
Why are you so vehemently defending an indefensibly evil group, all because I compared them to another indefensibly evil group?
I don't see it as defending them. At least, its result is only secondary. I see it as making sure that people who know what's going on in gaza aren't ignored when they talk about it. I'm sure you can figure out what happens to the majority of people who are kept deliberately in the dark about it (they switch off).
To me, its the correct definition and going by it is good for its own sake.
If I was a social media propagandist, obviously I'm not saying you are, I would foster a culture where people call Jewish Israelis nazis, to gain sympathy for the wrongs the IDF is doing in gaza. As such, I think not doing that is a good idea.
I would ask in return, what is the benefit of not having your argument etc. in favour of palestinian liberation being squeaky clean? Regardless of whether you were ultimately right, can you really justify the use of that decisive word for them when you can do almost the exact same thing with another, equally as good word. If you feel its a bit better, is the improvement justified when the outcome is to raise awareness for Palestine?