Zionists are ethno-Fascists - Fascism linked to ethnicity rather than the nationalism of traditional Fascism - complete with things like ethnic superiority beliefs (and a general belief in some ethnicities being ubermensch and others untermensch), accusing critics of that Fascism of being against the ethnicity and surrounding themselves with the symbology related to the ethnicity.
It’s the same kind of Fascism as the NAZIS - who claimed to represent the Arian Race - had, complete with rabid racism and inhuman levels of murderous behavior against members of ethnicities deemed untermensch (who Zionists literally call “human animals”) and not at all the same kind of Fascism as, say, Mussolini (in Italy) or Franco (in Spain).
Zionism is far closer to NAZIsm than any other ideology, including all other Fascist ideologies, and their words and actions reflect that, so calling them NAZIs as a shortcut makes sense because that’s pretty much what they are, with the main difference being the ethnicity they claim to represent.
Sure, you can say they haven’t committed a Holocaust and the NAZIs did, but then again the NAZIs too didn’t start by committing a Holocaust - that only came later because nobody stood up against them until it was too late, exactly the same as being done with regards to the Zionists.
Cool story still not nazis though and its still antisemitic to call Jewish people nazis, due to the specific nature of nazis.
If anyone actaully cared about the words meaning and wanted to further the cause of palestinians, instead of just being antisemitic, they would simply adjust to using a term that won’t ensure everything they say afterwards is dismissed by the vast majority of society.
What you described is facsism and hallmarks of all fascism and none of the things that made nazis nazis, instead of regular facsists. The problem is, you don’t know the difference and you’ve presumed no one else does either. So you tried to blag it instead.
I mean, calling Jewish people nazis is literally in the definition of antisemitism. I know you’re not very good with words and their meanings but, to the resr of the world, the meaning of words is actually important.
I mean, a anyone has to do is call them fascsists which is still an insult to any decent person.
Why do you have to call them something that is universally known to be an antisemitic thing to xa them when you can achieve the same aims without the antisemitism?
There is no special property of people from the Jewish ethnicity that makes them any less capable or any more capable of the kind of evil and the kind of thinking that the NAZIs had and practiced.
Also there have even been Jewish Holocaust Survivors who compared the actions of Israel (so, of many of its people and decision-makers in its government, all of whom are “Jewish people”) to those of the NAZIs.
Your definition of anti-semitism, which you are parroting in the name of all Jews no less, slanders even some Jewish Holocaust Survivors as “anti-semites”.
It takes an extraordinary amount of interiorisation of racism to parrot a definition of anti-semitism that not only implies that Jews are differently capable of certain ways of thinking and acting (and hence that they are different from other people), it even classifies some Jews, including some Jewish Holocaust Survivors, as anti-semite.
The Nazis weren’t just anti-Jewish, they were anti-anyone who isn’t Aryan. While the people here are basically only showing anti-Arab sentiments, if they held the same view to all other races then they would be analogous to Nazis.
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?
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?
You got a point. The original fascist, Benito Mussolini, wasn’t even racist. He didn’t obsess about the Jews or other races as much as the Nazis did. What mattered to Italian fascism is if you subscribe to Italian nationalism.
Zionism is Fascism linked to ethnicity - ethno-Fascism - same as the NAZIs, whilst Mussolini’s version was traditional Fascism which is linked to nationalism.
The rabid racism, feelings of ethnic superiority and dehumanization of other specific ethnicities of ethno-Fascism result in far more cold and murderous behavior than mere nationalism.
All this is why we see from the Zionists the same kind of unbelievably murderous almost-inhuman behaviour, the same general extreme racist argumentation and even the same accusing of their critics of being against their ethnicity as the NAZIs.
The closest traditional Fascists get that is accusing their critics of being against their nation, but beyond that you don’t see anywhere near the level or rabid murderous violence against others merely because of their nationality or ethnicity from traditional Fascist as you see from ethno-Fascists.
Simply compare Russia’s behavior in Ukraine with Israel’s behavior in Gaza to see the veritable universe of difference in how murderous and uncaring both kinds of Fascist are, over the entire chain of command all the way down to the lowest foot soldier in their violence against the “other”, even if both kinds are are aggressive and violent: the Russians have targeted children maybe once or twice, from afar (i.e. missile attacks on schools) whilst the Israelis regularly bomb schools and playgrounds and their snipers shoot on the heads children who are simply playing inside their own homes: direct murdering if children whilst seeing their faces is a whole different level of inhumane behavior.
The Italian facists are split about it. Mussolini has not exactly been consistent with his beliefs but he is considerably less racist than Hitler and the Nazis. Even some of the Italian fascists denounce racism from some of the other members.
“Nazi” is more a colloquial term for “fascist who’s actually been allowed to practice their cruel and senseless fascist policies”, imo. Not someone saying that Israel is literally following the politics of one Adolf Hitler.
So yeah, in essence, these Israeli Jews are nazis, however ironic it sounds.
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.
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?
No, words mean what they mean. They dont mean whatever the hell you feel they should whenever you feel like it.
Like he said, don’t be a linguistic prescriptivist. Until you understand what that means, you can’t discuss this further.
Its also antisemitic as fuck to call Jewish people nazis, due to the specific nature of nazis.
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.
BTW, I’ve just decided that chocolately and up side down now means frustrating and tedious.
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.
Saying that calling Israeli fascist nazis is antisemitic is beyond pathetic
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?
Yes, prescriptively, it’s a very certain type. You’ll notice how for instance in Wikipedia they’d capitalise the n in “Nazi”, while on forums you might see people using just “nazi”. Is there a difference? Yes. The same way “literally” means literally, but it can also be used just as emphasis. And that’s the opposite of it’s meaning.
Yet because some people like to use it that way, it’s accepted as a colloquialism into the language.
Thats actually a hilarious attempt at squaring this little antisemitic circle people where keep drawing.
Its funny that you provide links to everything but the part that could prove your nonsense to be true (that the meaning of nazi changes when a capital letter is used). Its literally something you just made up now, then claimed that (as colloquiums exist) the thing i just made up must be true.
How about you attempt to prove that the capitalisation of the “N” changes the meaning to not being nazis but, instead, “Jewish people we don’t like.”
There’s nothing you’ll ever accept as enough evidence that this is how language works and go “oh, okay, I think I was wrong.” That’s not even on the table. You’re literally not capable of even writing those words.
When you’re reading text, and it has the word “coke” in it, do you read it differently than “Coke”?
Could you perhaps take a guess at what’s the difference?
First one stands for (depending on the place of usage), any type of cola, cocaine or even any type of soda drink. that’s valid usage in the Southern US, calling a can of any carbonated sugary drink “coke” is perfectly fine. Whereas “Coke” is short for “Coca-Cola” and refers to the actual Coke.
Now unless I’m speaking to a second grader or something, you should be able to grasp the meaning of that. It works just like it does with “Nazi”, “nazi.”
No, I didn’t invent the rules of capitalisation
How about you attempt to prove that the capitalisation of the “N” changes the meaning to not being nazis but, instead, “Jewish people we don’t like.”
This has nothing to do with being a Jew and everything to do with being a small-minded, brainwashed, fascist genocide supporting piece of shit. In other words a nazi, as is the accepted colloquial usage.
Israeli government are despicable nazis.
Why would you make this about being Jewish?
Jewish people are great. Nazis fucking suck dick. Israeli government is full of nazis. Israeli government isn’t the same as Jewish people. That’s like saying that if I call Putler a fucking nazi, that I’m “just referring to Christians you don’t like”.
Like how fucking thick do you have to be to make that argument?
Israeli government are scum. Jewish people are lovely. And the true people of God are against this sort of nazi bullshit and would seek to make Israel face it’s sins.
1
: a member of a German political party that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler
2
disapproving : an evil person who wants to use power to control and harm other people especially because of their race, religion, etc.
Now you can try to make the argument that we’ve all been brainwashed by the media and that that these people wouldn’t fit into the description of “an evil person harming other people for their race religion etc” :
On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:
My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.
So I really don’t know what you’re disagreeing with here, since none of these are my opinions, or shitty examples I’ve made up. They’re definitions in such common usage you can find them listed on big linguistic organisations.
You’re just offended that people are justifiably horrified by the nazi shit Israel is doing and wish to pretend it isn’t happening.
Descriptive language is a thing even if you pretend it isn’t. So are Israeli war crimes.
Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. Word meanings can change over time, the only thing that makes a word’s definition “correct” is if it successfully communicates information.
I’m not saying that to castigate you but to make your point bullet proof.
I actually agree with your definition, but arguing that a word’s definition is wrong simply because “thats not how it’s defined” ignores the way that real people actually use words today
Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. Word >meanings can change over time
While true, actually, it doesn’t mean “words can mean whatever the hell i want them to whenever I feel like it.” As crazy as it might seems, its actually not the same thing.
It does successfully communicate information. That much is the. Unfortunately though, it communicates that certain people choose antisemitism over accurately describing the thing they’re talking about. If that’s what they want to communicate, then yes, it was successfully communicated. If that wasn’t the intention, it fails the condition you listed.
While true, actually, it doesn’t mean “words can mean whatever the hell i want them to whenever I feel like it.” As crazy as it might seems, its actually not the same thing.
And who tried that?
We’re not talking about whether “rizz” is acceptable to use instead of “charisma”, (which would also constitute common usage), but something that’s been going on for more than 80 years.
Using “nazi” as a generalised term for fascists.
It’s accurate. It’s very accurate. Because what the Israeli are doing to Palestinians is very related to what the Nazis (notice the capital N) did to Jews during the Holocaust.
#neveragain
Israeli government are nazis. Pure and simple. You can keep crying over what you feel is an offensive and “inaccurate” term. Unfortunately for you it’s common usage no matter how badly you want to be blissfully ignorant of Israeli atrocities.
No, nazi, even by the definition you provided, is an evil person colloquially.
The israeli government are facsists and pretending anyone could cry over your ignorance is pathetic, even by your standards. Just so you know, your mask slips when you have to pretend I want ignorant of the evil things the Israeli government is doing. Its just empty rhetoric designed to silence people who disagree with you, as you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
However, as were on the subject of definitions, why are you so married to calling Jewish people a term that falls under the EHRC definition of antisemitism?
Let me guess, suddenly you don’t care for the definition of words anymore? Go ahead, attempt to argue that away with your baseless, asinine declarations about the use of capital letters. Please do, its hilarious.
Literally, its like listening to white guys claiming it wasn’t racist, as they didn’t use a hard “R.”
Oh by calling Israeli government nazis I’m am right now deciding that a specific word has a specific meaning. I AM doing that. Right now? Not something that has been sculpted by the use of billions of speakers for decades and decades? Something which might have been, idk, so common that it’s been recorded as a secondary meaning for the word “nazi” for longer than you’ve been alive…?
Because every single dictionary I can find has that a secondary meaning.
One who subscribes to or advocates (neo-)Nazism, or a similarly fascist, racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, ethnic supremacist, or ultranationalist ideology; a neo-Nazi.
On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:
You don’t care for the definitions of words. You just ignore whatever doesn’t suite you. Like the fact that it is in fact accurate and within common use of language to say that Netanyahu is a nazi. All the definitions agree, all the evidence agrees, everything agrees with me and all you have is pathetic strawmen like “that’s like white people trying to justify using the r-word. calling ANY jew EVER a nazi in any form is wide-scale antisemitism!”
Oh so it would be antisemitic of me to call these people nazis? They’re not antisemites for the virtue of having Jewish descent, but I’m an antisemite for calling them nazis, despite what they are? What are you, 12, honestly? I genuinely like long conversations online but the quality on your comments is just absolute garbage.
Again, the fact that secondary meanings for words exist doesn’t make you right to call Jewish people nazis. It is an antisemitic thing to do. That doesn’t mean that you are or aren’t that but the action itself.
Why are you so married to calling Jewish people a term that will ensure that anyone outside of cliques like this will automatically dismiss anything else you have to say?
I’m not so keen on them myself. I’m just fascinated to what someone attempt and fail spectacularly to justify calling Jewish people nazis. I mean, if you are using in the way that people would call someone a grammar nazi or just generally nasty, why do you have to use that specific word and not any of the others that would work just as well.
I think it’s a neurodivergent thing. When Steve says “Israeli’s are a bunch of Nazis” you’re supposed to pass through the words and see what Steve is expressing. Steve didn’t couch his statement in a clinical, “these be the facts” tone, it’s obvious what Steve meant. He’s calling out Israel for abhorrent behavior
The “this means X so if you say that it means Y” things is the way some neurodivergents slice up the world. Like we live in a videogame or something. They will literally tell you what you meant by attaching arbitrary rules to your words.
Anyways, Israeli’s are definitely Nazis. (They are not literally Nazis) Their war is soulless, evil. (Evil does not literally exist, soulless is elegant shorthand for morality, how one feels about actions, how deep one feels those patterns are embedded, etc.)
(by extension) One who subscribes to or advocates (neo-)Nazism, or a similarly fascist, racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, ethnic supremacist, or ultranationalist ideology; a neo-Nazi.
Adjective:
(by extension) Domineering, totalitarian, or intolerant. synonym ▲
Synonym: fascist
Der Nationalsozialismus war keine geschlossene Lehre, sondern begründete eine »Weltanschauung«, in deren Mittelpunkt die Idee des »arischen Herrenvolkes« stand, das sich aller Mittel zu bedienen hat, um sich »Lebensraum« zu schaffen, andere (angeblich minderwertige) Völker und Nationen zu unterdrücken und die Welt vom (angeblich einzig Schuldigen, dem) Judentum zu befreien.
“So yeah, in essence, these Israeli Jews are Nazis, however ironic it sounds”
This doesn’t have anything to do with colloquialisms anymore but instead with real-world facts.
Let me demonstrate:
If you suddenly start calling every coloured bird a Parrot, will a Bluefinch become “in essence” a Parrot?
Of course not. A Bluefinch is a Bluefinch and not a Parrot, the same way a Whale isn’t a Fish just because it has fins even though we tend to colloquially call animals with fins “fish”. Because words have meanings that you can’t just re-define.
So no, you can’t call them a Nazi. Because it is just plain factually wrong.
Do you think you can just go about telling people that what they’re talking about isn’t what they’re actually talking about?
Well, i think my Comment did a good job representing how from my point of view you were the one derailing the discussion and making it about colloquialisms when it was clearly about allegations of Nazism.
So maybe we should not presumptively make accusations? Who am I kidding, this is the Internet.
You can use every language in the world to define any other word in any other language and it still does not save you from semantic pitfalls and poor rhetoric.
Calling Trump a Nazi because he has a Hitler book next to his bed? Perfectly fine. Enough evidence.
Calling israel Nazis because they’re committing Genocide in order to expand their Lebensraum? Let me pull up esoteric German sites which happen to have a definition to fit my narrative.
The Nazis wanted the Jews out of Germany. If the Jews all move to Israel, the Nazis will say mission accomplished. Since its inception, Israel has been beloved by antisemites. Israel is fundamentally a Nazi project. Antisemitic to the core.
It makes you wonder why the nazis murdered them all instead of just sending them away from Germany…
Israel was a project made by British and American Christians, fresh from defeating the actual nazis, who wanted to colonise the middle East and to bring about the end of days. Facsist to the core but not anti Jewish or nazi.
The Madagascar Plan (German: Madagaskarplan) was a plan proposed by the Nazi German government to forcibly relocate the Jewish population of Europe to the island of Madagascar. Franz Rademacher, head of the Jewish Department of the German Foreign Office, proposed the idea in June 1940, shortly before the Fall of France. The proposal called for the handing over of control of Madagascar, then a French colony, to Germany as part of the eventual peace terms.
In the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, there were a number of resettlement plans for European Jews that were precursors to the Madagascar Plan. Paul de Lagarde, an Orientalist scholar, first suggested evacuating the European Jews to Madagascar in his 1878 … Members of the Zionist movement in 1904–1905 seriously debated the Uganda Scheme, by which Russian Jews, who were in immediate danger from ongoing pogroms in the Russian Empire, would be settled in the East Africa Protectorate (now Kenya), which was part of the British Empire at the time. The plan was later rejected as unworkable by the World Zionist Congress.
Adherents of territorialism split off from the main Zionist movement and continued to search for a location where Jews might settle and create a state, or at least an autonomous area.
It initially sought an alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Believing that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis, proposing a Jewish state based on “nationalist and totalitarian principles, and linked to the German Reich by an alliance”
Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.
I knew Palestine was British at the time I just never heard that the British elites portrayed as evangelicals before. I always clocked them racist imperialists, not zealots trying to bring about the apocalypse.
Also calm the fuck down. I’m not sealioning. I’m legitimately curious. You’re more than welcome to go through my comment history to see I’ve taken a clear stance on Palestinian liberation.
Youre right, I shouldn’t have replied to you like that. Apologies, I’ve had to deal with some appalling human beings in this thread and it made me overly defensive. Of course, thats still 100% my fault but I hope you might be able to understand how I made that mistake, at least.
Oh yeah, and in one of the ironic twists of ignorance, many religious people use that as proof that god is real and can tell the future. I mean, whatever anyone beleives, with all the details, it’s a terrible argument.
Seems that the main difference was that the nazis were hoping that the jews would die while trying to settle there. “Barren, unproductive lands were viewed as appropriate destinations as this would prevent the deportees from flourishing in their new location”
Pretty sure the locals wouldn’t enjoy the massive influx of “undesirables” either.
They’re fascists, not nazis. I’m not saying that to castigate you but to make your point bullet proof.
Nazis are a very specific kind of anti Jewish (amongst other things) fascists.
Zionists are ethno-Fascists - Fascism linked to ethnicity rather than the nationalism of traditional Fascism - complete with things like ethnic superiority beliefs (and a general belief in some ethnicities being ubermensch and others untermensch), accusing critics of that Fascism of being against the ethnicity and surrounding themselves with the symbology related to the ethnicity.
It’s the same kind of Fascism as the NAZIS - who claimed to represent the Arian Race - had, complete with rabid racism and inhuman levels of murderous behavior against members of ethnicities deemed untermensch (who Zionists literally call “human animals”) and not at all the same kind of Fascism as, say, Mussolini (in Italy) or Franco (in Spain).
Zionism is far closer to NAZIsm than any other ideology, including all other Fascist ideologies, and their words and actions reflect that, so calling them NAZIs as a shortcut makes sense because that’s pretty much what they are, with the main difference being the ethnicity they claim to represent.
Sure, you can say they haven’t committed a Holocaust and the NAZIs did, but then again the NAZIs too didn’t start by committing a Holocaust - that only came later because nobody stood up against them until it was too late, exactly the same as being done with regards to the Zionists.
What the Israelis are doing to Gaza is pretty damn close to a Holocaust.
Cool story still not nazis though and its still antisemitic to call Jewish people nazis, due to the specific nature of nazis.
If anyone actaully cared about the words meaning and wanted to further the cause of palestinians, instead of just being antisemitic, they would simply adjust to using a term that won’t ensure everything they say afterwards is dismissed by the vast majority of society.
What you described is facsism and hallmarks of all fascism and none of the things that made nazis nazis, instead of regular facsists. The problem is, you don’t know the difference and you’ve presumed no one else does either. So you tried to blag it instead.
Ah, the good old “anti-semitic” slander from somebody making claims in the name of all Jews in order to defense the Neue NAZIs.
Such a wonderful illustration of the point In was making!
I mean, calling Jewish people nazis is literally in the definition of antisemitism. I know you’re not very good with words and their meanings but, to the resr of the world, the meaning of words is actually important.
I mean, a anyone has to do is call them fascsists which is still an insult to any decent person.
Why do you have to call them something that is universally known to be an antisemitic thing to xa them when you can achieve the same aims without the antisemitism?
Believe what you want to believe and may it chase you as you deserve every night.
But keep your goalpost moving grubby mitts from the idea you know words or are any good with them.
Being disingenuous is piss easy and transparent, cool the back patting.
Learn to read what others comment, so that at least you can keep consistency if you’re gonna clutter public forums with your drivel.
OK, so, again, why do you HAVE to use that word? Why couldn’t you use a different one?
At least have the bottle to answer what you’re asked, instead of ducking it. Grow a spine and let everyone know.
It’s “literally” not.
There is no special property of people from the Jewish ethnicity that makes them any less capable or any more capable of the kind of evil and the kind of thinking that the NAZIs had and practiced.
Also there have even been Jewish Holocaust Survivors who compared the actions of Israel (so, of many of its people and decision-makers in its government, all of whom are “Jewish people”) to those of the NAZIs.
Your definition of anti-semitism, which you are parroting in the name of all Jews no less, slanders even some Jewish Holocaust Survivors as “anti-semites”.
It takes an extraordinary amount of interiorisation of racism to parrot a definition of anti-semitism that not only implies that Jews are differently capable of certain ways of thinking and acting (and hence that they are different from other people), it even classifies some Jews, including some Jewish Holocaust Survivors, as anti-semite.
The Nazis weren’t just anti-Jewish, they were anti-anyone who isn’t Aryan. While the people here are basically only showing anti-Arab sentiments, if they held the same view to all other races then they would be analogous to Nazis.
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?
Tomato, tomato
Nope, its actually far closer to tomato, beef tomato.
All nazis and fascists. Not all fascists are nazis.
You got a point. The original fascist, Benito Mussolini, wasn’t even racist. He didn’t obsess about the Jews or other races as much as the Nazis did. What mattered to Italian fascism is if you subscribe to Italian nationalism.
Zionism is Fascism linked to ethnicity - ethno-Fascism - same as the NAZIs, whilst Mussolini’s version was traditional Fascism which is linked to nationalism.
The rabid racism, feelings of ethnic superiority and dehumanization of other specific ethnicities of ethno-Fascism result in far more cold and murderous behavior than mere nationalism.
All this is why we see from the Zionists the same kind of unbelievably murderous almost-inhuman behaviour, the same general extreme racist argumentation and even the same accusing of their critics of being against their ethnicity as the NAZIs.
The closest traditional Fascists get that is accusing their critics of being against their nation, but beyond that you don’t see anywhere near the level or rabid murderous violence against others merely because of their nationality or ethnicity from traditional Fascist as you see from ethno-Fascists.
Simply compare Russia’s behavior in Ukraine with Israel’s behavior in Gaza to see the veritable universe of difference in how murderous and uncaring both kinds of Fascist are, over the entire chain of command all the way down to the lowest foot soldier in their violence against the “other”, even if both kinds are are aggressive and violent: the Russians have targeted children maybe once or twice, from afar (i.e. missile attacks on schools) whilst the Israelis regularly bomb schools and playgrounds and their snipers shoot on the heads children who are simply playing inside their own homes: direct murdering if children whilst seeing their faces is a whole different level of inhumane behavior.
I wouldn’t say that, he was just specifically racist against people in his envisioned Mediterranean empire. Namely Ethiopians and Slavs.
The Italian facists are split about it. Mussolini has not exactly been consistent with his beliefs but he is considerably less racist than Hitler and the Nazis. Even some of the Italian fascists denounce racism from some of the other members.
Would an heirloom tomato be a Nazi or am I safe?
Depends on what it inherited
I threw them all out just to be safe.
“Nazi” is more a colloquial term for “fascist who’s actually been allowed to practice their cruel and senseless fascist policies”, imo. Not someone saying that Israel is literally following the politics of one Adolf Hitler.
So yeah, in essence, these Israeli Jews are nazis, however ironic it sounds.
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.
Nazi = National Socialist even though they weren’t socialists. Go figure.
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?
They are zionist facists.
100%!
Yes, prescriptively, it’s a very certain type. You’ll notice how for instance in Wikipedia they’d capitalise the n in “Nazi”, while on forums you might see people using just “nazi”. Is there a difference? Yes. The same way “literally” means literally, but it can also be used just as emphasis. And that’s the opposite of it’s meaning.
Yet because some people like to use it that way, it’s accepted as a colloquialism into the language.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism
Just like that wasn’t the first definition of nazi, so too “literally” has a several definitions.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/literally
See how that works?
You’re using the non capitalised version as well. So you’re incorrect. The Israeli government are nazis. They might not be Nazis, but they are nazis.
Thats actually a hilarious attempt at squaring this little antisemitic circle people where keep drawing.
Its funny that you provide links to everything but the part that could prove your nonsense to be true (that the meaning of nazi changes when a capital letter is used). Its literally something you just made up now, then claimed that (as colloquiums exist) the thing i just made up must be true.
How about you attempt to prove that the capitalisation of the “N” changes the meaning to not being nazis but, instead, “Jewish people we don’t like.”
There’s nothing you’ll ever accept as enough evidence that this is how language works and go “oh, okay, I think I was wrong.” That’s not even on the table. You’re literally not capable of even writing those words.
When you’re reading text, and it has the word “coke” in it, do you read it differently than “Coke”?
Could you perhaps take a guess at what’s the difference?
First one stands for (depending on the place of usage), any type of cola, cocaine or even any type of soda drink. that’s valid usage in the Southern US, calling a can of any carbonated sugary drink “coke” is perfectly fine. Whereas “Coke” is short for “Coca-Cola” and refers to the actual Coke.
Now unless I’m speaking to a second grader or something, you should be able to grasp the meaning of that. It works just like it does with “Nazi”, “nazi.”
No, I didn’t invent the rules of capitalisation
This has nothing to do with being a Jew and everything to do with being a small-minded, brainwashed, fascist genocide supporting piece of shit. In other words a nazi, as is the accepted colloquial usage.
Israeli government are despicable nazis.
Why would you make this about being Jewish?
Jewish people are great. Nazis fucking suck dick. Israeli government is full of nazis. Israeli government isn’t the same as Jewish people. That’s like saying that if I call Putler a fucking nazi, that I’m “just referring to Christians you don’t like”.
Like how fucking thick do you have to be to make that argument?
Israeli government are scum. Jewish people are lovely. And the true people of God are against this sort of nazi bullshit and would seek to make Israel face it’s sins.
Also, coke is a type of treated coal that produces much more heat, it’s used in steel manufacturing.
Yes, crossed my mind, thought not to confuse them more.
Ty for pointing it out tho.
Its literally like listening to white people claiming they weren’t being racist because they didn’t use a hard R.
Man those arguments keep getting worse, eh?
How about grab yourself by the neck and actually Google some of these words so you don’t have to keep publicly humiliating yourself like that.
Strawmen worse than what my niece comes up with, and she doesn’t even speak well yet.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Nazi
Now you can try to make the argument that we’ve all been brainwashed by the media and that that these people wouldn’t fit into the description of “an evil person harming other people for their race religion etc” :
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
So I really don’t know what you’re disagreeing with here, since none of these are my opinions, or shitty examples I’ve made up. They’re definitions in such common usage you can find them listed on big linguistic organisations.
You’re just offended that people are justifiably horrified by the nazi shit Israel is doing and wish to pretend it isn’t happening.
Descriptive language is a thing even if you pretend it isn’t. So are Israeli war crimes.
Then why couldn’t you just use another word?
Lol, I’m kidding, we both know why you HAVE to use that one.
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/combating-antisemitism/definition-antisemitism_en
Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. Word meanings can change over time, the only thing that makes a word’s definition “correct” is if it successfully communicates information.
I’m not saying that to castigate you but to make your point bullet proof.
I actually agree with your definition, but arguing that a word’s definition is wrong simply because “thats not how it’s defined” ignores the way that real people actually use words today
Language is descriptive, not prescriptive. Word >meanings can change over time
While true, actually, it doesn’t mean “words can mean whatever the hell i want them to whenever I feel like it.” As crazy as it might seems, its actually not the same thing.
It does successfully communicate information. That much is the. Unfortunately though, it communicates that certain people choose antisemitism over accurately describing the thing they’re talking about. If that’s what they want to communicate, then yes, it was successfully communicated. If that wasn’t the intention, it fails the condition you listed.
And who tried that?
We’re not talking about whether “rizz” is acceptable to use instead of “charisma”, (which would also constitute common usage), but something that’s been going on for more than 80 years.
Using “nazi” as a generalised term for fascists.
It’s accurate. It’s very accurate. Because what the Israeli are doing to Palestinians is very related to what the Nazis (notice the capital N) did to Jews during the Holocaust.
#neveragain
Israeli government are nazis. Pure and simple. You can keep crying over what you feel is an offensive and “inaccurate” term. Unfortunately for you it’s common usage no matter how badly you want to be blissfully ignorant of Israeli atrocities.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Nazi
That’s literally the common use. Argue that away with your asinine examples, go ahead, I’ll wait.
You, just now. Try and keep up.
No, nazi, even by the definition you provided, is an evil person colloquially.
The israeli government are facsists and pretending anyone could cry over your ignorance is pathetic, even by your standards. Just so you know, your mask slips when you have to pretend I want ignorant of the evil things the Israeli government is doing. Its just empty rhetoric designed to silence people who disagree with you, as you haven’t got a leg to stand on.
However, as were on the subject of definitions, why are you so married to calling Jewish people a term that falls under the EHRC definition of antisemitism?
Let me guess, suddenly you don’t care for the definition of words anymore? Go ahead, attempt to argue that away with your baseless, asinine declarations about the use of capital letters. Please do, its hilarious.
Literally, its like listening to white guys claiming it wasn’t racist, as they didn’t use a hard “R.”
“But how hard was the capitalisation?” 😂
Oh by calling Israeli government nazis I’m am right now deciding that a specific word has a specific meaning. I AM doing that. Right now? Not something that has been sculpted by the use of billions of speakers for decades and decades? Something which might have been, idk, so common that it’s been recorded as a secondary meaning for the word “nazi” for longer than you’ve been alive…?
Because every single dictionary I can find has that a secondary meaning.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi#Noun
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Nazi
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/nazi_2
Or are you going to argue that Netanyahu and his ilk aren’t being “especially hateful” towards Palestinians? Because the ICC disagrees.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
You don’t care for the definitions of words. You just ignore whatever doesn’t suite you. Like the fact that it is in fact accurate and within common use of language to say that Netanyahu is a nazi. All the definitions agree, all the evidence agrees, everything agrees with me and all you have is pathetic strawmen like “that’s like white people trying to justify using the r-word. calling ANY jew EVER a nazi in any form is wide-scale antisemitism!”
Oh so it would be antisemitic of me to call these people nazis? They’re not antisemites for the virtue of having Jewish descent, but I’m an antisemite for calling them nazis, despite what they are? What are you, 12, honestly? I genuinely like long conversations online but the quality on your comments is just absolute garbage.
Again, the fact that secondary meanings for words exist doesn’t make you right to call Jewish people nazis. It is an antisemitic thing to do. That doesn’t mean that you are or aren’t that but the action itself.
Why are you so married to calling Jewish people a term that will ensure that anyone outside of cliques like this will automatically dismiss anything else you have to say?
I’m not so keen on them myself. I’m just fascinated to what someone attempt and fail spectacularly to justify calling Jewish people nazis. I mean, if you are using in the way that people would call someone a grammar nazi or just generally nasty, why do you have to use that specific word and not any of the others that would work just as well.
It jut doesn’t add up does it?
I think it’s a neurodivergent thing. When Steve says “Israeli’s are a bunch of Nazis” you’re supposed to pass through the words and see what Steve is expressing. Steve didn’t couch his statement in a clinical, “these be the facts” tone, it’s obvious what Steve meant. He’s calling out Israel for abhorrent behavior
The “this means X so if you say that it means Y” things is the way some neurodivergents slice up the world. Like we live in a videogame or something. They will literally tell you what you meant by attaching arbitrary rules to your words.
Anyways, Israeli’s are definitely Nazis. (They are not literally Nazis) Their war is soulless, evil. (Evil does not literally exist, soulless is elegant shorthand for morality, how one feels about actions, how deep one feels those patterns are embedded, etc.)
Steve didn’t though. Steve didn’t say they are Nazis. Steve said they are nazis.
Spling splong your opinion is wrong
Not an opinion.
Noun:
Adjective:
(by extension) Domineering, totalitarian, or intolerant. synonym ▲ Synonym: fascist
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nazi
Which one is it then?
Also, it is wrong:
https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/lexika/politiklexikon/17892/nationalsozialismus/
I hold the opinion that that is so.
Me holding an opinion like it doesn’t make the fact more or less correct.
You’re trying to define the objective correctness of a fact, because you confuse my opinion for what it represents.
Why on Earth do you think linking German when discussing English colloquialisms would be in any way related…?
We’re definitely not discussing English colloquialisms, were discussing ideologies.
And it just so happens that the bpb is the de-facto authority in this ideology.
Or do you think that a German engineer can’t talk about bridges because he can only talk about “Brücken”?
That’s weird seeing how I DEFINITELY was. Direct quote from the beginning of my earlier comment:
#colloquial term
Do you think you can just go about telling people that what they’re literally talking about isn’t what they’re actually talking about?
Also a direct quote from the same comment:
This doesn’t have anything to do with colloquialisms anymore but instead with real-world facts.
Let me demonstrate:
If you suddenly start calling every coloured bird a Parrot, will a Bluefinch become “in essence” a Parrot?
Of course not. A Bluefinch is a Bluefinch and not a Parrot, the same way a Whale isn’t a Fish just because it has fins even though we tend to colloquially call animals with fins “fish”. Because words have meanings that you can’t just re-define.
So no, you can’t call them a Nazi. Because it is just plain factually wrong.
Well, i think my Comment did a good job representing how from my point of view you were the one derailing the discussion and making it about colloquialisms when it was clearly about allegations of Nazism.
So maybe we should not presumptively make accusations? Who am I kidding, this is the Internet.
You can use every language in the world to define any other word in any other language and it still does not save you from semantic pitfalls and poor rhetoric.
I think we can all age that the bpb, the German federal office tasked with working up the Nazi past of Germany, is the authority on Nazism
Calling Trump a Nazi because he has a Hitler book next to his bed? Perfectly fine. Enough evidence.
Calling israel Nazis because they’re committing Genocide in order to expand their Lebensraum? Let me pull up esoteric German sites which happen to have a definition to fit my narrative.
The bpb a esoteric website?
Please
https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/behoerden/DE/bpb.html
It’s really not that hard to find out about it
Hitler was a big Fan of Mussolini and considered him his great Idol. Does that mean he was a Mussolinist and not a Nazi?
I clicked on the frontpage of your link and it’s literally a Zionist lobby site lmao
This is literally the official website of the German ministry for the interior you absolute unbelievable fucking retard.
Stop trolling and do something useful with your life
The Nazis wanted the Jews out of Germany. If the Jews all move to Israel, the Nazis will say mission accomplished. Since its inception, Israel has been beloved by antisemites. Israel is fundamentally a Nazi project. Antisemitic to the core.
It makes you wonder why the nazis murdered them all instead of just sending them away from Germany…
Israel was a project made by British and American Christians, fresh from defeating the actual nazis, who wanted to colonise the middle East and to bring about the end of days. Facsist to the core but not anti Jewish or nazi.
There’s quite an overlap between Zionists and antisemites who wanted to force Jews out of Europe. Including the Nazis.
Madagascar Plan
Early Zionist history is begging the biggest antisemites in the world for their own colony. Zionists made their peace with antisemites along time ago.
Cool story, still not nazis though.
You keep saying that, and you keep being wrong.
So, what nazi specific things did they do that wouldn’t fall under fascism?
One of the founding terrorist groups of israel tried to work with Hitler to colonize Palestine
Lehi (militant group)
Lost of people worked with hitler at one point or another
Actively seeking out his cooperation to Pogrom European Jews to israel is slightly different
Different to what exactly?
Israel and the concept of Zionism predated the Nazis and WW2 by quite a few years.
Zionism did, but Israel didn’t exist until after WW2.
This angle wasn’t a thing until like the 80s.
It was the literally reasoning behind why the British Christian generals chose to go ahead with it, in the 1940s.
News to me. Is there some source to this?
British high command, as Palestine was part of the British empire back then. As if you’re sealioning the fundamentals of the history of that reason.
I suggest you learn some history about the region before commenting further.
I knew Palestine was British at the time I just never heard that the British elites portrayed as evangelicals before. I always clocked them racist imperialists, not zealots trying to bring about the apocalypse.
Also calm the fuck down. I’m not sealioning. I’m legitimately curious. You’re more than welcome to go through my comment history to see I’ve taken a clear stance on Palestinian liberation.
Youre right, I shouldn’t have replied to you like that. Apologies, I’ve had to deal with some appalling human beings in this thread and it made me overly defensive. Of course, thats still 100% my fault but I hope you might be able to understand how I made that mistake, at least.
Oh yeah, and in one of the ironic twists of ignorance, many religious people use that as proof that god is real and can tell the future. I mean, whatever anyone beleives, with all the details, it’s a terrible argument.
If by that you mean they tried to make the whole world germany, then yeah they only “wanted them out of Germany”
This is the dumbest thing I’ve read today
I mean it’s not that far of from reality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
Seems that the main difference was that the nazis were hoping that the jews would die while trying to settle there. “Barren, unproductive lands were viewed as appropriate destinations as this would prevent the deportees from flourishing in their new location”
Pretty sure the locals wouldn’t enjoy the massive influx of “undesirables” either.