Gay Jews kicked out of pride parade

[kinev]

Let's not pretend you didn't copy paste that from some o'keefe level conservative media outlet meant for simple degenerates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#Anti-communism
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1sx674/how_socialist_was_nazi_germany/

Worth noting askhistorians is actual historians.

Ha! Find the source, then.

You claim that I just copy/pasted from a conservative media outlet without any proof, attack that unidentified source, and then cite wikipedia and reddit...

 

[agent00f]

And there we have it, the first person on ignore.

Would have thought it'd be Buckshot or roflmouth or someone on that side but you are so far on the other side that you are more extreme than both of them put together.

Goodbye you utter piece of shit.

No, pretty obvious the pieces of shit are the ones looking to kill off some minority until they stop fighting back, you know like roflmouth and evidently yourself.

You should "expect," especially from people on the left, that they are interested in addressing the deplorable treatment of gays, women, and non-Muslims in the Arab world, regardless of what is or isn't going on between Israel and the Palestinians. They are, after all, liberals, right? We're supposed to oppose sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism. In this country, you can be labeled "racist" for having a hula girl doll on your dashboard, but when they're executing people for sodomy in a Muslim country, it's barely a footnote on the left.

You casting it as "some group of 'others' was forcibly injected onto some say, Arab land to solve the guilt complex of other world powers" suggests that you are arguing that Israel is a special case which somehow justifies this double standard? If so, nonsense.

The origins of western support for a Jewish state are complex and predate the Holocaust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration



Neither Israel nor any nation should be immune from criticism. I have numerous criticisms of Israel, starting with their settlement policy. But an interest in so-called "perfection" should never be an excuse for ignoring or downplaying problems elsewhere. This kind of double standard suggests a bias, does it not?



There is a tendency on the left to exaggerate misdeeds of Israel. For example, by using a racially charged term such as "apartheid" or by comparing Israel to the Nazis, or by claiming they are engaging in "genocide." Those claims are absurd to anyone who has actually studied history. The fact that some of the people making these claims are Jews does not bolster the credibility of said claims one bit. I would think being "morally evolved" means, among other things, levelling criticisms which are fair and reasonable, and being willing to criticize both sides in a dispute when warranted. It doesn't just mean being a Jew who is willing to criticize Israel.



None of which explains why those of a particular ideological bent are apt to criticize one country incessantly while barely addressing the problems in others. This explanation is too universal to address the particulars of this double standard.



Not "pointing fingers" suggests tacit approval for bad and immoral behavior. No one should refrain from criticizing Israel, or anyone for that matter, out of a desire to avoid "finger pointing." I understand what you say about the need for self-examination, but as a practical matter, a lot of "finger pointing" is 100% justified by the facts, while some of it is bullshit. I am focused on separating fact from bullshit, not on "finger pointing" per se.

The Nazis didn't become "the Nazis" until much latter. First they merely built a pen around a group of undesirable people, and that was excused by many sympathizers at the time, too.

 

[agent00f]

Ha! Find the source, then.

You claim that I just copy/pasted from a conservative media outlet without any proof, attack that unidentified source, and then cite wikipedia and reddit...

I don't think you're too dumb to know how citations in Wikipedia work or that askhistorians is heavily moderated to actual historian standards, or that your source is too embarrassing to share.

 

[xthetenth]

The problem with the use of the word "apartheid" is that it is racially charged, which is precisely why the word is chosen. Yet if this was about race, then Arab-Israelis would be treated similarly to the Palestinians in the West Bank. They called the security wall an "apartheid wall." Yet that wall reduced terrorism by over 90%, saving not only the lives of Israeli Jews, but also the lives of Palestinians who inevitably die when Israel retaliates for the attacks. It seems rather absurd to claim that a policy which has a clear security rationale and is saving lives is actually motivated by racism as the word "apartheid" suggests.

Ah yes. Israel bears no responsibility for its actions, they just happen. I mean after all, they're retaliation for attacks (even ones that nobody dies in), and any deaths they cause are on the Palestinians because they're a faceless mass and who cares anyway.

Seriously, when the country with guided munitions and pretensions to not engage in collateral damage kills more civilians and a greater proportion of civilians to combatants, you might want to stop and think if they're actually the good guys. Never mind that if each side is thinking that the responsibility is on the other guys to back down and they're reacting to events as they have to, nobody's going to back down. We did this before, it caused WWI.

You need to do some serious industrial grade soul searching.

 

[woolfe9998]

Ah yes. Israel bears no responsibility for its actions, they just happen. I mean after all, they're retaliation for attacks (even ones that nobody dies in), and any deaths they cause are on the Palestinians because they're a faceless mass and who cares anyway.

Straw man. I never said that. Israel should be accountable when its response is out of proportion, which in some cases it has been. But my point, ignored by you, is that this "apartheid wall" has saved the lives of both Israelis and Palestinians, regardless of who is at fault for the loss of those lives. Which makes the allegation that it is an apartheid wall ridiculous.

Seriously, when the country with guided munitions and pretensions to not engage in collateral damage kills more civilians and a greater proportion of civilians to combatants, you might want to stop and think if they're actually the good guys. Never mind that if each side is thinking that the responsibility is on the other guys to back down and they're reacting to events as they have to, nobody's going to back down. We did this before, it caused WWI.

While I do agree that Israel has been guilty, at times, of a disproportionate response, the collateral damages are in part because of the nature of the enemy they are fighting, an enemy who wears no uniforms and forms no clear battle lines away from civilians. Guided munitions do not guaranty the avoidance of civilians casualties. It hasn't for US's response to terrorism either, or for any other country with such technology. I don't think your description of Israeli conduct is entirely fair, and it quite obviously ignores the behaviors of the other side. Would you honestly expect any country other than Israel to stand down after being attacked because their only military option involves bombing people who are comingled with a civilian population?

you need do some serious industrial grade soul searching.

No, I, like everyone else, needs to stick to the facts, not engage in one-sided cherry picking of information to make an ideologically motivated point.

 

[agent00f]

It's sad yet amusing because "them jews" of some decades ago were basically the equivalent of "them muslims" today. I guess the Israeli & German right wing + friends all love to prove how terrible they are wherever you go.

 

[J.Wilkins]

Ah yes. Israel bears no responsibility for its actions, they just happen. I mean after all, they're retaliation for attacks (even ones that nobody dies in), and any deaths they cause are on the Palestinians because they're a faceless mass and who cares anyway.

Seriously, when the country with guided munitions and pretensions to not engage in collateral damage kills more civilians and a greater proportion of civilians to combatants, you might want to stop and think if they're actually the good guys. Never mind that if each side is thinking that the responsibility is on the other guys to back down and they're reacting to events as they have to, nobody's going to back down. We did this before, it caused WWI.

You need to do some serious industrial grade soul searching.

When the targets are the ammo storages which are also schools, hospitals and civilian houses then the only thing Israel can do is to try to minimize civilian casualties. They do this through calling the people living there, through dropping leaflets, through sending texts and e-mails and Hamas tells them to ignore it, that there will be no attack. No one loves dead Palestinians more than Hamas, it's their ONLY tool to sell their hatred against Israel and Jews to the world.

Make no mistake, if Hamas had the means there wouldn't be a single Jew alive except the ones they would keep to torture for fun today. Their stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel and the genocide of all of it's inhabitants.

Israel absolutely has not only the right but an obligation to safeguard their population as does every other nation.

 

[agent00f]

When the targets are the ammo storages which are also schools, hospitals and civilian houses then the only thing Israel can do is to try to minimize civilian casualties. They do this through calling the people living there, through dropping leaflets, through sending texts and e-mails and Hamas tells them to ignore it, that there will be no attack. No one loves dead Palestinians more than Hamas, it's their ONLY tool to sell their hatred against Israel and Jews to the world.

Make no mistake, if Hamas had the means there wouldn't be a single Jew alive except the ones they would keep to torture for fun today. Their stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel and the genocide of all of it's inhabitants.

Israel absolutely has not only the right but an obligation to safeguard their population as does every other nation.

That's why we gotta pen up the Jews Palestinians, it's for their own good.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Always willing to learn! Thanks for the recommendat...wait. Oh, I guess you didn't provide any evidence and just relied on a personal attack implying I was uneducated. Of course, I wouldn't stoop to such childish name calling, so I'll provide a reading list:



Wagener, O. (1985). Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant, ed. Henry Ashby Turner Jr., trans. Ruth Hein.






Wireless. (1925, November 28).Hitlerite Riot in Berlin: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler to Lenin. The New York Times.





Breiting, R., & Hitler, A. (1971). Secret conversations with Hitler: the two newly-discovered 1931 interviews. John Day Co..






"Why Are We Anti-Semites?" Translated from Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 16. Jahrg., 4. H. (Oct., 1968), pp. 390-420. Edited by Carolyn Yeager.






Temin, P. (1991). Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy. Business History Review, 65(4), 1023.





Klemperer, V. (2016). I Will Bear Witness, Volume 2: A Diary of the Nazi Years: 1942-1945. Modern Library.





Lemmons, R. (2015). Goebbels and Der Angriff. University Press of Kentucky.





Goebbels, J., & Schweitzer, H. (1929). Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler: etwas zum Nachdenken. Eher.






Now, I am NOT saying that the modern left = Nazism. But, by reading their own words, it is clear that the National Socialists did, indeed, adhere to some of the tenants of socialism. So simply dismissing it as a semantic argument in nomenclature is ignoring that influence.

The Nazis were not, and are not, socialists. It really is as simple as that.

 

[xthetenth]

Israel absolutely has not only the right but an obligation to safeguard their population as does every other nation.

If this extends to allowing retributive violence, then two nations that have demonstrated what is at best utter unwillingness to rein in their factions that work to wipe out the other will fight until one is wiped out.

I don't dispute for a second that Hamas is a major problem. What I will dispute is that Palestinians are the only ones who bear responsibility for the current problems. If Israel made a good faith effort to try and rein in the settlers and to avoid collateral damage and retributive violence, I'd be there with you, but they don't. The less bad guy can still be a bad guy.

 

[Moonbeam]

woolfe: You should "expect," especially from people on the left, that they are interested in addressing the deplorable treatment of gays, women, and non-Muslims in the Arab world, regardless of what is or isn't going on between Israel and the Palestinians. They are, after all, liberals, right? We're supposed to oppose sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism. In this country, you can be labeled "racist" for having a hula girl doll on your dashboard, but when they're executing people for sodomy in a Muslim country, it's barely a footnote on the left.

M: What you expect is based on the assumptions you make. I just covered that point. My assumptions, my insight into human nature tells me to expect this irrationality. Whose ox is gored, remember..

w: You casting it as "some group of 'others' was forcibly injected onto some say, Arab land to solve the guilt complex of other world powers" suggests that you are arguing that Israel is a special case which somehow justifies this double standard? If so, nonsense.

M: please don't make the mistake of assuming that a rationalization some group actually uses to justify violence and my ability to lay it out means that I buy that justification myself. I am against any Jew or Arab who can rationalize violence against the other, but not as a justification for similar violence.

w: The origins of western support for a Jewish state are complex and predate the Holocaust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

M: its turtles all the way down. Every rationalization for violence starts with the notion that one is personally innocent and that excuses violent reprisal.

w: Neither Israel nor any nation should be immune from criticism. I have numerous criticisms of Israel, starting with their settlement policy. But an interest in so-called "perfection" should never be an excuse for ignoring or downplaying problems elsewhere. This kind of double standard suggests a bias, does it not?

M: I am the one who has been saying some liberals are nuts.

w: There is a tendency on the left to exaggerate misdeeds of Israel. For example, by using a racially charged term such as "apartheid" or by comparing Israel to the Nazis, or by claiming they are engaging in "genocide." Those claims are absurd to anyone who has actually studied history. The fact that some of the people making these claims are Jews does not bolster the credibility of said claims one bit. I would think being "morally evolved" means, among other things, levelling criticisms which are fair and reasonable, and being willing to criticize both sides in a dispute when warranted. It doesn't just mean being a Jew who is willing to criticize Israel.

M: Do you realize that when some belief is sacred to a person's sense of self and identity, one can become hyper vigilant and over-defensive. Those moral Jews I was referring to would include those willing to ree the faults in Israel's seddlement policy, in other words people like yourself.

w: None of which explains why those of a particular ideological bent are apt to criticize one country incessantly while barely addressing the problems in others. This explanation is too universal to address the particulars of this double standard.

M: All about whose thousand tons of garbage got gored.

w: Not "pointing fingers" suggests tacit approval for bad and immoral behavior. No one should refrain from criticizing Israel, or anyone for that matter, out of a desire to avoid "finger pointing." I understand what you say about the need for self-examination, but as a practical matter, a lot of "finger pointing" is 100% justified by the facts, while some of it is bullshit. I am focused on separating fact from bullshit, not on "finger pointing" per se.

M: As with the word apartheid, fingerpointing implies blame. Bigots sleep and are beyond blame. They are a mechanical reality, a conditioned response as guilty iof sin as a knee jerk. Now if one of those knee jerks proves to be fatal to others and the conditioning remains unchanged, leaving a potential repeatoffences predictably likely, the threat will need cutting off at the knees. Only a logical and dispassionate answer is required, not one full of a lust for revenge. One can only grieve that some are so sick that their freedom to act out that sickness must be prevented by the most compassionate means available, regardless of just how limited that might be.

 

[agent00f]

If this extends to allowing retributive violence, then two nations that have demonstrated what is at best utter unwillingness to rein in their factions that work to wipe out the other will fight until one is wiped out.

I don't dispute for a second that Hamas is a major problem. What I will dispute is that Palestinians are the only ones who bear responsibility for the current problems. If Israel made a good faith effort to try and rein in the settlers and to avoid collateral damage and retributive violence, I'd be there with you, but they don't. The less bad guy can still be a bad guy.

The Palestinians were the ones who used to live in Israel until they were pushed out with the war, and then some of them tried to fight for being treated like shit in their ghetto. The alternative is to submit completely and suffered the same fate as various natives elsewhere, or the jews previously. I suppose there are pros and cons to each, since fighting always draws some disdain.

 

[Atreus21]

A strange effect of the ignore feature is when the person you've ignored is very vocal in a particular thread, and you're looking around the thread wondering why people seem to be arguing with...nobody?

 

[IronWing]

A strange effect of the ignore feature is when the person you've ignored is particularly vocal in a particular thread, and you're looking around the thread wondering why people seem to be arguing with no one in particular.

Oddly enough, in that other very active thread it's the same experience even w/o ignore turned on.

 

[woolfe9998]

A strange effect of the ignore feature is when the person you've ignored is very vocal in a particular thread, and you're looking around the thread wondering why people seem to be arguing with...nobody?

Yeah, I have just two people on ignore, but I've noticed that as well. I suppose it's an improvement over the old forum software where you could see the message they were replying to, because that sort defeated the purpose of the ignore function.

 

[Azuma Hazuki]

Here's an idea:

Step 1) create the Jewish homeland in the American southwest. We get Israel's people, knowledge, technology (and we are going to need the desalinization stuff soon...) etc, the rest of the Middle East can have the one chunk of land in the region with no oil under it, and everyone's happy.

...Step 2) Immediately afterwards, switch off oil and natgas as much as possible, and let the Middle East sink into obscurity all alone.

Step 3) There is no step 3

Step 4) profit!

Now I know why this will never happen: the fundagelicals in the US want to start Armageddon, and for that to happen they need Israel right where it is.

 

[brycejones]

So the op dropped a turd and ran yet again?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think you're too dumb to see that's exactly what @Hayabusa Rider would say right before reciting something from the fair and balanced network.

Still wounded I see. You and FIVR can get together and rub your little hands together and go tee hee hee while everyone looks at you like an idiot.

Back in the trash pile for you.

 

[kinev]

The Nazis were not, and are not, socialists. It really is as simple as that.

Ahhhhh, so we start with the "you should read more" argument and then when presented with ample evidence contradicting your erroneous opinion, we move on to the "I'm right because I said so" line of reasoning while ignoring said evidence (and ironically not reading it) and presenting none of your own.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Ahhhhh, so we start with the "you should read more" argument and then when presented with ample evidence contradicting your erroneous opinion, we move on to the "I'm right because I said so" line of reasoning while ignoring said evidence (and ironically not reading it) and presenting none of your own.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

Tell ya what, call the history department at your nearest university and make appointments to talk to a couple of profs who specialize in modern European history and tell them that you believe that the Nazis were actual socialists. Get back to us with their reactions.

 

[brycejones]

Tell ya what, call the history department at your nearest university and make appointments to talk to a couple of profs who specialize in modern European history and tell them that you believe that the Nazis were actual socialists. Get back to us with their reactions.

Those are fellow travelers dedicated to perpetuating the myth the nazis are of the right.

 

[woolfe9998]

Ahhhhh, so we start with the "you should read more" argument and then when presented with ample evidence contradicting your erroneous opinion, we move on to the "I'm right because I said so" line of reasoning while ignoring said evidence (and ironically not reading it) and presenting none of your own.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

I read your series of quotes. To describe Nazism as socialist, you are using a self-identification of the Nazis themselves. Your argument is that the Nazis were socialists because Hitler and Goebbels said so. This was propaganda which was populist rhetoric meant to gain the support of working class Germans. Sure, Goebbels said they had great social welfare programs. Goebbels also said that the Jews caused Germany to lose WWI. Goebbels said a lot of things. Almost none of them were true. You do realize that you've just relied on the most notorious propagandist in human history to argue a factual point about the Nazi party and regime, right? That is probably why his response to you was so dismissive.

The truth is, the Nazis destroyed labor unions shortly after assuming power. They also executed workers for striking. Also, there actually was a socialist party in Germany, called the Social Democrats. Most of them ended up in concentration camps after the Nazis took power.

This is not socialism. It doesn't matter a damn how the Nazis described themselves. It matters what they did while in power.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Those are fellow travelers dedicated to perpetuating the myth the nazis are of the right.

The 'right' has been trying to distance itself from the Nazis/fascists since the end of the war. I don't expect that to ever change.

 

[woolfe9998]

The 'right' has been trying to distance itself from the Nazis/fascists since the end of the war. I don't expect that to ever change.

Given the similarity of Trump's rhetoric to the right wing populist rhetoric of fascist regimes, I'd say this is getting to be more and more difficult by the day.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Given the similarity of Trump's rhetoric to the right wing populist rhetoric of fascist regimes, I'd say this is getting to be more and more difficult by the day.

Have you not been paying attention? The "liberals" are the *real* fascists/nazis.