Basically, there was a discussion about how instances have rules and Feddit also needs to abide by local (Austrian) law to not get in legal trouble.
And I get called a Zionazi for saying that you cant just up and call for the massacre of civilians, regardless of which side you are on.
It’s also ironic for Dessalines to mock me for sticking to rules and laws to protect our instance.
Careful, that question is usually not asked in good faith.
On its own advocating against genocide doesn’t make one a Zionist. That question you phrased is usually made in bad faith to imply that Anti-Zionists fighting against occupation of Palestine are advocating the killing of the Jewish people already there. If one asks the question or states this with the intent of implying that Anti-Zionists are advocating violence towards jewish people, it is likely they are a Zionist, not for believing that people shouldn’t be killed but by making an implication in bad faith. An implication which is by nature a Zionist strawman.
The unfortunate is that there is a lot of blame directed towards the Jewish population for what is happening in Gaza. Being Jewish doesn’t magically mean that you have control of the Israeli government. The term “anti-zionist” is often used as a cover for people who hate the Jewish people rather than the leaders of the Israeli government.
This sounds like Zionist apologia to the max, and a Zionist strawman too. In fact the majority of anti-Zionists are against conflating the jewish people with Israel and their government. In fact a lot are fucking Jewish themselves. Antisemitism is a real problem and needs to be stood up against, but accusations of antisemitism are being made falsely these days and are being weaponized against criticism of Israel, and against the people criticizing Israel.
And right now, you are doing more of the latter than the former by blanket stating that we shouldn’t use “anti-Zionist” or even advocate against Zionism. You know, instead of to call out the anti-Semitic dipshits themselves claiming to be anti-Zionist. You are using a rhetorical tactic to try and claim it is antisemtic to be anti-Zionist and that is Zionist apologia.
And actually I would go as far as to say this rhetoric is directly harmful towards Jewish people, because using terms like “antisemitism” and antisemite" incorrectly, as ways to shut people down or suppress political views, or even unjustly attack people’s character makes these terms less meaningful, and ultimately undermines their effectiveness when they are more than justified. If “Antisemite” becomes the thing we call Greta Thunberg and people like her, who are not attacking Jewish people, who are standing up against the atrocities a government has committed (as well as the vile politics of a different government suppressing criticism of it) that ultimately bleaches the word of its meaning, a meaning which is very important and still valid today.
Hate speech is not a political view. It is just plain racism.
I never said it was, I said accusations of it are used as a political tool to silence people. Or do you think being opposed to Israel or their actions is hate speech? If you do that’s what I’m talking about when I say Zionist apologia.
Okay, look at it this way.
If you rely on collective guilt, then it is racist, then it is antisemitic. If you hold all or the majority of Israeli citizens or Jews responsible, you’re not being anti-zionist, you’re being racist.
Yeah and I’m not doing that. Anti-Zionism is not about doing that it’s about fighting the injustice that the country of Israel, as in its leaders and military are perpetrating. The people who claim that being against Zionism are being antisemitic for it are ignoring the fact that these people are against it too:
I know and agree that people shouldn’t hold Israel’s citizens or worse Jews in general responsible. The thing that makes what they said a Zionist strawman is that the majority of anti-Zionists do not think this and they know that Israelis both:
A. Cannot do anything about what their military or government is doing, and
B. Probably don’t even know due to lack of information or governmental brainwashing (Yes Israel brainwashes its citizens with propaganda[1][2][3], that isn’t surprising or new information).
This is well known by many activists out there, and one of our goals is to help a bit with the second one by putting information out there so people can learn and help in whatever way they can or are able to. Israeli citizens are by and large innocent, and actually are also in many case victims[4] as well.
The new front of war: Inside Israel’s digital ‘hasbara’ offensive ↩︎
Israeli media ‘completely ignored’ Gaza starvation – is that finally changing? ↩︎
Netanyahu government moves to shut down Israel’s Army Radio station ↩︎
Two Israeli civilians killed by missile fire from Lebanon as Israel-Hamas war rages for 100th day ↩︎
To further clarify my points earlier about bad faith usage of accusations of antisemitism. I believe that calling people who are not antisemitic i.e. Greta Thunberg, does harm indirectly towards Jewish population because it bleaches the meaning of the word by applying it to cases where a person is not being antisemitic. It also reduces it to a political insult or attack on someone’s person when used in that context.
This is very bad because antisemitism is a real problem these days that many people actually face. And sometimes they face violence because of it. But misuse of the term without merit as an insult or to shut people down can cause people to not recognize it as easily, or lose respect for it. If the meaning of a word erodes or becomes charged people may not take it seriously, and that’s a problem. It’s especially a problem considering how serious antisemitism is.
I’m not even the only one who thinks this either, I brought sources (I know no one will read these but they’re here if you’re actually smart):
I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it
[Video] He Wrote a Definition of Antisemitism; Now He Says It’s Being Weaponized
From Ambiguity to Accountability: The Case for a Legal Definition of Antisemitism in Academiaof Antisemitism in Academia
How a Leading Definition of Antisemitism Has Been Weaponized Against Israel’s Critics
These cover how current definitions of antisemitism are weaponized as a political tool, they don’t cover so much bleaching of words. That study hasn’t been done on antisemitism but it has been done on other words. And antisemitism is a word, so these apply to it:
Diachronic Word Embeddings Reveal Statistical Laws of Semantic Change
Words are Malleable: Computing Semantic Shifts in Political and Media Discourse
Slangvolution: A Causal Analysis of Semantic Change and Frequency Dynamics in Slang
The Politics of Language: Politicized Semantic Change, Pejoration and the Case of “Woke”
Words change, and how we use them shapes how. Using words that have important deep meaning and power to hurt others without merit will change those words, it changes how they are seen, and it changes how people will react to them. And no word is immune to this. Actually words that carry extreme charge are even more victim to this.
As long as you specify the Israeli military and government, then it’s cool
People who say shit like “death to Israel” are antisemitic, since it’s too ambiguous and gives too much smokescreen for antisemites to hide their racism. Like you could be referring to zionism, the government, jews, or the entire population, it’s just too vague. Added onto the historic context of antisemites often using Israel as a dogwhistle to mean Jews just makes things even worse.
Extremists often use terms with legitimate meaning that can allow extremists to identify each other. If challenged, they deny the intent and place the onus of incorrect interpretation on the reader to hide their bigotry. Take Neo-Nazis and the Okay-sign as an example, ‘Oh, I’m just using the okay sign you shitlib! I’m not a white supremacist!’
Best err on the side of caution, I reckon. Just specify; it’s a few extra words, and it clears any hints of antisemitism. Regardless, it’s still a call for violence, so it’s still extremism.
I made another reply addressing my other point too, if you want to respond to that. I made it as a separate comment since it’s not the same but did feel it needed addressing since it’s likely the person was talking about those too: https://sh.itjust.works/comment/23673594
Sounds very complicated. It’s not some chess move, just asking if it makes me a zionist.
I think you can understand and appreciate why it’s important to be very clear on this removing all but the smallest trace of ambiguity. Because in these situations, bad faith actors use ambiguity to their advantage for the purpose of implying things or claiming someone else meant something because an answer was simple and vague.
So in short, loaded questions need loaded answers, and people who answer them with simple answers are either ignorant on how their answers will be misused or misinterpreted in bad faith, or they are themselves answering in bad faith.
I like to think it’s pretty simple to be against civilian deaths.
Here, let me spell it out for you. People who ask this question are usually asking it with the intention of using it as a gotcha for people against the ocupation of Palestine by saying that said person against Zionist occupation is advocating death towards Israeli citizens, and then saying that they are “antisemitic” because of it.
Now in short it is simple but see, loaded questions cannot be given simple answers because the ambiguity of simple answers to loaded and often misrepresented questions is abused by bad faith actors. I think you know this very well, and the fact you still seek a simple answer that can be misconstrued or used as a gotcha is concerning to say the least.
You can be against more than one thing at once. Being in support of Palestine doesn’t mean all israeli civilians should die.
You‘re the only person implying that, hence bad faith.
lmao, absolutely not implying that