MonsieurHedge avatar

Tankies are, in a sense, fascists or fascist allies. I wouldn't take anything they say into consideration, the only thing they deserve is a bullet.

Kolanaki, avatar

It isn’t and that guy is pretty dumb.

It’s antisemitic because it only considers the Jews and not the other ethnic groups killed? Even though the Jews were the biggest group? 🙄

FireTower, avatar

“Damn those antisemitisms and their looks at note and raises eyebrow … acknowledged of the evils of Nazi Germany?”

Tomassci avatar

If they think that the holocaust was in any means okay, they're the antisemite (+ spitting on several more minorities the nazis tried to get rid of).


Why do you choose to engage with crazy people on the internet?


I wish I knew.


It’s more interesting that engaging with people that already agree with you. Up to a point ofcourse. Once you realize that nothings getting thru either way it’s often better to just move on.

Kolanaki, avatar

I don’t mind a reasonable person who disagrees and may see logic, or show me something I didn’t know.

I’m not tryna to engage with people who are batshit fucking insane, tho. It will always end in a stalemate where everyone comes out feeling dirty and possibly even losing a few IQ points in the end.


There are people on the Internet who disagree about things without either party being crazy. The folks in that thread were not such people.


Meh, it’s one thing to disagree with how to fix the problems in the world, it’s another thing to glorify past atrocities or just outright deny them. If someone starts denying the holocaust, I’d just ignore them, and report. Same with denying atrocities committed by any other groups of people. There’s no arguing with these people. Argument is for topics like:

Which is a better pet: Cat vs Dog?

Representative or Direct Democracy?

Unitary vs Federal?

FPTP or Ranked Choice?

Presidential system vs Parliamentary system?

And arguing whether some groups of innocent people should be summarily executed or not is not a valid discussion. Arguing about whether history happened or not when there is already more than enough evidence isn’t a good topic to debate about.


No. Also “hell no”. Don’t argue with idiots, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


I always prefer:

“Never wrestle with a pig because you’ll both get dirty and the pig likes it."


Don’t play chess with pigeons, they knock all the pieces down and strut around the board like they won it.


No. It’s a fact. You also don’t need to know any other specific language in order to know that the Holocaust was bad.



lvxferre, avatar

That whole comment chain is a trainwreck filled with assumers, “ackshyually”-vomiting users, and frankly I wish that I didn’t read it.

That said: no, you were not being antisemitic. In that context, by “don’t need to know Hebrew to know the Holocaust was bad”, you’re affirming that the Holocaust was bad, regardless of circumstantial knowledge that you may or may not have (such as knowing Hebrew). The opposite discourse (implying that the holocaust was not a big deal, or that it was good) would be antisemitism.

The other user’s “ackshyually, Jewish ppl speak lotsa langs!” is correct, but contextually irrelevant. I simply fail to see how associating Hebrew with Jewish people would somehow denigrate them, even if they speak a multitude of languages. The other user is being at the very least disingenuous, if not worse (stupid).


It's people from Hexbear... From what I've seen, you can't expect anything other than this from them. Just don't engage them.


Tankies gonna genocide Uyghurs.


Do they differentiate themselves between leftists/communists and actual authoritarian tankies? Or do they consider themselves the latter?

YoBuckStopsHere, avatar

I certainly don’t know Hebrew and I know a lot about the Holocaust.


Antisemitism is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is a form of racism. Antisemitism has historically been manifested in many ways, ranging from expressions of hatred of or discrimination against individual Jews to organized pogroms by mobs, police forces, or genocide. Although the term did not come into common usage until the 19th century, it is also applied to previous and later anti-Jewish incidents.

Maybe to the Samaritans?

I don’t think it is, but I would ask a Jewish person to make sure. Where is Jonah Hill when you need him!?!?

Oh, he just went to go get some milk, he should be back quick.


It would depend entirely on the context.

xantoxis, (edited )

(Probably) No, it isn’t.

I want to be clear that it matters whether you were actually talking about the Holocaust. If you were using this as an analogy, about anything less traumatic than the actual Holocaust under Nazi Germany, then I would argue that it is anti-semitic, because it belittles the degree of horror that occurred. Don’t compare other things to the Holocaust, that’s shitty.

The following assumes you were actually talking about the Holocaust (EDIT: or something equally bad):

Does it erase Jewish culture, history, or trauma? No, it’s clearly doing the opposite of that: affirming the trauma.

Does it dehumanize Jews? No. It’s neutral to the humanity of Jews, except insofar as it’s clearly meant to affirm the horrors of the Holocaust, which dehumanized and destroyed Jews and Jewish culture.

Does it perpetuate a harmful stereotype? Nope! It might be considered a stereotype that Jews know Hebrew, but it’s not a harmful one, and it doesn’t make the claim that all Jews know Hebrew in any case. In fact, it strikes back at the idea that specific facts about Jews are even relevant to the conversation about the Holocaust.

Most likely–if you were in fact actually talking about the Holocaust–the person you were arguing with just wanted you to go away, and gave you a bad faith rebuttal.

Edit to add: OP added context, and this conversation was about the Uyghur genocide. Clearly, the intention here was not to belittle the horrors of genocide, since it’s actually a conversation about genocide. Not anti-semitic.


Heres the context:



Not anti Semitic and even worse, it was a deft destruction of a gatekeeping argument.


Agree with Quality_Control, this is an apt comparison and not anti-semitic.


I’ll go against the grain here and say I do think it’s antisemitic, for precisely the reason outlined in the parent comment, even though they themselves are also giving you a pass.

The genocide against the Jews, the Holocaust, was a situation where they were rounding up every single member of the ethnicity they could find in order to exterminate them.

Even though we use the same word genocide for the Uighurs, no credible authority I’ve ever come across is alleging that is what is happening in Xinjiang. Uighurs still openly populate the province and roam the streets publicly.

To compare them like this is to directly downplay the Holocaust in order to make a point on the Uighurs. In fact, I’d also say the widespread use of the word genocide for the Uighurs is the same, for reasons we’re seeing from the reactions of everyone else in this thread.


I'm going to assume that you mean well, but aren't well informed on this subject.

Genocide isn't just about killing people. It's about destroying a people. The best example I know is how Canada treated/treats indigenous peoples.

Forced sterilization and children removed from their culture are two ways that these peoples have been decimated.

The Canadian genocide against the indigenous peoples has been recognized by multiple governments and falls within the common definition.

The genocide during the Holocaust was immediate and violent like a bomb. The Canadian genocide is a slow burn like a forest fire.


That’s fair as a definition of genocide, though it isn’t the way I’m used to understanding the word.

Precisely because of the differences though, I’d also find it in poor taste to make comparisons been the Canadian genocide against indigenous peoples and the Holocaust.


It's a weird thing to compare. What's worse for a people: an incredibly traumatic experience that shapes a culture for generations to come or an incredibly traumatic experience that shapes a culture for generations to come?


I appreciate this level of detail. Thanks for explaining it.


Sure. OP posed an interesting question and I liked having the opportunity to deconstruct it. Language is complex and depends heavily on context, and I’d love it if more people understood that.


I don’t know why I’m investing any time into what sounds like an unproductive conversation, but maybe the objection was to the assumption that all Jews know Hebrew (and associating Jews with Hebrew and vice-versa)

FlyingSquid, avatar

Fuck, I didn’t even learn enough Hebrew to read from the Torah for my Bar Mitzvah.

I used a transliterated crib sheet.

The rabbi (my cousin), when he found out, took me aside and said, “they won’t know what you did out there today, but GOD KNOWS!

I was an atheist then and I’m an atheist now, so I didn’t give a fuck. I had a bar mitzvah to please my grandparents and get some presents and then nope the fuck out of religion for the rest of my life.


Oh right. So knowledge of Hebrew isn’t “Univershell” then?


No, but, OTOH, if you do know Hebrew, then the odds are pretty strong that you’re ethnically or religiously Jewish.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • InstantRegret
  • DreamBathrooms
  • Durango
  • rosin
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • osvaldo12
  • slotface
  • modclub
  • tester
  • kavyap
  • thenastyranch
  • mdbf
  • rhentai
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • tacticalgear
  • ethstaker
  • khanakhh
  • cisconetworking
  • normalnudes
  • everett
  • cubers
  • lostlight
  • GTA5RPClips
  • relationshipadvice
  • Leos
  • HellsKitchen
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines