While the word antisemitism has lost all meaning because of israel labeling everyone critical of them as anti-Semitic, it’s better not to use it ironically as people will conflate anti-israel with anti-Semitism and it might negatively affect real jews against israel.
Kk, but there is a strong connection between Israel, Jews and Judaism. I don’t care about hurting someone’s feelings. Intelligent people should know that
the word antisemitism has lost all meaning because of israel labeling everyone critical of them as anti-Semitic
Yes but there’s a lot of KKKers right now that are not very intelligent and just want to hate on Jews. If think they can start openly saying they are anti Semitic we have a different problem. Which israel doesn’t care about of course.
It’s disgusting that israel is using anti Semitism as a shield for their crimes but don’t even let them pretend they are right.
Sorry guys, no one’s allowed to comment on the fact that Israeli soldiers are killing children, journalists, and aid workers. If you do it’s antisemitic because of their noses. Sorry I don’t make the rules
Really? We’ve basically descended to antisemitism now?
I 100% think the use of force in Gaza is genocide and a war crime, but this is a cartoon I’d expect from the Right. We’re better than that.
Looking forward to the downvotes for my ground shattering opinion that racial generalizations never have a place in political commentary.
EDIT: I’ve never been happier in my life to be downvoted. Keep them coming. I love how I even said in my initial comment that I do not support Israel and think they’re committing genocide (which is the general Lemmy opinion), but I’m still getting toasted. I would say the same thing about a WWII cartoon that made racial generalizations about Asians, or about the imperialist cartoons of the late 1800s that made generalizations about any number of a group of other people.
What’s worse though?! Comic artist giving people big noses or an army indiscriminately killing children and press then sweeping them both under the rug as terrorism?
You’ve learned a valuable lesson today. A large fraction of the Lemmy userbase is anti semites who got banned from Reddit for advocating for violence against Israel.
Hey boss, they do everything in their power to make you think they represent all Jewish people. This is the most inoffensive way to illustrate them I’ve seen in a long ass time.
I think you’re just struggling with the fact they’re the bad guys.
The downvotes are because nuance doesn’t belong on lemmy. Only militant “agree with the hive or fuck off!” opinions are considered here.
What you said is 100% correct. Not everything is as black and white as the lemmy collective makes it out to be. But pointing this out makes you as close to the enemy here’s as if you had posted MAGA propaganda.
I’ll be downvoted too, but since up and down arrows have no value to anyone over the age of 12, - I wouldn’t worry about it.
Being against the state of Israel does not make one antisemitic. Just like being against the US doesn’t make you anti-christianity. States and religions are not the same thing.
People aren’t down voting you because of groupthink. They are down voting you because of OPs and your bad take. Quit whining. Get better takes.
It’s just disturbing to me to see the side that I see as the good guys (the left) getting increasingly drawn into the trap of violence and discrimination. It’s like no one in politics has the ability to self-reflect these days.
It’s just disturbing to me to see the side that I see as the good guys (the left) getting increasingly drawn into the trap of violence and discrimination.
You got disturbed by your own imagination which is something children do.
the downvotes are because the opinion expressed is not only wrong, but monstrous. its like saying “its complicated” about the holocaust or any other of the myriad of crimes committed by the nazis. it is fucking not and muddying the waters by stating otherwise makes you nothing but a genocide apologist.
I’m guessing it was intentional. This is the first time I’ve seen it called “khamas,” but what I understand from looking it up is that it’s how the word is commonly written/pronounced in english in Israel. (If I’m wrong, please correct me!)
Fair enough. And I should be clear, I didn’t find a good source for this explanation, all that came up that was related was a few forum threads. And now that I’m looking at it again, there’s a good variety of completely different answers out there. So I really don’t know what to believe here.
I may just not be searching well; if anybody does have reliable info about this I’d be happy to hear it :)
It’s the standard transcription of the Arabic sound, which is closest (in fact, pretty much identical) to the Hebrew sound which is typically used to pronounce the first consonant in Hamas. Blame the bad Arabic-language education is Israel for not pronouncing it correctly…
This is, as far as I know, not a word in Arabic, and non-standard transcription for Hebrew — the standard would be “Ḥamas” or “H̲amas” (using “ch” is common but non-standard as well).
Every whole in the ground is a Hamas Tunnel, every Palestinian is Hamas, every person critical of Israel is pro-Hamas.
You can see it everywhere, not just Israeli Propaganda (and even that from its unwavering supporters like Germany and the Biden Administration) but even here posts accusing somebody critical of Israel of being pro-Hamas are common.
I’ve definitely seen exchanges like that here. “Maybe genocide is bad.” And then some nutjob going off asking if they really think Hamas would welcome them.
I replied to the first commenter with this but the soldier’s nose is not the antisemitic stereotype. It “should” (if you’re trying to be racist) be hooked and pointing downward
Maybe. If I were to draw a comic about Japanese I’d be very careful about how I draw eyes and teeth because of how they were stereotyped in the past. If I drew one with black people I’d be sure it looked nothing like Pepe the frog. Lots of characters have the eyes outside the head style. Weiner face isn’t what I see here.
You immediately jumping to it being bigotry is the very thing Israel is doing right now claiming all criticism is bigotry. They both have stupid looking noses since its a sketched cartoon. Stop jumping to conclusions.
Yeah but the artist is called Nasser. Sounds pretty antisemitic to me. I met a guy called Nasser once, guess what his surname was? That’s right, Hussein. What do you think he thought about Jews? I’ve no idea, he seemed like a decent guy though, so probably nothing awful. I’m assuming this Nasser Junior must be his son? He had a big nose too, come to think of it.
I looked at his Instagram before I left my comment (that agreed with you) and there’s a drawing of a middle eastern guy with a nose way closer to the stereotype on there, too.
I’m not just hesitant to claim it’s bigotry - I’m outright refusing to without further evidence for all the reasons you outlined. There’s nothing bigoted about the way the soldier is drawn because that’s not even accurate to the stereotype at all
Make some shit up? It’s pink and unusually elongated with respect to the other characters. I’m not going to scour through the artist’s works to prove that it might be an accidental embellishment. If you make a comic that is not part of a series, it should be self contained.
All the other details you pointed out are just strawman bullshit.
What’s happening to Palestinians is genocide. It’s fucked beyond belief. This went from a poignant comic to something I don’t want to be associated with.
Four fingers, one floating eye, sclara? All straw-men that you ‘defeated’ to prove me wrong. I don’t comment on bigotry lightly. I know antisemitism is thrown around as much as comparisons to hitler in hyperbole these days.
If someone has to look at your body of work to understand if you’re racist or not, you fucked up.
I will give you the author of the cartoon may not be racist. I can’t say. This particular embellishment was a mistake on their part. It watered down the potency of the comic for some and that makes it an oversight at best.
Come on, that’s just a cartoon nose. It’s not even close to the racist stereotype of Jewish noses.
The Jewish nose, or the Jew’s nose, is an antisemitic ethnic stereotype referring to a hooked nose with a convex nasal bridge and a downward turn of the tip of the nose
I didn’t think today I’d be looking at people arguing a Jew depicted with twice the size nose as the other character in the panel while speaking in broken English was going to be argued as not stereotypical because it isn’t hooked enough.
Certainly didn’t think I’d see it as the upvoted opinion.
Honestly I think eye dialect is the real grotesque part of this.
Most Israelis are native English speakers or were raised speaking English, there’s no reason to have used satirical grammar except to portray a gross ethnic stereotype.
Not to mention that I think it undercuts the premise to make it about ethnicity.
I’m sorry maybe I’m missing something, but how is it a stereotype to have the character speak like an idiot? The artist is trying to show that Israel in general is being idiotic, so this character speaking in a grammatically incorrect way matches that.
It isn’t just an idiotic way of speaking, they’re using eye dialect spelling to reproduce the guttural sound in traditional hebrew pronunciation (e.g. 'k-hamas), which is ethnically specific and a very common trope in antisemitic media. Modern Israelis typically have more in common with western english speakers (many don’t originate from Israel at all) than with this type of orthodox speech mannerisms.
It would have been one thing to portray the figure as an idiot, but combining it with ethnically-charged tropes and signifiers starts making the comic less about the nature of what they’re doing (and the ridiculous logic they’re using to justify it) and more about what ethnic group the figure is a part of.
It’s good practice to look critically at politically-charged comics for shorthands like the above.
Have you considered perhaps the view that you might be an idiot? I do, and I accept that I lack understanding and that my knowledge is incomplete. You should try and do the same. It helps.
Back on the topic. If Zionists consider themselves as the only true representatives of their ethnicity and thus separate themselves from the rest of their ethnicity, when someone else depicts that view, it is automatically anti-Semitic?
So when Nazis separated themselves from the rest of the populace, only accepted the Aryan race as supreme and started genociding those they considered inferior, people who depicted them as such were actually anti-germanic.
I hope your brain doesn’t hurt now that it’s broken.
If Zionists consider themselves as the only true representatives of their ethnicity and thus separate themselves from the rest of their ethnicity, when someone else depicts that view, it is automatically anti-Semitic?
Lol, you’re really doubling down on this? By your logic, does depicting a jew with a hooked nose classify as antisemitic? Since they say they’re the ‘true jews’, are any of the classic jewish stereotypes fair game?
The problem with their use isn’t that you’re projecting a classification on them, it’s that you’re tying their differentiating characteristics to the terrible thing they’ve done. You’re making it (to varying degrees) about what makes them jewish, not the terrible thing they’re doing.
I’ve heard a lot of rationalizations of racism before, but “i’m actually doing activism” is a new one.
There are Hamas fighters, future Hamas fighters, potential Hamas fighters and Hamas sympathizers. All belong to Hamas. There might be other categories as well.
Thats because the tense has to agree with the subject, subject being Israel in present times, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the ‘no one’ means ‘no on in present times’. No where in grammer does verb tense indicate anything other than the subjects time.
Thats [sic] presently because the tense presently has to agree with the subject, subject presently being Israel in present times, it doesn’t necessarily presently mean that the ‘no one’ presently means ‘no on in present times’. No where in grammer [sic] does verb tense presently indicate anything other than the subjects [sic] time.
Clarified so no one would presently confuse your statement to refer presently to Old English.
This is wrong on so many levels that I hope you are joking.
Verbs agree in person and number with the subject. “no one” is 3. person singular. Subjects don’t have time. Only verbs have tense.
If subjects had tense and “no one” was present, then the sentence would still be present. In that case, you would need to use the past form of “no one” to indicate tense.
What is the past form of ‘no one’ oh right, its still ‘no one’ so OPs intent to exclude the past isn’t clear. ‘is killing’ is the conjugation to use if you want to exclude the past, literally what it’s there for.
You’re the one who brought up the what if subjects have tense statement, not me. You’ve convinced me you just want to argue semantically. It’s still not clear that OP wants to exclude the past otherwise they would have used ‘is killing’ instead of ‘kills’
Its funny you wont respond to my argument where I say if OP wanted to exclude the past without saying so they should have used ‘is killing’ instead of ‘kills’ because ‘is killing’ necessary excluds the past, but ‘kills’ does not. Third time the cham though so I made the whole comment about it this time.
If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that:
“No one kills more efficiently” includes all past events.
“No one is killing more efficiently” would be the proper way to exclude past events.
But I have a few questions about that:
Does that mean that the phrase “No one has killed more efficiently” is the same as “No one kills more efficiently”?
Would it be proper to say “No one is killing more efficiently” even if they are not currently killing at this exact moment, but just in recent history?
If I say “No one speaks Ancient Greek”, am I incorrect? Is it fair to correct me with “Actually, the Greeks of 1000 BC speak Ancient Greek”?
Im saying that it’s ambiguous, the way I phrased it was it doesn’t necessarily exclude the past. When you add the word ancient to the example about speaking greek you’re adding additional context, no one does ancient anything because that word necessarily implies the thing isn’t done anymore. I asked for more context from op to avoid misunderstanding and you made and example of how that would work and why its important.
Also since the greek example wasn’t a comparison like what I responded to we could make it one and see how that looks too.
“No one speaks Ancient Greek as efficiently as the Language Majors”
Would it be unfair to comment that maybe the Acient Greeks did?
Netanyahu knew about Hamas militants moving funds from Iran and Egypt warned him about the impending attack, but he did nothing. I suppose he was preoccupied with containing protests against his judicial reforms but he may have thought letting Hamas to thrive in order to justify his fascism will do him favours. And boy he was wrong! As much as Israel have gone further right, at least they did not let themselves be hoodwinked and many ordinary Israelis have gone back to the streets to protest against Netanyahu and his failure to prevent the attack by Hamas. The opposition will have easy victory in the next election.
Add comment