21
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
21 points (64.8% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35720 readers
2070 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(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: https://lemm.ee/comment/2233830
Thanks.
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.