this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
83 points (100.0% liked)

Slop.

790 readers
718 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
VILenin@hexbear.net
MiraculousMM@hexbear.net
Hestia@hexbear.net
oscardejarjayes@hexbear.net
Diva@lemmy.ml
Diva@hexbear.net
mathemachristian@hexbear.net
83
fedditors saying the quiet thing out loud (hexbear.net)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by mathemachristian@hexbear.net to c/slop@hexbear.net
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Translation:

Nazi germany stopped existing after 1945

This is debatable. Politically and for the protection of the populace they argued that the german reich isn't discontinued but was re-developed.

This for me is a central argument, you can't pretend that "Death to Israel[sic]" is a normal proposition. Because that wasn't even done with the 3rd reich. Germany still exists today. The country, the cultural entity, the people, the nation were given the right to continue existing. Fucking[sic] nazi germany was allowed to. And for the sole reason of protecting the population to not commit another genocide, but to be better than the nazis.

I find it baseless, intellectually dishonest and for the whole debate unbelievably destructive, if people act like you're pro genocide in Gaza if you object to the destruction of Israel[sic].

Destruction of the government: absolutely. Criminal prosecution of those responsible: definitively. Even a temporary occupation and "denazification" are things you could demand. But "Death to Israel[sic]" goes far beyond that. And it's simply Bullshit[sic] to pretend that this is the only ethical stance on this subject. Downright bizarre, to think like this.

you can't pretend that "Death to Israel[sic]" is a normal proposition. Because that wasn't even done with the 3rd reich. Germany still exists today. he-admit-it

Death to isntrael requires death to germany-cool, even the germans agree.

"'denazification' are things you could demand". soviet-hmm is barbara-pit for anyone who served in the IDF an acceptable compromise?

Link

Ctrl+F "pal": 15 hits
Ctrl+F "israel": 47 hits
Ctrl+F "arab": Phrase not found

Just in case it wasn't extremely clear who the so-called "antizionist" germans worry about the most. The center of the discussion at the moment is very very much still isntrael which is why I think I'm gonna retire "death to pissrael", and go for "free all of palestine" or something like that.

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 39 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yes Stalin shouldn't have stopped in Berlin.

But the German Reich actually got destroyed, you just decided to rebuild it. And western powers allowed it to happen.

[–] jackmaoist@hexbear.net 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Nah the German Reich dead ass survived the war because Stalin stopped at Berlin. The west offered Amnesty to Nazis and rebranded the Reich into NATO. The genocide against non whites was exported outside of the Imperial core to larp as humanitarians in their own countries.

[–] chgxvjh@hexbear.net 8 points 2 days ago

They temporarily ended the German state's rule over Germany. At this point they could have done anything but the decided to rebuild it in the west.

[–] Pisha@hexbear.net 39 points 2 days ago

Never really understood why West Germany decided to be both the legal successor of Nazi Germany while also keeping most of their laws intact. That always seemed a bit too on the nose for me.

[–] OffSeasonPrincess@hexbear.net 43 points 2 days ago

that wasn't even done with the 3rd reich

  1. Germany isnt a purely colonial project, a "Germany" can exist that doesnt exploit other peoples (hell one did exist at one point), an "israel" that doesnt exploit palestinians cant exist

  2. look how that went

[–] Flaps@hexbear.net 34 points 2 days ago

You'll say 'death to nazi Germany, and mfs be like 'umm actually' smug-explain

[–] Zuzak@hexbear.net 39 points 2 days ago (1 children)

[–] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It’s genuinely insane that anyone allowed Germany to continue existing when it had only formed within living memory and they caused* two world wars in that time

*How responsible Germany was for WW1 is up for debate but it probably wouldn’t have happened if Germany was still a thousand tiny principalities

[–] CarmineCatboy2@hexbear.net 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)

*How responsible Germany was for WW1 is up for debate but it probably wouldn’t have happened if Germany was still a thousand tiny principalities

its very much up for debate because the idea that germany caused ww1 is a british imperial idea. in reality the europeans were constantly at each others throats and the only thing that kept them from starting WW1 in, say, morocco 1908, is because there were still foreign countries to partition instead. 'lets go home, the EMPIRE got its just rewards now that there's a spanish morocco and a french morocco protectorate'.

but yeah when you think of postww2 you need someplace to ethnic cleanse the germans towards and that was gonna have to be west and east germany.

[–] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

when you think of postww2 you need someplace to ethnic cleanse the germans towards and that was gonna have to be west and east germany.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean. There were several alternative options to what happened. Germany could’ve been split into more than 2 states and never allowed to recombine. Germany could’ve been partitioned and consumed by neighboring countries. A combination even, large chunks of it being absorbed into its neighbors and then 3-4 Germanys each the size of like, Slovenia.

~~Hell, The Holy Roman Empire existed within living memory at the end of WW2, they could’ve split it back into ~1800 semi-independent principalities~~ I was misremembering, there were around 25 Germanys before they unified in the 1870s, the HRE had been gone for a while. Point stands though, split them back into those 25. Prussia, Saxony, Oldenburg, etc., although honestly split Prussia into a couple new ones.

[–] CarmineCatboy2@hexbear.net 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Germany could’ve been split into more than 2 states and never allowed to recombine.

how do you police that? do you build walls, police checkpoints everywhere and forbid every german state from having a democratic system? what do you do if they vote to be a single country, do an israel/gladio and manipulate the political system of every german state to become self serving electoral fiefs hostile to unification?

even the distinction between just an east and a west germany happened because europe was occupied by the United States and the Soviet Union. turns out there was no end to history and the occupation of europe changed natures once the cold war ended, why would it be any harder to unify the '4 germanies' instead of the 2 we got historically? a permanent european occupation of germany? a permanent hybrid war conducted against the very idea of germany?

Germany could’ve been partitioned and consumed by neighboring countries.

like the polish partitions except without the three empires to permanently occupy the region? i don't think this is sustainble without french tier cultural genocide of the germans. plus, do you see europe coming together and agreeing that France and the Soviet Union should become that much more massive, resourceful and populous by annexing even more parts of Germany?

Hell, The Holy Roman Empire existed within living memory at the end of WW2, they could’ve split it back into ~1800 semi-independent principalities

the holy roman empire hadn't existed for more than a century by the start of ww1 and it was a pre nationalist polity. the reason why the austrian empire was more easily dismantled is because it wasn't birthed by nationalism and romanticism. it wrestled with those concepts in an attempt to create a multicultural state. germany and france didn't have that difficulty, the process of assimilation of, say, the regions of the lorraine into both the french and the german states and away from each other was much more consolidated than anything the austrian empire had achieved at that point.

and even then the austrian empire wasn't turned into 1800 landlord states. it was turned into a handful of nationalist states. in germany you can get bavaria and north germany if you try real hard.

[–] TommyCatkins@hexbear.net 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Germany was all gas leading up to WW1 and was telling Austria-Hungary to press their claims to war. Germany was a military dictatorship in all but name at that point

[–] CarmineCatboy2@hexbear.net 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

like I mentioned the brits had threatened the germans with war in defense of france's claims to morocco

the empires were always at each other's throats and ww1 started when their territorial ambitions came too close to home. the germans were not unique in this regard. but you know, the brits - the most rapacious empire by far - had something to say about how their defeated enemies were to blame for the war.

[–] MolotovHalfEmpty@hexbear.net 35 points 2 days ago

The fact that Germany wasn't broken up and never actually went through serious denazification is exactly the evidence required to demonstrate that the entire entity, participants, and machinations of the Israel project must be taken apart piece by piece until there's too little left to ever reform it.

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 27 points 2 days ago

Jews in the Levantine deserve human and civil rights. Palestinians in the Levantine deserve human and civil rights. What the name of the state that happens under is, is details; a rose by any other name. This argument is being willfully obtuse to what the anti Zionist complaint is. It’s the national project we object to, it’s not like we think the name “Israel” has some magic powers. If the country was renamed to New Levantine and the same political structure persisted, we’d still be opposed to it.

[–] halfpipe@hexbear.net 36 points 2 days ago

I'm honestly not surprised. German culture has spent decades portraying Israel as their happy ending to the holocaust.

[–] Thordros@hexbear.net 31 points 2 days ago

What the fuck is an "Israel"? Is that what we're calling Occupied Palestine now? palestine-strong

[–] SockOlm@hexbear.net 23 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I sure do wonder why "Death to Israel" wasnt a normal position in the third Reich, almost like Israel didnt even exist before 1948

e: nvm I misunderstood what they were saying

Death to Israel

Death to Nazi Germany, death to the Modern Germany lead by Nazis

[–] Seasonal_Peace@hexbear.net 25 points 2 days ago

Pissrael ist not like germany, pissrael is the Lebensraum the germans claimed. Now let me see how many germans live in this proclaimed Lebensraum today?

[–] Twongo@hexbear.net 21 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ach ok. Wenn Nazideutschland es durfte dürfen es Pissraelis auch. Maximal liberaler Hirnschaden.

[–] mathemachristian@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

im zweifel halt ein bisschen entnazifizieren. Hat ja gut geklappt.

[–] Twongo@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

300 verbrecher exekutieren und die nützlichen nazis in priviligierte positionen stecken war wohl doch nicht der weg, huh? die brd ist nur eine fortsetzung des 3. reiches. die gleichen akteure die das 3. reich geformt haben waren maßgeblich an der entstehung der brd beteiligt. u.a. haben viele nsdap politiker nur die partei gewechselt und dann gings weiter im text.

[–] Dort_Owl@hexbear.net 22 points 2 days ago

Israel isn't even a real country

[–] JustSo@hexbear.net 19 points 2 days ago

And for the sole reason [...] to be better than the nazis.

incredibly deep and correct analysis internet-delenda-est

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

if people act like you're pro genocide in Gaza if you object to the destruction of Israel[sic].

I don't know what this logical fallacy is called but I see it all the time (especially on Twitter) and I hate it. It makes debates so unproductive

[–] supdawg813@hexbear.net 11 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yeah I'd almost call it reductio ad absurdum except used in a way that it becomes an ideological kind of gaslighting and protects the actually absurd end of the argument from being de-normalized.

[–] mathemachristian@hexbear.net 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Heaven forgive me, this is completely irrelevant and anyone genuinely arguing about the correct usage of these terms should be ban-hammer.^[This is not a general mod position I should add, because I can't turn that flair off. If you genuinely care about logic and fallacies because you think they're neat you are welcome here. Some people use them to derail a discussion which is what I'm referencing here]

But

reductio ad absurdum is a type of argument not a fallacy. It's about disproving a claim by finding a necessary condition that contradicts some assumption. For example, if we want to prove that "√2" is not a fraction, it is possible to start from saying well, lets suppose "√2 is a fraction" is true, aka √2 = p/q where p and q have no common divisor. Then through some equation juggling it is possible to show p and q are even (i.e. have common divisor 2). This is "absurd" because they were assumed not to have a common divisor. If we then assume our logical system is contradiction-free, then the opposite of the claim "√2 is a fraction" must be true.

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

reductio ad absurdum

Hmm yes. My guess was it being the black and white fallacy, which in this case would just be an means to do the above.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Theoretically what this is would be misrepresenting someone else as presenting a false dichotomy, but it's actually a correct dichotomy because you can't support a colonial ethnostate without supporting genocide and people do assert that, so I guess maybe the fallacy you are looking for is "appeal to incredulity." They are basically treating their position as axiomatically not-pro-genocide despite it logically leading to genocide, and pointing that out meets with no stronger objection than that they are offended by the idea of you saying that.

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago

Arguing yourself into the same position as the local hard right irredentist sovereign citizen cranks over israel is certainly a maneuver