- cross-posted to:
- shermanposting@piefed.social
- cross-posted to:
- shermanposting@piefed.social
cross-posted from: https://piefed.social/c/shermanposting/p/1855263/don-t-be-a-loser
You must log in or # to comment.
The issue is, if you care at all about how the Palestinian people are treated, you’re labeled an antisemite. That word is being used to shut down ANY discourse.
While real antisemitism is also on the rise
It sounds like victim blaming, but a lot of the rise of antisemitism is being fueled by the actions of the Israeli state itself. Over the course of the last few years the state has burned through 80 years of good will and hard work put in by groups devoted to fighting real antisemitism.
A lot of the behaviour like flexing control over the media, and political systems that antisemitic groups have been falsely accusing them of have been made true through the acts of the Israeli far right government. Furthering the idea that these antisemitic groups have been correct the whole time. The worse thing is that the state is intentionally conflating the idea that the actions of Israel represent the intent of all Jewish people, labeling any criticism against the state antisemitic behavior. This only serves to validate the behaviour of real antisemitic actors, giving them cover to disguise their racism under a veil of righteous criticism.
Israel spent significant resources propagandizing that they speak for every jewish people on earth. As a part ashkenazi, I was called blood traitor many times for suggesting that maybe genocide shouldn’t be happening actually. And I can’t even betray any blood, I wasn’t even rised jewish and I don’t look the part.
Yep, after Palestinians this propaganda campaign is most dangerous for ethnic Jews. It always amazes me that people who survived the consequences of people attempting to create an ethnostate are so quick to want to create one themselves.
Apparently so is genocide.
At least now we’re talking about it negatively, instead of quietly ignoring it for decades.
I can label someone a sociopath for wearing red shoes, doesn’t make them one.
Agreed. But that doesn’t change the fact that it shuts down discourse.
Why is that an issue? Who cares what people think of you?
Because it’s being used to shut down discourse.
It’s not the label.
Anti-semitism is a bankrupt term. Its being weaponized by nazi-Israel against anyone who criticize Israel. We should rather use a plain term like judeophobia so that we are clear in our speech.
Unfortunately he’s confusing antisemites with antizionists
Palestinians are semites too!
I know, hence my comment.
Quit it with the semitics
Now you are being anti-semantic
Given how much he reversed on after speaking with experts on other things when he was govenor, I think he could be convinced he isn’t defending the right people if he talked to a 3rd party expert about it.
Despite him being a Republican he seems to be a reasonable guy. Usually.
I think he’s one of those Rinos republicans are yapping about.
Yeah… Morally he wasn’t as repugnant as your average Republican, especially compared to today’s standards. However, there isn’t really a way to be a Republican and still be a truly empathetic person. His tenure as governor was all about cutting taxes and services for his constituents.
He massively cut funding for schools, healthcare, and social services which, all while racking up a huge amount of debt for the state. Imo you can’t systemically make the lives of hundreds of thousands poor families even harder and still be considered a good person. Being “fiscally conservative” is just short hand for wanting to starve children and deprive them of healthcare and equitable futures, just to make rich people richer.
Yeah, my bar got so low, I genuinely considered that not openly supporting fucking kids already made him not a republican. I’m kind of forgetting that it’s a new development for those folks.
Time flies, crazy to think his governorship started +20 years ago.
Is he? That phrase isn’t in the quote, variety added it.
(It’s still possible, but idk the rest of the context)
This is personal for him. IIRC his dad was a Nazi and during his childhood he remembered him being a sad angry man, never getting over the loss.
Israel is an apartheid state though…
Lmao does that mean he’s against the apartheid in Israel or playing into their propaganda? Cause It could really be either lol
The term “semite” has two definitions, one traditional and one modern. Palestinians are semitic according to both of them.
No but don’t you understand? Criticizing the Israeli government for slaughtering Palestinians is anti-Semitic for… reasons.
Those semitics should stop their semantic bukakke of oppression.
Words change their meaning over time, in context, and with other words. When people say antisemitic nowadays, we know what they mean. No need to go all ackshyually
Yes, if they convince you good enough, then black would mean white, war would mean peace.
I mean that’s how language works, if everybody started calling White, Black; Black would would have a new definition, see literally. That said fuck Israel, Jews are cool unless they support what Israel is doing. All religion is bad and used to justify terrible things but not all religious people are bad.
What is wrong with you? What are you, some kind of new-age hippy? Why are you using these new-fangled words like white, war, and peace? What ever happened to albus, bellum, and pax?
Actually I don’t know at all what someone means when they say that anymore because for the last two years when the media or a public figure mentions antisemitism it is nearly always criticizing Zionism and Israel for their genocide.
But the word has ties to Nazi germany, it’s more rhetoric than word.
Agree with this outside of those opposing genocide being labeled as antisemites.
Was going to say, the quote sounds great, but of course I had a feeling the context was probably saying… calling the specific government/individuals who are commiting a genocide out for what they are actually doing. Rather than hating people for what their race is.
Actually, the speech is mostly about that last part even as it starts on the Holocaust. Since so far I didn’t see a link to it, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsETTn7DehI
I mean people have been criticizing Israel for decades without being called antisemites. At least not credibly. I know because I’ve been calling Gaza and apartheid state since the 90s. The difference here is the way people have formed a rhetorical alliance with actual neo Nazis instead of articulating those specific criticisms. People slinging around “Zionist” are just as obnoxious as people slinging around “antisemite.” The left really needs to do better on this. Use your words, not problematic bumper sticker politics.
Is Zionist not a neutral term?
The entire reason the word is problematic is because it is so overloaded. Even setting aside the white supremacist baggage for a moment, purely descriptive definitions depend on time, place and context to determine whether you mean that the Jewish people should have representation in Palestine, the creation of their own independent state, the continuation of their own state, or a justification for colonialist expansion in the Levant. The term is historically favored by white supremacists specifically because it is a dog whistle which has plausible deniability to mean anything from a historical retrospective to actual antisemitism.
For decades, thoughtful critics of Israel have intentionally avoided invoking the term to separate their analysis from hate groups. And this is not a difficult thing to do. It is quite easy to articulate specific problems with Israel’s statecraft. There are many things to choose from, so when people choose the dog whistle instead, there’s a good reason to see it as suspect. Israel also understands this. They prefer you choose the bumper sticker instead of sober analysis, because it is easier to discredit.
(Unfortunately?) no. Even putting aside that the term is a lot more broad than a lot of (well intentioned) critics of Israel think, its been long used as a dog whistle by anti-semites. The novel “The Turner Diaries” for example, which is sometimes referred to as the bible of American neo Nazism, uses the term “Zionist occupied government” (ZOG).
The word Zionist in “Zionist Occupation Government” is used to equate being Jewish with the ideology of Zionism, depicting Zionists as conspiring on behalf of Jews and Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_Occupation_Government_conspiracy_theory
And when Hamas leaders use the term Zionist, then they mean Jews more often then not either.
The algorithm boosts the voice that create the most engagement and shareholder value. It’s a perfectly objective and rational way to run political discourse. What is wrong with bumper sticker politics, they are extremely efficient.
You must be some obnoxious communist to criticize this! (jk lol)
PS: You’re probably right though, and actual antisemites and fascists are the reason why the propaganda wasn’t able to completely quell criticism of Israel about the genocide. So in this very rare instance we probably should thank our nazi bedfellows, otherwise Israel would kill, starve and rape Palestinians even harder.
That’s because non of you truely only criticise genocide
There’s always some other crap or implication attached
Then why are you a Republican?
Because he immigrated to the US after hearing a speech from Reagan and promptly went from having almost nothing to starting his own business and becoming a multi-millionaire before he got into acting. He’s what the Republican party used to advertise itself as. He is to the Republican Party what Worf is to the Klingon Empire.
He is to the Republican Party what Worf is to the Klingon Empire.
Ahh finally an analogy my Lemmy brain can understand.
Ok but why is he republican today?
Because he’s old and he’s always been a Republican.
Because the dem primary in CA would have been too crowded. Same reason Bloomberg ran as a republican his first NYC mayoral election. As a republican he could get to the general election uncontested. They’re both independent types, it was just easier to win as a republican than an actual no party Independent. And if they had run as Democrats they would have been blue dog clinton conservative democrats. (IIRC Bloomberg did run as an independent when he could run as an incumbent.)
Now he just hates brown people. It’s the circle of life.
Whatever your views on him as an actor or his political affiliation, you should watch the original speech in its entirety, rather than keep this soundbite in and of itself and hijack its meaning. It’s also worth noting this was recorded in early 2023, so a lot of things have changed since then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsETTn7DehI
I think it’s a powerful message and well delivered. Something the hardline MAGA crowd definitely needed to heed. And all around the world, as more of these populist movements rise or have risen.
as an actor
Schwarzenegger may have had a very specific niche he fit within as an actor, but when he worked within that niche he was excellent. If you look at Conan the Barbarian, it should not have worked as a movie, and yet it absolutely does, and no small part of that is his acting. Dude can smolder stoically. Terminator, T2, Running Man, Total Recall, Predator, they’re all excellent uses of his very specific type.
Then jump ahead to True Lies and Last Action Hero, where he’s arguably at his height of fame, and he makes basically a couple of parodies of his acting persona, during a time when action heroes were largely taken much more seriously than they are today, and he nails both of those roles, too.
Sure, he’s got a bad habit of trying to make movies he maybe shouldn’t have, and yeah, he’s always a huge muscly Austrian with a thick accent, but I think he might be the best Western action star who’s ever lived.
As a person or a politician… ehh… could be a lot worse.
Certain Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, tend to be considered moderate Republicans and more centrist than the national party.
Hes a really great example of what you can achieve when you put literally all your time and energy into one thing. Gotta give him credit.
Something the hardline MAGA crowd definitely needed to heed.
Yeah, well, the people who need to hear it wont because of algos.
That’s what no leaders seem to get. Twitter or YouTube is shouting into the void.
Not that I have a good solution for someone like him.
Something all of us have to keep in mind, especially based on many of the comments here generalizing about MAGA, Jews (and the guilt by association angle), immigrants more broadly (for the rare conservative about these parts), etc…
I see a lot of rationalization and emotionally strong trigger words being used to justify acting the way Arnold is being celebrated for saying people should not act.
Wasn’t he republican governor?
Edit: Also doesn’t that mean that movement based on hate towards capitalism is bunch of losers too?
A repub gov in CA. That probably makes him more left than Manchin in WV or some other dem elected in a red state. He was more open about hearing from everyone and working to get things accomplished.
For your second question. Probably, idk. He is a capitalist.
I hate the Israeli government and a specific Jewish man named Aaron Edelman. Fuck you, Aaron, you know what you did.
The rest of the Jewish community is cool though.
Sadly he joined the GOP.
While I may like the sentiment, his actions are contrary to it.
Certain Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, tend to be considered moderate Republicans and more centrist than the national party.
Perhaps have a look at what he achieved instead of the label he achieved it under. His policies were pretty far removed from what you would expect from a Republican.
Then maybe he shouldn’t be registered with a party that’s against all his values.
He’s a Republican because he fell for the Reagan bling, he’s said multiple times he got in it for him. I think he never really understood what that actually meant, and he did side with leftist ideas more often than against, and he did do a bunch of things that are more leftist than he understands, but he still had some pretty entrenched ideas of what a Republican is that he never managed to question despite having reality shoved in his face, so he’s still a Republican by religion and lack of reckoning of what that really does.
Imagine this, though: Imagine the above comment was made by a conservative, upset at AOC, a deeply progressive politician, for joining the Democratic Party, a group that supports Israel and tends to work quietly against universal healthcare.
It’s sometimes poor logic, but people do successfully cherry pick reasons to feel the same about the Democrats - fans of progressives especially.
It’s not a very good analogy. AOC has two choices in American politics: Democrat or Republican. She may not be a perfect fit for the Democratic Party, but she’s significantly closer to them than she is to the Republican Party (even before MAGA).
Schwarzenegger had the same options. He would have fit fine in the Democratic Party, but he, for whatever reason, chose the Republican party; a political party that has been overtly racist for as long as any of us have been alive.
Maybe he had some good reason to throw his support behind the Republican party pre-MAGA, but it is still a valid criticism that he made that decision.
Valid, but I have to admit, it’s not a very useful criticism. What’s he going to do; time travel back and prevent himself from making that decision?
Part of my point is, I think everyone has had “romantic, classical notions” of what their party used to represent, and defer to that notion when considering which party a good person should join.
For Democrats, that involves protecting minorities, a strong government, etc. For some Republicans, it’s about more state-level government, and strong businesses. The wishful often want to believe it’s just those - that racism isn’t built into that party, only “protecting the border from criminals”.
And if you look way back in history, there are “hints” to that too - Lincoln freeing the slaves, Reagan welcoming immigration to strengthen the economy. They’re not true anymore, of course, just as the Democratic Party won’t lift a finger for anything that stands against Israel, or could actually pass universal healthcare. But I could imagine an older guy like Arnold remembering that image when he signed up. Maybe to some degree there’s a Code Geass’ Suzaku style of “The only right way is to change them from the inside!” thinking.
The GOP glorifies personal responsibility while making sure that individuals without wealth have little to no power.
Decidedly have no love for the GOP, but he was a politician in a time where the GOP was immensely different from what it is today, and the focus of the party was not overt bigotry and absolutism. Iirc, he was also talked about as a bit of a black sheep during the Bush Jr.-era GOP politics, but I might be misremembering things based on my own impressions from that time.
The GOP in 2016. “We can’t have Hillary as President. The world will laugh at us!”
The GOP in 2016. “Who cares what anyone thinks of us?? USA! USA!! USA!!!”
The GOP back then when Arnie joined was more socially progressive and actually fiscally conservative. This was the party that allowed more migrants in the 1980s, and courted Muslim voters in 2000 presidential election by tapping into the mostly immigrant Muslim’s entrepreneurial spirit-- and it worked. I won’t vote for any conservatives because I inherently disagree with them on economics and I am not religious, but 2000’s GOP is the kind of conservative that I identify as conservative.
Certain Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, tend to be considered moderate Republicans and more centrist than the national party.
“socially progressive and fiscally conservative” is and always has been a copout phrase used by people that will never, ever, support wide spread systemic change to better people’s lives, but dont want to be yelled at for it. Its the “thoughts and prayers” group.
Certain Republicans such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, tend to be considered moderate Republicans and more centrist than the national party.
And the gop for a time was a lot more moderate, and was more “moderate” before 2016 and 2001
Notice that everyone who claims to be socially progressive and fiscally conservative still always votes Republican. It’s basically their way of saying “I don’t personally want to kill all gay people, but would gladly vote for politicians who do if it means I might get a tax break.”
copout phrase used by people that will never, ever, support wide spread systemic change to better people’s lives
Well they are called conservatives for a reason. Because they value “conserving” whatever it is.
He’s referring to people who claim to be “socially progressive and economically conservative” because those two concepts are diametrically opposed
Because those who are “socially progressive and economically conservative” are operating from the classical liberal sense of personal freedom and freedom from government control on the market. Liberalism and capitalism are progressive ideas when they first came out, as these ideas were opposing the aristocratic hierarchy and government control of economy to turn profit (mercantilism). Now, with aristocracy pretty much gone, personal liberty is practically non-questionable, and free market is widely adopted, these are given and hence became “conservative” in the modern sense.
Well alright could you please also forward that note to the genocidal child killers that are ranzig Gaza and Lebanon?
I really don’t want more antisemitism but that’s not something I can control as Israel itself is currently the biggest driver of antisemitism in the world
Also they’re apartheid by definition.
