You must log in or register to comment.
And yet unfortunately still necessary
isn’t that literally the definition of zionism? Why is this even a meme?
Zionism at its most reductive and ideal is the idea that Jewish people should have a state/homeland that will never persecute them for being Jewish.
In theory, that is what Joe Fucking Biden meant when he told a crowd of Jewish people that he was a Zionist.
The problem starts when you start asking questions like: “How do you do that?” and the actual Zionists, surprisingly, aren’t that interested in the creation of a secular state, or what’s going to happen to the non-Jewish people already living there.
So, that’s the meme. The conflict between the ideal and the reality, this weird thought space between concept and reality that really only takes a person thinking one step ahead to notice but liberals, like Joe Biden, didn’t and don’t.
If you’re being generous to liberals, and not a realist who knows they’re active and knowledgeable participants.
Having grown up in evangelical Christianity, I don’t quite understand the attack on liberals here?
Zionism is a major part for the conservative manifesto to create the New Jerusalem to bring forth the return of Jesus. Evangelicals view Jews as reluctant Christians yet to accept their king.
lefties love to hate on liberals for whatever reason. Even though the definition of liberal is not very specific and encompassing.
I still haven’t quite figured out why. Idk if people just don’t broadly understand the definition of liberalism in a political context, or if it’s just “hurr durr not lefty bad” shenanigans.
on another note, if anybody in the comments has any expansive explanation to this, please, indulge my curiosity.
It’s the new wrench to move the ratchet
Liberals support Israel because of Cold War propaganda labeling. That evolved into the good guys versus terrorism propaganda we have now, which blinded us to things like stealing land, the blockade, interfering in elections, and indefinite detainment without charges or trial. It was all hand waived because “terrorists”. But in reality it was the only way left for them to try to defend their sovereignty.
It has been a political wedge issue used as a weapon by conservatives. Liberal buy-in to zionism is its primary support system.
It’s funny how Europeans didn’t feel the needed to give any of their land to the Jews, even though they’re responsible for the Holocaust.
Maybe because Britain had already mandated a Zionist quasi-state (that would eventually become modern day Israel) and Zionist Jews were already migrating there even before the Holocaust? Or are we simply ignoring that part of history?
No, we’re not ignoring Britain’s culpability at all. I guess you don’t get that Palestine wasn’t Britain’s land to give, or all the homes and farms Zionist seized.
They had been migrating or atleast trying to since the Ottoman empire controlled the region, Ottoman authorities were able to keep them out to a degree but it was most likely a failing attempt on the long term regardless.
What?!? This was a perfect opportunity to
get rid of Jews and Brown people at the same timesettle the promised land! Did you really expect theracistsupstanding European leaders not to take it?Actually, allot of countries let some lands for jews, but they don’t want it. They want specifically they holly land.
Source? And is it notably different than from, for example, the land the US government “left” for native Americans? Deliberately too small and unproductive to support the population’s needs?
Well, in from Argentina and I can say a good and wealthy part of the capital was left for jews in the time, and other parts of o country, and I know some others countries did the same, but that wasn’t well accepted by the time. Still we have some tiny communities in that zones from that time.
Varied by country, the Jewish Oblast was kinda shit, but the land in Alaska had potential for example. The Alaska thing wasnt official just an idea a lot of folks were lightly okay with.
A Jewish reservation. In Alaska.
Bro…
Know any other groups of people who might need reservations in Alaska? Know any of them who actually have their rights respected?
There was also ones proposed in Uganda, southern Argentina, Madagascar, and Tasmania. Though I will note that last one is a bit scarce and I only know of it due to an obscure book from the 1890s.
The Madagascar plan was the Nazis and explicitly designed to starve them all to death. I assume the Tasmanian idea is similar in goal. “Hey, this area will technically fit them all, we don’t need to check how much of the land is arable ;)”
I don’t think you could create a sovereign space for a couple million refugees in either Uganda Argentina but feel free to correct me.
That brush you’re using there is the wrong size
Not really, Leopard isn’t remembered like Hitler because Hitler’s victims were European.
Honoring cultural traditions - the super versatile Swiss Army Talking Point that works equally well for the good guys or the bad guys!
Yeah your grandparents being victims of the same shit doesn’t justify your actions, if anything it makes them worse since you should know better.
Experience shown me that it takes one generation to forget everything.
As a russian I feel this a lot :/
Oof. It’s not been a good few, uh, decades to be a Russian. At least, it seems that way looking from the outside.
i wonder why libs never apply this logic for Indigenous people on Turtle Island 🤔
Because Israel was always a colonialist project. The last one of a dead age. The people who like Israel think Thanksgiving was how settlers treated the Indigenous Americans.
Or, like, Palestinians.
They aren’t arguing in good faith
Are the libs even making this argument? I thought genocide was too spicy for them now
Also they could have done some land reparations without stealing Palestinian land, if anyone gave a shit. Pretty sure one of the countries that lost the war had a place called Judenberg already, for example.
Every
Balkan(edit:) European country: 🥸Leftists only love failed independence movements. Jews worked and fought for centuries before succeeding in building an independent homeland. As soon as they succeeded, it became the “wrong” thing.
I’m not afraid to say:
Free Palestine
Free Tibet
Free First Nations
Free Kurdistan
Israel was never a movement for freedom, from the start it was a far right enthnonationalist colonial project.
Not exactly. Zionism was a labor-communist movement with an emphasis on fairly purchasing land from absent landlords, communal ownership, multiculturalism, agriculture, and independence for the native peoples of the region.
I know it goes against the popular narrative these days, but the nice thing about history is that it never changes. I’m happy to share primary sources or mainstream, independent scholarship on any of these points if you have followup questions on any of these points.
For now, here is a poster from 1900 to illustrate the point:
I feel like we’re talking about two very different things with the same name.
While that form of zionism may have existed at one point, it is completely irrelevant today, as the zionism seen in Israel is very much far right and enthnonationalist.
Yeah Zionism had a lot of different opinions on how and where to do it before the Holocaust gave the movement the political capital it needed to actually happen. Funny how often these “iT gOeS aGaiNsT the NaRraTivE” types actually just don’t know or deliberately ignore the complete context.
If they hadn’t immediately started a project of displacing the people who had been there the last 2,000 years then you might have a point. But no they went straight to Terrorism, and we cheered.
sry friend, the free tibet part’ll get you banned here
everyone knows, that tibet isn’t a country, but actually belongs to glourios china, which is, even tho it has one of the highest billionair density in the world, a true socialist utopia… also uigurs are a western lie
How about when they started genociding it became the wrong thing?
Say that. Say “genocide” instead of “succeed” if you love facts so much.
I mean English has three different words describing specifically persecuting Jewish populations with death.
This is not 100 years Hitler blah blah … this is talking about 15 centuries of Christian oppression.
Linguistically I’m still saying Jewish people need a safe space. And we, as nuclear Americans, call that safe space a fucking nation.
And it had to be in Palestine? And it had to be an unregulated mess of Terrorism? It couldn’t have been in Germany where occupation forces were on hand to do an orderly transition, and from the country that actually committed the sin?
Everything about the forming of Israel screams, an excuse for one last colonial project. Because none of what you said makes what they did acceptable. The Palestinians didn’t hurt them. They just wanted to keep their land.
you see, every country would be fighting israel rn, if it’s land was taken by it, so does it really matter?
After world war 2 we absolutely adjusted the borders of countries and there was no issue. We could have easily given them a chunk of Northwestern German coastline. By 1955, when occupation forces left, it would be a done deal.
I’m not really sure they’d have been down with being Germany’s weaker neighbors, even if that was probably the only “fair” place to carve a nation from.
Oh, well then, I guess that justifies the ethnic violence and cleansing they’re committing today. If I’d known they’d suffered for centuries I wouldn’t have been upset that they’re now the ones creating the suffering.
Before WWII the Jewish people had adopted the US as Zion. They already had a country, we didn’t need to refuse their refugees and fuck that shit up.
Yeah, the reality is the US was too anti-Semitic to do it as well. And it still doesn’t solve the problem the Zionists justify their crimes on, as seen with the very real modern possibility that America’s protections for religious freedom might fail.
That’s not even getting into the fact that America was segregated at the time and it would have been easy enough to whip up resentment against millions of refugees and create a second racial underclass…
Reminds me of the idea of positive discrimination. Personally, if I knew someone hired me above an equally qualified candidate just because I belong to a minority group I would feel insecure about my abilities.
It is not common practice to do anything “just because” belonging to a minority group. This is just a lie that conservatives tell each other when they’re giving each other a good circle jerk.
From what I’ve seen when those things were actually practiced, it’s somewhat different and broken into two parts:
- One one side, seriously incompetent people from the group which is a recipient of “positive” discrimination get jobs they should never have gotten and the quality of their work is going to be noticed by everybody else as long as they’re around and will reflect on others of the same group because the very act of segregating some people based on highly visible characteristics for the purposes of receiving special treatment strengthens the view of them as a group in other people’s minds, which in turn strengthens views such as “they’re all the same”.
- On the other side, the very competent people from the group which is a recipient of “positive” discrimination are seen by default by colleagues and even managers as inept, have to fight even harder for their competence to be recognized and often their ideas are just casually dismissed because everybody sees them as “somebody who only got the job because of the quotas”.
From what I’ve observed first hand neither feels insecure: the former play the influences game even harder than the rest because they know with absolute certainty that they’re only were they are thanks to social and political games, whilst the second just get angry and frustrated because they’re not treated as equals - because they are not equals since they’re part of a group which got privileges others did not - and thus not respected for their competence.
By creating a separate class of people, who don’t go have to pass as high a barrier as the rest, so called “positive” discrimination might land them the job but it also makes sure they’ll always be looked at as less competent, further reinforced in the minds of everybody else by those of that groups who are indeed “too incompetent for the job and wouldn’t have gotten it if it weren’t for quotas”
There are more than enough competent minorities to hire a couple for diversity. And hiring 10 diversity hires, out of a hundred, isn’t going to meaningfully impact opportunities for competent non minorities. This is some conservative bullshit trying to sneak in the idea that minorities are dumber than white people.
Sure mate, it can’t be that your “‘Equality’ But Different For Some Than For Others” is neoliberal cosplay of “left” rather than something genuinely left-wing AND that by preserving the differentiated treatment of people based on characteristics they were born with you’re just maintaining the very same mindset as the Fascists (that people’s gender/etnicity/sexual-orientation determines how they should be treated), no, no, no, it must be that it’s the other person (whose history of posts is there for all to see - so feel free to prove it) is a “conservative”.
By the way, when I described my conclusions of my own experience, I never said that the group who was getting “positive” discrimination was a minority. Funny how you jumped to conclusions.
Funny how you parroted conservative propaganda and continue to do so while acting concerned.
For anyone not familiar, minorities have had generations of poverty and trauma baked into them. You cannot transition directly to a complete meritocracy and magically repair that. They will remain oppressed and poverty stricken because it’s a systemic cycle. Affirmative action breaks that cycle.
Positive discrimination is a pillar of the neolibs’ post-Hillary wokeness scam worldview. There’s a Kendi quote like “You cannot undo discrimination without discrimination.” They’ve decided to just apply that logic to the wealthiest set of white people on the planet instead of the children of slaves and sharecroppers because these people are sociopathic scum who know where their bread is buttered.
What if they hired you only because you are part of a majority group? Or does this only matter if it’s someone in a minority being hired?
Either of course. It just seems the former goes without saying and a large number of people support the latter.
I assure you far more people are hired because they’re not part of a minority group than because they are.
I don’t know statistics on either, but anecdotally I know far more people critical of ‘normal’ discrimination than ‘positive’ discrimination
Well how about, before you form an opinion, you go do some reading.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053482221000115
That seems to show that many people are discriminated against in job applications, but not the general level of support for that behaviour amongst the general population.
It continues despite general opposition. That’s exactly the problem. Systemic and unconscious biases are really hard to combat, even if there wasn’t a vocal reactionary minority. “just don’t discriminate” has at this point been proven beyond doubt inadequate to equalize opportunities.
But I think the point is, equally qualified people both have equal claim to the job. Adding in centuries of lost opportunities for being part of a minority group means that righting the balance makes sense.
Think about it economically. Reparations are paid because of the massive imbalance in opportunity. Where do you stand on that?
You’re not helping the individuals who were discriminated on in the past, you’re favouring an individual who has no specific connection to other members or the discriminated group besides their shared characteristic, and did not choose to be a part of that group.
…exactly. They did not choose to be a part of a minority group, but that fact means they have almost certainly been discriminated against in the past—their ancestors most definitely have, meaning less generational wealth and a diminished starter point due to centuries of racial oppression. If you’re born middle class, or upper class, there is a greater likelihood for opportunity and upward mobility. That drastically decreases the poorer you are, and minority groups are disproportionately represented in the lower classes…again, due to a long history of racial discrimination.
Trying to right that trend has to start with the current generation, and that generation is made up of individuals, whether you think they deserve to be the first in line to receive the benefits of balancing the scales or not.
It has to start somewhere.
Say you never heard about generational poverty without saying it 🙄
Clarence Thomas moment
This is basically the driver behind Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s asshole pathology.
So if you were equally qualified what should the manager think about when deciding between you two?
Flip a coin because I don’t hire unlucky people
They should choose the more qualified, if there’s literally no difference I suppose to be totally fair it should be random.
What qualifies being qualified for a job? Should I hire the person who knows a little bit less but is really pleasant to be around and like learning new things or the person who clearly knows more but is a huge pain to be around, thinks he’s better than everyone else, and doesn’t think he has anything more to learn?
Whatever your criteria are, as long as they aren’t based on protected characteristics such as race, gender, etc
I take it you’ve never been a hiring manager or worked in HR. Hires are almost never made on an objective basis, the bias of interviewers/assessors inevitably affect outcomes. In the absence of positive discrimination, on average, this means unfair outcomes for minorities (because some people are bigots and most people have unconscious bias against out-groups).
So what you’re telling me is that being “qualified” isn’t the only criteria… But I thought you said the only thing that mattered was hiring the most qualified person…
Qualified is intentionally a vague metric as it can include anything that makes you suitable for the job. What it does not include are protected characteristics.
I’ll let you in on a secret. In these situations where you have two similarly qualified candidates, if one is actually more qualified in some small way, the employer doesn’t have any way of telling which one that is during the hiring process. It’s not that precise.
