I wrote this diary a week ago but decided not to publish it, because I feared it would turn into a huge falme-fu%k. But then on Monday the diary Is it okay to compare Israel to Nazis? was posted by ThePedro. I’m disappointed I missed the discussion, which included "lively" debate on both sides (?!) of the issue, but thing is, someone else (no names) said in a comment just days before, that it was fine to do just that -- and nobody said anything about it.
At the risk of inciting a shite fight of the highest order...
Follow below.
There are -- in alarmingly increasing numbers -- inflammatory comments on diaries of any and all topics (personal, political, pootie, whatever) insinuating themselves into threads where they don’t belong. Even IGTNT has been hit with hide-ratable comments, despite its clearly written mission statement and admonition, "As you read this diary, please consider that the families and friends of those profiled here also may read it."
Every diary brings out comments intent on hijacking or falming. If someone writes a diary about liking the color blue, it’s quickly invaded by nasty threads about one political point or another: differing opinions already firmly entrenched, arguing amongst themselves. Whether they’re trying to change minds (doubtful), prove the other side(s) wrong or stoopid (more likely), or just stir up shite (yeah, that one), the enfalmers discourage genuine and reasonable conversation and debate, and encourage all sides to dig in their heels all the deeper. I’m not even going to go into trolls, sockpuppets or other intentional disrupters, despite their manipulative instigations that fan the falmes.
And I’m not debating the content or intent of the diary on which this comment was attached:
the diarist seems also to not have been here a couple years ago when everyone was getting all inflamed about people saying "hurtful" things and "hurting the feelings" of Zionists (by comparing them to Nazis, among other things).
People actually got troll rated for using "Zionazi" because it was a "hurtful" word.
My response:
I wasn't here then either, and wasn't entirely sure what it meant, so I looked it up:
Wiktionary categorizes it as offensive; Urban Dictionary does too.
Help me out?
The reply:
lots of things are "offensive" to someone . . . Zionism itself is offensive to Palestinians, and they have ample evidence that it is a "hurtful" ideology. Nazism is hurtful to Jews, who have their own ample evidence. Zionists get their "feelings" hurt being compared to the Nazis, while to most of the world it is an apt and accurate comparison. Muslims might be offended at hearing their religion called "oppressive", especially by (what they regard as) oppressive Hindus or Crusaders or Jews. They might not like "Islamofascism" either. The diarist seems to believe that it is acceptable to offend Muslim sensibilities, but not acceptable to offend Jewish sensibilities . . . "Islamofascist" would be fine with him, but "Zionazi" would not. *
It ends up being the root problem of "political correctness" . . . if you can't say anything that offends anybody then you end up not being able to say anything at all. But neither does it work to have special rules for special people.
The law in India is a generic against "stirring up hate" . . . it is understandable in its intent. One has to weigh that against "expressing an opinion" and "telling the truth", and whatever rule one comes up with has to apply equally to everyone.
*Note: Neither the diarist nor the original article about which s/he wrote used "Islamofacist."
Curious about when it was that people got HR’d for using the word "Zionazi," I searched comments the limit of four years back. This is the first use I found (of 109 as of today) of the word on Daily Kos:
You're right.. (0.28 / 25)
the only question is whether this is a ruse by Rove and Cheney, or if the whole thing was orchestrated by Ariel Sharon and the Zionazis.
Probably the latter, since they're Jewish and probably have the most to gain (cheap Iraqi oil anyone?)
What do Baghdad and Hiroshima have in common?
by XXXXXXXXX on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:58:08 PM EST
Wow, it got 25 HR’s.
Out of seven uses in 2005, three comments used the word "Zionazi" in a derogatory manner; the rest used it in condemning those comments.
In 2006, there were 18 uses, seven of which received a total of 114 troll ratings, ranging from three to 38 – an average of 16 HR’s per comment.
Those must have been the days when people got troll rated for using "Zionazi."
In 2007, 68 comments contained "Zionazi." I didn’t read through all of them, but seven were HR’d ranging from one to ten.
In 2008 there were ten uses; a couple were used in mock accusations, but this one stood out:
Agreed
I mean, how the hell can I have a reasonable conversation about the occupation with people for whom the problem is not just the occupation, but the very fact of Israel's existence as a Jewish state?
Agreed, but who here says crap like "ZioNazis"? You reference XXXXXXXX and XXXXXX, who have not been seen in these parts in years.
That was on November 21, 2008.
Seven uses so far in 2009, of which four are total snark; one is cautionary that using "Zionazi" will cause some to dig their heels in. One asked:
How long before ZioNazi comes into use.
And the other two you've already read above.
* * *
Zionists get their "feelings" hurt being compared to the Nazis, while to most of the world it is an apt and accurate comparison.
I love etymology, so I hit the dictionary:
Nazi
German, by shortening & alteration from Nationalsozialist, from national national + Sozialist socialist
Date: 1930
- a member of a German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler
2 often not capitalized
a: one who espouses the beliefs and policies of the German Nazis : fascist
b: one who is likened to a German Nazi: a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person
Depending on your point of view, definition 2b is either an offensive suffix (as in FemiNazi – and why repeat a Rushism anyway?), or a jokey take on Seinfeld’s "Soup Nazi." Why keep carping on the Nazis, who yeah, did horrible things during the 1930-40s? It’s not like we’re skinheads spouting hate speech. Get. Over. It.
Thing is, FemiNazi and Soup Nazi lack the specifically hateful combination that "ZioNazi" does.
everyone was getting all inflamed about people saying "hurtful" things and "hurting the feelings" of Zionists (by comparing them to Nazis, among other things).
Who at Daily Kos wouldn’t feel hurt by being associated with these guys?
The [National Socialist Party]'s core beliefs include: defending the rights of white people everywhere, preservation of our European culture and heritage, strengthening family values, economic self-sufficiency, and reform of illegal immigration policies, immediate withdrawal of our national military from an illegal Middle Eastern occupation and promotion of white separation.
In following our Family Values policies, Membership is open to non-Semitic heterosexuals' of European Descent. If you really care for your heritage and for the future of your family, race and nation, fill out a Membership Application today.
The invitation to join ends in the ultimate of ironies:
Are you Ready to stand up and fight for your family, race and nation? If not you, then who? If not now, then when?
[all of this sic]
So? Are you Ready?
The entry in Nationmasterpoints out that
"...[a]rguments about the use of these epithets often follow a pattern in which proponents of the epithets insist that the term is intended to be construed so narrowly as to be inoffensive while opponents insist that the term as heard by a typical listener will be construed more broadly. Examples of such arguments are visible in the sections below, but a general pattern may include, for proponents:
· The claim that a term (e.g., feminazi) is not intended to apply to all members of the group (feminists), but only those who exhibit some of the attributes suggested by the pejorative part of the term ("Nazis").
· The claim that the pejorative part of the term is intended to be construed narrowly (e.g., Nazi as short-hand for anybody who shows contempt for individual rights or the democratic process) rather than with its full connotations (e.g., Nazi as in Nazi Party).
For others the countervailing claim is that whatever the stated intent of the users of the term, combining a term identifying a group with a pejorative necessarily creates an association between the group and the pejorative, leading many listeners to assume that all members of the group have all of the attributes suggested by the pejorative. This claim is arguably based on a naive associationistic [sic] view of human cognition that underestimates a typical listener's reasoning abilities..."
It ends up being the root problem of "political correctness" . . . if you can't say anything that offends anybody then you end up not being able to say anything at all. But neither does it work to have special rules for special people.
We Kossaks are all special people, we are (please forgive me and understand the circumstance under which I am using such disgusting and hateful terms) hebes, hymies, kikes, yids; jungle bunnies, niggers, oreos, coons, macacas; Afro-Saxons, haoles, honkeys, roundeyes; injuns, redskins; ay-rabs, sand-niggers, towel-heads, dune coons, camel jockies; chinks, gooks, mongoloids, nips, slanteyed, chinamen, pakis; beaners, gringos, PRs, spics, wetbacks; faggots, fairys, trannys, buggers; crackers, white trash, rednecks; wops, dagos, greaseballs, eye-talians, goombahs, krauts, irish twins, micks, polacks; and whatever other hate word you can think of or care to add. We are all of us, all of these.
Daily Kos has even been accused on occasion of being a partisan Democratic blog (wherefore the special allowance of any and all derogatory names for Republicans and right-wing media).
But I don’t think any of us are Nazis. I don’t think Nazis belong here, and neither do people who use hate speech like "ZioNazi."