There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

It wasn't just the goblins — is J.K. Rowling doing Holocaust denial now?

The most famous forms of Holocaust denial and revisionism tend to focus on Jews, casting doubt, for example, on how many were exterminated in the camps. But denying the impact the Nazis had on the other groups they targeted, including queer and trans people, disabled people and Romani people, is still Holocaust denial. Maybe someone should tell J.K. Rowling.

PanArab ,

Did we just discover the TERF to Nazi pipeline?

NOT_RICK ,
@NOT_RICK@lemmy.world avatar

Naturally when people called her out for being wrong she quickly set up a strawman to keep herself from having to admit any ignorance or fault. What a stupid hill she has chosen to die on, she could have been universally beloved if she just kept her shitty views to herself.

IzzyScissor ,

It’s sad that she’s likely repressing a LOT of gender dysphoria, but just doubles down on the bigotry and hate. Fuck JK Umbridge.

All direct quotes:

I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.

As I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through.

I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth.

Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman…

0x0 ,

Is it normal to feel mentally sexful? Asking for a friend.

MutilationWave ,

Anything your brains do that do not cause harm to you or others is just fine.

nandeEbisu ,

Yeah, mentally I feel my assigned gender at birth which ironically is why I can see how people maybe wouldn’t.

0x0 ,

Weird. I feel kind of ambivalent, but not dysphoric or anything. Like I could just as easily have been born into a different body and felt no worse off.

Deceptichum ,
@Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works avatar

Same, its like such a nonpart of my identity?

nandeEbisu ,

I went through a bi panic in college and did a bunch of thought experiments with myself, mainly because I want getting action from either gender to try and test that out.

Shou ,

Oh yikes. Yikes yikes yikes. I would feel bad for her* if she* wasn’t such a petty evil person.

markon ,

Fuck J.K. Rowling. Femcel. Lol

some_guy ,

A piece of shit said a shitty thing. No need to dwell on it.

mods_are_assholes ,

I think it’s important she’s called out. Her works are deep in the hearts of 3 generations and her shitty takes need to be addressed so those fans don’t make the same choices.

Just like Bill Cosby, its important for everyone to know how much a skeezebag he is because he shaped the lives of so many people

Corkyskog ,

I just saw a teacher dunk on a kid in a tiktok video because he couldn’t explain why/how JK Rowling is a terf. Only for it to end with “I guess I was wrong, maybe she isn’t bad for the Trans community” in no part of that video did the teacher let his own beliefs be challenged or allow the kid to research to support his own position.

So yeah… this stuff can be important.

mods_are_assholes ,

Tiktok ‘debates’ are usually scripted propaganda or just recorded harassment.

I mean I guess that’s everywhere on the internet now. Everyone thinks in soundbites and consider thought terminating cliches as legitimate discourse.

I’m not sure how the teacher could hold their position considering the knee high stack of rancid terf tweets she has put out THAT ARE STILL UP.

ILikeBoobies ,

It is an interesting question, is she denying this because she hates jews or because she hates trans

poo ,
@poo@lemmy.world avatar

Why not both?

deweydecibel ,

Because we have substantially more evidence for one than the other.

NoSpiritAnimal ,
@NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world avatar

Didn’t she name the only black character Shacklebolt? Also, Cho Chang is the only Asian?

owsei ,

Kingsley Shacklebolt…

Duamerthrax ,

The Irish character kept blowing things up…

NoSpiritAnimal ,
@NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world avatar

Ah yes, Seamus

Hadriscus ,

Wait a minute, that’s right !! haha

Hadriscus ,

What’s with the name Shacklebolt ?

ouRKaoS ,

Maybe she just likes Nazis?

100_kg_90_de_belin ,

Ok, fellas: the intention of the author is inaccessible, the intention of the work can be interpreted, her public persona is that of a transphobe who always finds new lows to fall to in her brigade. You can still read HP and recognize that she is a shitty person.

lennybird ,
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

I gotta say, I’m dealing with cognitive dissonance right now. I remember having bookmarked her Harvard commencement speech and listening to it from time to time, admiring the principles and standing up for the good of all people. I felt someone who wrote those books would HAVE to have a keen understanding of right from wrong and fighting the good fight.

So these recent years with her position on this have been confusing and sad for me. I hope she grows and learns from this.

Also unpopular opinion but I stumbled across this article from OP’s source which I largely agree with: forward.com/…/please-shut-up-about-the-harry-pott…

Zahille7 ,

Reading the article after playing Hogwarts Legacy gives me a slightly different feeling about that last paragraph…

Still a good article though.

Traegert ,

In her mind she IS fighting for “right vs wrong”. She’s just REALLY fucking wrong about which side is “right”. One of the biggest things I’ve learned in life is that EVERYONE thinks that they’re the hero. That they’re doing good and the “others” are the bad guys. Rowling is a piece of a shit but she THINKS she’s the good guy and that’s the most dangerous part of all.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I disagree. I have felt like crap many times when I did what I consider the wrong thing. She knows what she is doing which pretty much only leaves sociopath or sadistic. Either way time to stop apologizing for her.

Traegert ,

No one is apologizing for her. You felt like crap when you did something wrong because you realized it was wrong. Good people make mistakes and learn from them. People should be like you. She thinks she’s doing right and is a pig headed bigot. People should not be like her.

afraid_of_zombies ,

She thinks she’s doing right

How did you determine that? Not trying to be snarky and I think it is important to give everyone the assumption of good faith (once) but I really don’t see any effort on her part that confirms this.

She hasnt even done the fake non-apology celebrity thing where she pays a charity and says she has to learn more. she has repeatedly doubled down.

Traegert ,

I’m heavily confused by this. If she thought she was doing wrong she’d do the whole apology tour. Which she hasn’t, as you said. Your two paragraphs don’t play well with each other. She has exactly doubled down, which means she thinks she’s right so I have no idea what point you’re trying to argue.

afraid_of_zombies ,

I do something wrong, I know it’s wrong. Someone calls me out on it.

  1. Yeah you are right = lose face admit that I wasnt being a good person.
  2. No, I am right = don’t lose face and say it enough no longer feel guilty. Because now you get to feel like you are the real victim here. And a victim can never be wrong.

This is why you keep getting these well liked rich fucks bitch about how much harm has been done to them by being cancelled. That woman quite literally has a net worth equal to what I will earn if I worked for over 10,000 years. And yet she is the victim in this? Hell I bet every single trans person combined net worth in the UK isn’t equal to her own.

She knows she is wrong but she thinks if she keeps saying 2 + 2 = 5 she will win.

Traegert ,

Yes, that’s…that’s what I’m saying lol. Which is why your argumentative nature of the post confused me. And still does. Well, sorta. She DOESNT know she’s wrong because she 100% believes she’s right and everyone else are the “bad guys”. That’s my whole point. She DOESNT GET that she’s wrong. It’s everyone ELSE who is wrong.

afraid_of_zombies ,

She knows she is wrong.

Traegert ,

Why do you say that? There’s heaps and heaps of evidence of her believing she’s right, I’d honestly like to hear this take.

lennybird ,
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

It’s weird to me because I don’t view her in the same way I do, say, Republicans or Trump or Bannon or Miller or Putin, etc. For all intents she is a bleeding-heart leftist who vehemently opposes the narrative of the right’s fearmongering in respect to most other issues. If she was just another greedy sociopathic republican-type then I wouldn’t be the least-bit surprised.

So I’m not convinced she’s a psychopath sociopath on par with the aforementioned; from what I can tell I do think she’s deeply confused and has some personal trauma that feeds a puritannical belief in feminism.

flying_sheep ,
@flying_sheep@lemmy.ml avatar

If she was a leftist, Harry wouldn’t have become a cop. Hermione wouldn’t have been ridiculed about SPEW until she gave up. And so on.

Unless she is the most pessimistic leftist who can’t even dream of a world where things change for the better when she creates that world all by her own.

lennybird ,
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

What gate-keeping philosophy suggests all leftists must oppose cops – did I not get the memo? I didn’t realize she’s a Thatcher plant because Harry went to work for the Ministry and overhaul it for a place of good lol.

flying_sheep ,
@flying_sheep@lemmy.ml avatar

In a capitalist society, cops are mostly busy with protecting rich people. I don’t think a material analysis of what cops are and do will result in anything that redeems the institution as it is now.

lennybird ,
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

Hot take but I think that probably over-generalizes the role of police and is particularly centered specifically around American cop culture and not, say, European or Scandinavian ones.

Thus I remain unconvinced that this is what they are destined to do. If good cops exist, then it’s a matter of altering the system and model to promote good instead of bad seeds no differently than paying teachers better, or giving nurses more training.

flying_sheep ,
@flying_sheep@lemmy.ml avatar

That’s not how it works. Not in America and not here in Germany. Good cops only exist until one of their comrades fucks up, then they’re bullied out of their job unless they cover for them.

It’s a self purifying system.

Traegert ,

Trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs) are a thing. I’m not sure why but it is. There are many. From what I’ve seen it’s mainly women who are SO heavily misandrist and hateful of men they think any trans woman is still a man and therefore out to rape and kill them by design, but I haven’t looked that deep into the bigotry.

Mustard ,

On your link there, I’m sorry to say the author is making a very silly argument. It boils down to ‘if you see a specific race in this racist caricature then you’re the real racist’. This would only be true if racist caricatures were a new thing never seen before. It’s akin to saying ‘oh i didn’t mean black people when i screamed the n- word. You’re the racist for thinking the n- word refers to black people’.

That’s an extreme example but you see my point that there’s a history that’s being ignored.

ToastedPlanet , (edited )

I disagree. The Potter goblins are diminutive, hooknosed, saurian creatures, with creepy long fingers and crafty natures. They have exceptional financial skills and stop at nothing to acquire or protect money and precious objects. It is antisemitic that anyone would encounter such a character and think: “Aha, a Jew!”

No, John Jon Stewart looked at the Harry Potter goblins and saw an offensive Jewish caricature. As an ethnically Jewish trans woman I agree with him. Rowling’s goblins and her Holocaust denial are harmful. I’m a huge Harry Potter fan too, so I don’t begrudge anyone for enjoying her content or even paying for content. I of course appreciate when people avoid those things. Profits from her games, books and movies go to funding anti-trans causes which make her content harmful. All I ask is that when Rowling does something harmful, like Holocaust denial or fund anti-trans causes people agree that what she is doing and her content is harmful.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/…/ar-BB1iw90J

The author once again attracted attention after donating $97,000 to For Women Scotland. The funds are earmarked for a legal challenge set to be heard in the UK Supreme Court. The objective of the lawsuit is to redefine the word “woman” such that it applies exclusively to cisgender women. The proposed redefinition stands to harm transgender women who have undergone gender-affirming procedures. Rowling publicly supported her donation, stating: “You know how proud I am to know you. Thank you for all your hard work and tenacity. This truly is a historic case.”

LGBTQ+ activists are warning that redefining the word “woman” paves the way for discrimination and prejudice against transgender or non-binary individuals.

edit: Jon not John

lennybird ,
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

To be clear, Jon Stewart later clarified:

I do not think J.K. Rowling is anti-Semitic. I did not accuse her of being anti-Semitic. I do not think that the Harry Potter movies are anti-Semitic.

ToastedPlanet , (edited )

To be clear, Jon Stewart later clarified:

I do not think J.K. Rowling is anti-Semitic. I did not accuse her of being anti-Semitic. I do not think that the Harry Potter movies are anti-Semitic.

John Jon Stewart said the goblins are an offensive Jewish caricature. None of these statements contradict each other. The point is, no one looked at the goblins and thought they were Jews as the author of Please shut up about the Harry Potter Jew-goblins suggests. It is not antisemitic to point out that the goblins are collectively an offensive Jewish caricature. edit: typo, adl.org/spelling-antisemitism-vs-anti-semitism, typo, Jon not John

lennybird ,
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

None of these statements contradict each other.

I didn’t say they were, but I do think it’s an important distinction because the entire purpose of highlighting this in context of J.K. Rowling is to accuse her of explicit antisemitism. Whereas Jon (not John) continued to write:

“tropes [like the goblins bankers] are so embedded in society that they’re basically invisible.”

This means, indeed, that two things can be true at the same time: Rowling subconsciously used a Jewish caricature (as did Tolkien before her), and (2) Rowling is not Antisemitic.

Many people – not you, necessarily – equate the two.

ToastedPlanet ,

Nowhere in my argument did I say Rowling was antisemitic. I said her goblins are harmful.

Rowling’s goblins and her Holocaust denial are harmful.

It really doesn’t matter if she did it intentionally or not, it’s harmful regardless.

lennybird ,
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

Perhaps; though that’s not a reflection of her – but as Stewart points out society as a whole and the power we give to racist stereotypical tropes in the first place – it’s a convenient target for those who are already looking to hate on her for other more substantive reasons.

On a separate note, do you not think it’s a stretch to lump her in with holocaust deniers this quickly? Isn’t it a little too soon to categorize her lack of understanding that the concept of trans or books being burned occurred under nazis versus those who deny millions were murdered in general? If anything, doesn’t that water-down the category of Holocaust Deniers?

Traegert ,

Doesn’t anyone who actively tries to defend literal Nazis by saying “wait wait guys the Nazis weren’t THAT bad” thedailybeast.com/jk-rowling-adds-holocaust-denia… warrent like…an immediate “this fucker is insane” thing? I mean if you’re trying to defend someone who is trying to defend WW2 Nazis I think you’re in the wrong camp is all

lennybird ,
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar
  • I think there is a considerable logical leap if not an outright non-sequitur between being misinformed on nazi atrocities / history, and "defending nazis"
  • I don’t think we can strawman what Rowling did with, "Nazis weren’t THAT bad."
  • I think it’s too early to put considerable weight on her intent or beliefs surrounding nazis on this singular tweet.
  • But yes, I do agree people who legitimately defend nazis are insane.
  • Categorically calling it holocaust denial to me diminishes the scale of damage caused by legitimate holocaust deniers.
  • I suspect there are many individuals who already hate Rowling personally for comments related to Trans rights are looking for things to an irrational degree.

That being said I don’t think I can add any more to this conversation that I haven’t already and so thank you for the discussion and oblige you with the final word.

Traegert ,

Doesn’t she, as a public figure, whose tweets (xhits?) will reach millions, have more of an onus of responsibility on her to fact check herself? I do agree with you on the fact that she’s not ENTIRELLY denying the holocaust and to put her in the same camp as those who do DOES weaken what that means, 100% agreed on that. She’s not a holocaust denier, she just denies some specific things that happened in the holocaust. It’s still SUPER shitty and SUPER wrong but yes, agreed, she’s not going around spouting “it never happened!” shit. I just came into this conversation but I appreciate your input all the same

PS Rowling is a hateful bigot

ToastedPlanet ,

society as a whole and the power we give to racist stereotypical tropes in the first place

Ignoring racist stereotypes in fiction isn’t the solution. We should want to do better.

On a separate note, do you not think it’s a stretch to lump her in with holocaust deniers this quickly?

No. Holocaust denial is holocaust denial. It’s never too early to call it out.

Isn’t it a little too soon to categorize her lack of understanding that the concept of trans or books being burned occurred under nazis versus those who deny millions were murdered in general?

No. Valuable research was lost that could have benefited millions of people. Not to mention trans people were killed by the Nazis. The fact millions of Jews were killed does not diminish the harm in denying that other groups were targeted by the Nazis.

If anything, doesn’t that water-down the category of Holocaust Deniers?

Although Jews were the group who had the most causalities, the Holocaust affected many different groups of people. Denying any part of the Holocaust is harmful and calling that out in no way diminishes the seriousness of Holocaust denial.

…ushmm.org/…/mosaic-of-victims-an-overview

britannica.com/…/The-Holocaust-Facts-and-Figures

smithsonianmag.com/…/new-research-reveals-how-the…

lennybird , (edited )
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

I appreciate the sources and acknowledge everyone from Jews to Communists to Gypsies, LGBTQ, to the Handicapped and so forth were ostracized, discriminated upon, and murdered by the Nazis. What I note does not detract from that; merely to say that someone not recognizing what is frankly not a mainstream fact about the Holocaust does not make them a holocaust denier; it may make them holocaust illiterate. So I mean it’s good to be proactive with this stuff but it’s also important to give people the chance to take a step back and give people a way out instead of compelling them to become what you repeatedly label them as. Reading too much into a single tweet when there – to my knowledge – hasn’t been a response or clarification from Rowling – is jumping the gun. I admire the confidence in your convictions but I don’t agree with your conclusions.

ToastedPlanet ,

Despite your argument’s insistence to the contrary nowhere in my argument do I accuse Rowling of being anything. Whether or not Rowling is ignorant is irrelevant. Her actions are what matter. When presented with new information about the Holocaust her response was not to become more informed, but to deny the information. That is Holocaust denial and it is harmful. edit: typos

afraid_of_zombies ,

I will wait until she dies so she can’t profit from it. I know it’s a drop in the bucket but it’s my drop.

She had a choice. Her Twatter account could have just been happy stuff about Harry Potter. She repeatedly choose to create this situation. So fuck her she isn’t getting a cent from me.

Bristle1744 ,

🏴‍☠️

Zevlen ,

Same. As a cys person I stand in solidarity with You … Feck that Bitch… Feck her and Dave Chappelle, Joe Rogan ETC

NotAtWork ,

Is Joe Rogan transphobic? It would be entirely unsurprising, I already hated him because he was constantly putting air into the Alt Right.

Hadriscus ,

If he isn’t already, I think he would be within five minutes if anyone talked him into it

jeremyparker ,

That’s kind of an individual thing. Like, I get it, I get what you’re saying, but, when I think about the books (which I used to love), I just didn’t think of them fondly anymore; I can’t think of any of those characters without that irritation and disappointment coming up.

I was super excited about having my kids read those books – and my oldest started the series, but then needed a break to mature a little before hitting book…3 I think? Idr. And now I just don’t really care whether they read them. (If they do choose to read them on their own, I won’t tell them about JKR until after they’ve finished them.)

However I have no problem setting aside the shittiness of Knut Hamsun or Henry Miller; I still really enjoy their books. Heidegger? Too shitty for me. Picasso: meh, he’s fine.

That’s My Hot Take: if it bothers you, acknowledge that, and don’t force yourself to be uncomfortable. But also don’t shame people for whom her toxicity is something they can set aside.

(As long as they are setting it aside and not enjoying the work because of her toxicity.)

That said: pirate her shit, you don’t need to give her money.

100_kg_90_de_belin ,

I can’t listen to many bands I used to listen because their members turned out to be really shitty people.

I mean, if I have to hone my skills at slap.bass in a rock context, Flea is my go-to choice, but Anthony Kiedis boasted about having sex with an underage girl and regularly dates girls 40 years younger than him, that soured the whole RHCP thing for me.

In short, my ethical and moral principles are worth more than aesthetic enjoyment.

jeremyparker , (edited )

Ethics are interesting because you can ignore them. It’s like, ethics exist within you regardless of whether you agree to them; if you don’t listen to that little voice, it gets easier and easier to ignore it. To put that in practical terms: murdering someone is pretty ethically difficult. Murdering a second time is less ethically difficult. It’s like we build a climate around ourselves; the more you listen to your ethical beliefs, the more repugnant the idea of ignoring them becomes.

That said, I’m not sure I’m on board with you on RHCP – but that’s maybe just me. I used to listen to them a lot in jr high (I’m old) when blood sugar sex magic had just come out. And while your opinion is totally valid, for me, like, I never thought he was much of an ethical role model. His lyrics are pretty misogynistic. (And, not great regardless, from a “objective artistic/poetic” perspective.) So like yeah he’s not a great person, but he never pretended to be, so to find out he isn’t doesn’t change much.

(As opposed to, say, Jowling Kowling Rowling, who used to talk about hating bigotry, but then turned out to be a super terrible bigot.)

Flea, on the other hand – I’ve never looked into him. I’m also a bassist and his influence on my bass education is so deep that I’m afraid to find out if he’s toxic lol. But he’s been in a band with Anthony Keidis for like 40 years, so, he’s probably not perfect.

(I’m not a slap or funk bassist, but what I learned from Flea was how to feel it. You can’t play Flea’s bass lines mechanically, they literally don’t sound correct; you have to feel the vibe, the groove has to move your fingers, not the time signature. That dude, ffs I hope he’s not an asshole, because he’s fucking incredible.)

Though IDK – after long careers together, from what I understand, people tend to see each other less.

For example, after the whole Me Too thing started, I heard an interview with Bob Weinstein, Harvey’s brother, the two of them started Miramax together and were basically partners. But he knew his brother was a piece of shit, and, at that time a few years ago, hadn’t actually spoken to him in “many years.” He didn’t dwell on the topic, he just said that, basically, and his tone was like, obviously disgusted, but he didn’t want to spend the time talking about that, so he didn’t.

He wasn’t exactly going to snitch his own brother into prison, and that’s asking a bit too much imo, but it shows ethical strength to not slip into that same kind of toxicity, especially when it’s so close to you, and probably so easy.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod ,
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

My kids are trans/have trans friends and they square this circle by believing that “J.K. Rowling” is Danny Devito’s pen name

Traegert ,

I would pay oodles to read Doanne Dathleen Rowling’s version of events.

melisdrawing ,

Damn, the kids ARE alright. That’s awesome.

Canadian_anarchist ,
@Canadian_anarchist@lemmy.ca avatar

Pro tip: used book sales do not generate royalties. I bought the full set of HP from a local used bookstore with no guilt.

Aleric ,

Acquiring a copy on the open ocean also provides no royalties.

vaultdweller013 ,

Sure but used book stores are great, you can find some weird shit sometimes. Serisously I once found an old ass copy of dianetics in the sci-fi section, old lady running the place found it great that I got her little joke.

Aleric ,

That’s a great point. I’ve found treasures I’d never have found otherwise in used bookstores.

Hadriscus ,

What’s the joke ?

vaultdweller013 ,

That she put it into sci-fi and not religion. According to her it made atleast one pissant angry.

Hadriscus ,

Ok, I also looked it up and it’s clearer now, thanks

100_kg_90_de_belin ,

This is good advice

nednobbins ,

It’s also possible for someone to be a shitty person and a shitty author. There are tons of discussions on just how badly written HP is and that would be true even if she suddenly stopped being a horrible person.

andros_rex ,

Yeah, 1-4 are fun “monster of the week” kids book with worldbuilding that falls apart if you look at it too much. 5-7 have “George Lucas” syndrome - editors couldn’t say “no” anymore. The Horcruxes and the Deathly Hallows were clearly last minute ass pulls.

Idk I read a lot of similar quality YA when I was a child. I don’t get the obsession.

Constantine ,
@Constantine@sh.itjust.works avatar

I hate her much as the next guy but the books are really good don’t act like they are not there is a reason why they are famous. If you don’t like her but still likes her work just pirate it .

Duamerthrax ,

But HP is a shitty story with questionable moral lessons.

mellowheat ,

JK Rowling is one of the many people who never should’ve gone to Twitter.

Duamerthrax ,

No one should have ever used algorithm based “social media”.

Chocrates ,

I thought it was pretty well known that the Nazi party destroyed the first thing we would consider a Trans hospital?

She should have done a tiny bit of googling.

Third result on Google was the right wiki page …wikipedia.org/…/Institut_für_Sexualwissenschaft

lennybird , (edited )
@lennybird@lemmy.world avatar

It was news to me and I feel I have a fairly decent understanding of nazi atrocities, but I also wouldn’t be confident in denying it without first researching.

TurtleJoe ,
@TurtleJoe@lemmy.world avatar

Iirc, one of the most famous pictures of a book burning was right outside that hospital, and the books came from inside it.

Non gender conforming people were the first group they came after.

dangblingus ,

The vast majority of people dont know this. Its an obscure fact that people share regularly in forums like Lemmy, but are not part of any mainstream discussion of the holocaust.

Microw ,

Yes. And also it should be known that this isnt part of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the genocide against Jews. But the Nazis persecuted lots of groups of people, and committed all kinds of crimes against humanity.

Not every heinous Nazi crime is “the Holocaust”. But it’s just as awful and denying it should lead to a social ban against the denier.

Chocrates ,

I was going to argue that that was a slightly reductive statement because of all the other groups that the Nazis genocided, but I looked it up and you are correct.

tryptaminev ,

Which brings to question, why the genocides of the concentration camps are quite deliberately reduced to the holocaust in many perceptions.

The German government denied adequate compensation to LGBT concentration camps survivors to this day and only in 2017 they opened for legal rehabilitation. So until 2017 someone that was convicted for homosexuality by the Nazis and put into a concentration camp was considered a convict.

Equally political activists, Sint and Roma and disakled people (or people ascribes as being so) faced similiar issues of non recognition and non compensation.

And it is no surprise that the option for homosexuals was only opened when almost all the surviving victims have died of old age. Focusing the spotlight on the Holocaust was done to deflect from the continued discrimination and subjugation of other victim groups.

Gebruikersnaam ,
@Gebruikersnaam@lemmy.ml avatar

Trade unions and lgbt clubs were attacked within the first three months after Hitler became the Chancellor. Already in the first month trade union offices and lgbt clubs were destroyed by the SA and people were sent to camps.

LadyAutumn ,
@LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

The amount of people defending her statements in this thread is absolutely disgusting. I wonder why she feels so emboldened as to say such horrific things in public?

RememberTheApollo_ ,

When they’re financially or socially insulated from the consequences of their actions or words it’s pretty awful what people reveal about themselves.

Stopthatgirl7 OP ,
@Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world avatar

It’s honestly upsetting to see.

Son_of_dad ,

Because people can’t tell the difference between the Israeli government and a random jewish person in North America that has nothing to do with anything

ThatFembyWho ,

I think it’s great. My block-list is filling out nicely. Hope the trolls keep exposing themselves in such brazen careless fashion :)

OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe ,

Maybe I’m missing a federation because I’m not seeing the agreement comments.

OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe ,

I was wrong. So so wrong. Phone wouldn’t scroll.

TheBat ,
@TheBat@lemmy.world avatar

Lotta dipshits in the comments here, block button is working extra today.

fustigation769curtain ,

Who cares…?

The more you share these people, the more you support them.

LadyAutumn , (edited )
@LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

She’s denying that nazis committed genocidal actions against trans people during the holocaust.

I get that that may not matter to you, but that is incredibly important to me. I cannot ignore when someone is trying to claim that trans people like me were not victims of the holocaust. I cannot ignore genocide denial. She has a real effect on politics and public opinion. It is very important that she be called out for her words and actions.

fustigation769curtain ,

Maybe it’s just me, but she said “Nazis did not persecute trans people.”

Do you have evidence showing that Nazis specifically targeted trans people? If I had to guess, I’d wager they didn’t even consider “trans” to be a thing. They probably just lumped them in with the other “queers.”

Blahaj_Blast ,
@Blahaj_Blast@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

…wikipedia.org/…/Institut_für_Sexualwissenschaft

fustigation769curtain ,

Care to elaborate?

ThatFembyWho ,

Lack reading comprehension?

LadyAutumn , (edited )
@LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I’m not responsible for you or JK Rowling being ignorant on history.

Good place to start. They absolutely considered trans people to be a thing and specifically targeted trans people as part of the holocaust and in their propaganda. They demonized Magnus Hirschfield as being a pedophile and corrupting the natural order of man and woman. They appealed to eugenicist mothers by saying that the influence of his clinic would cause their children to be trans and therefore subhuman.

Magnus was a gay jewish man. He was a pioneering figure in transgender rights. Lili Elbe, the Danish woman, received vaginoplasty and a womb transplant at his institute for sexology. She wasn’t the first person to receive it there. Trans women were prescribed hormones there in very early hormone therapy regimens.

They’d be around to tell you about it but they were sent to concentration camps and even if they survived that the allied occupation forces all also had laws that persecuted trans people. Many were forced into the closet to survive.

Stop denying genocide against us. You are literally doing the thing we’re all here to talk about. Stop denying my history.

LainTrain ,

Nah, put them on blast, air out their dirty laundry, let people see that these aren’t just ‘respected people’ with concerns about the evil transgenders but actually broadly politically active ghouls

FlyingSquid , (edited )
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Once I found out that Harry Potter glorified the British class system by having it take place at an elite private school where people less privileged than them are looked down upon and even called names I was already turned off… but once I got to the obviously antisemitic goblins, I was done.

I wish it wasn’t so damn popular.

Edit: I realize this article isn’t about antisemitism. This is just another example of Rowling’s bigotry.

rottingleaf ,

Like the main characters are looked down upon, you mean?

Goblins are not obviously antisemitic. They are a blending of various trolls\elves\dwarves of folklore.

Not any more antisemitic than Ferengi in Star Trek anyways. But Star Trek is leftist, so all you guys pretend it’s not there.

You seem as intelligent as people who’d want to remove Nazis from movies about WWII (actually I’m not sure if I’ve met such specimen).

I wish it wasn’t so damn popular.

It’s so damn popular because the author made many deep references, at the same time emotionally reaching the audience.

If you are not a brick or just as intelligent, you’d see that.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Why did you decide to insult me? Did I insult you? Did I make a personal attack?

And I guess I’m not part of “all you guys” because I always thought that about the Ferengi.

Also, what did I want to remove and from where? Please show where I said I wanted to remove something.

As far as the goblins not being antisemitic-

nbcnews.com/…/j-k-rowling-s-harry-potter-goblins-…

popdust.com/gringotts-warner-bros-2627451691.html

Not just her books, even the games based on them-

dailydot.com/…/hogwarts-legacy-antisemitism-gobli…

Did she do it intending to be antisemitic? I don’t know, but it hardly matters.

Maybe I have the intelligence of a brick, but at least I don’t tell lies about people like you did about me.

rottingleaf ,

You’ve made a personal attack against the author of one book I consider not terribly bad.

As far as the goblins not being antisemitic-

Somebody wrote an article and I’m supposed to assume that person is right and I’m wrong?

I’ll quote the title seen even in the link you provided - “HP goblins echo Jewish caricatures”. Have you considered even once that Jewish caricatures too did echo something aesthetically familiar? Or that the folklore I’m talking about grew intertwined with antisemitic beliefs?

Medieval-style fairy-tales always touch this subject.

And then this

Did she do it intending to be antisemitic? I don’t know, but it hardly matters.

and this

Maybe I have the intelligence of a brick,

form a syllogism.

Yes, it definitely matters, because to get rid of each and every antisemitic or similar (“middleman minority” etc) stereotype manifesting itself unintentionally you’d simply have to burn European-cultured countries with nukes and start from scratch.

Also I’m Jewish.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Sorry… you’re insulting me because I besmirched J. K. Rowling’s honor? Are you her great protector?

And I don’t care if you’re Jewish.

rottingleaf ,

And I don’t care if you’re Jewish.

The point is that those things don’t seem antisemitic to me and my opinion weighs more than yours.

Sorry… you’re insulting me because I besmirched J. K. Rowling’s honor? Are you her great protector?

I’m not insulting you, I just don’t respect you and call you what you are. But, of course, you starting the thread with self-righteous crap make insulting you easier.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Now you’re lying about not insulting me:

You seem as intelligent as people who’d want to remove Nazis from movies about WWII (actually I’m not sure if I’ve met such specimen).

If you are not a brick or just as intelligent, you’d see that.

rottingleaf ,

Stating a fact is not an insult

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I see, so bricks have the intelligence to be able to read and write. Fact.

rottingleaf ,

That’s your subjective evaluation =)

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I thought you said it was a fact. Make up your mind.

rottingleaf ,

It’s a fact. In my subjective evaluation.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

In your subjective evaluation, bricks are literate?

AbidanYre ,

my opinion weighs more than yours.

No it doesn’t. Anyone can claim to be anything they want on the Internet.

rottingleaf ,

Including my opinion weighing more.

AbidanYre ,

That’s what you’re claiming. Not what you’re claiming to be. Christ, you even suck at trolling.

feedum_sneedson ,

I can take over if necessary? I consider myself something of an expert.

AbidanYre ,

I’m kind of ready to move on with my life. But I’m also curious. What do you have to offer?

feedum_sneedson ,

The moment has, regrettably, passed. I’m now studying Mandarin. I’m trolling myself, essentially - I highly recommend it.

PsychedSy ,

Why does your opinion weigh more?

prole ,

Imagine going this far out on a limb over a series of children’s books.

rottingleaf ,

Nah, that’s not the reason. I just really don’t like people partaking in collective condemnation. They are worthless cowards.

Patches , (edited )

There’s a Star of David in the middle of the floor of the “Goblin Bank”

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/6178d98a-0ff9-44e7-a074-19fe7e46febb.jpeg

rottingleaf ,

It was filmed in a real building built when the association between this symbol and Judaism wasn’t yet a thing. So it’s not a Star of David.

I hope (not really) you are aware that it’s not historically a Jewish symbol, it’s been used as widely as, eh, a few other famous ornaments, and relatively recently became a symbol of secular Jewish identity and Zionism, and then Judaism too.

AbidanYre ,

Nope

Its association as a distinctive symbol for the Jewish people and their religion dates to 17th-century Prague. In the 19th century, the symbol began to be widely used by the Jewish communities of Eastern Europe, ultimately coming to represent Jewish identity or religious beliefs.

A major landmark on the Strand, London, construction on the building by the Dove Brothers commenced in 1913

Lath ,

Should've gone with the Scottish architect sent from Australia in charge of the project, John Smith Murdoch, who was a member of the Masonic Order, a group which also makes use of the 6-pointed star.

feedum_sneedson ,

illuminati confirmed

mellowheat ,

Once I found out that Harry Potter glorified the British class system by having it take place at an elite private school where people less privileged than them are looked down upon and even called names I was already turned off

Do the books glorify that, though? I seem to remember that only the blatantly evil characters thought like that.

Granted, the last 3 Harry Potter books I read were all Methods of Rationality, so perhaps my understanding of canon is too good.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I admit it’s been a long time and I only read the first book, but I seem to remember everyone used the term “muggles.”

mellowheat ,

The main character is “half-blood” and his main sidekick is “muggle” herself, so I’d wager not so glorified. Of course, there’s an undercurrent of racism there, because the bloodlines really really matter. But this is fantasy fiction so I don’t how much of a sin it is. Bloodlines mattered in Tolkien too.

I’m not sure if that last sentence is against or for my argument.

Zahille7 ,

Like @mellowwheat said, the main character is a “half-blood” and the chosen one; one of the friends is “muggle-born” yet one of the most powerful magic users in recent memory; and the other friend is a “full blood” wizard who still kinda sucks.

Even the core three characters are supposed to be allegorical for “racism doesn’t mean shit.” I honestly don’t know how JK went from writing fiction that could be interpreted as pro-trans (at least from the standpoint of the movies), into doubling down on bigotry. I guess it was Twitter after all.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I guess, but the impression I got from the book I read was that those terms weren’t considered offensive enough for even the good characters to stop using them. Maybe I’m misremembering or maybe that gets addressed in a future book?

Zahille7 ,

Tbh I’ve only watched the movies so I can’t say for the books, but the movies definitely gave me that vibe. Well, any of them after the first one. And from what I remember, the main “good guys” only use the “no-no human words” a few times at the beginning of the series, whereas they’re mostly used by the bad guys throughout the whole thing.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

In that case, it’s hard to know whether that is Rowling and I have a poor memory about this or that the movie’s screenwriter made revisions on that front. I think either is a possibility at this point. I’d love someone else to chime in who is more familiar with the books.

vaultdweller013 ,

I think thats the script writers, if memory serves right muggle is pretty inoffensive in the books partly cause the bad guys have their own term “mud blood” for those who are born to non magical parents. Honestly I think at worst its comparable to how people said “negro” in a non racist way back during and before the civil rights era here in the US. But I legit dont know if Rowling meant for those undertones, im not familiar enough with British civil rights history.

Also Rowling may have been aluding to that for all I know cause the wizarding world is pretty explicitly backwards, serisouly they cut themselves off from the rest of the world sometime in the 1800. One of the secondary protagonists dad is a magical ATF agent who tracks down enchanted mundane artifacts that re-enter the non magical world.

gamermanh ,
@gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Muggle isn’t considered offensive within the world, it’s just the British term for a non-magical person. Wizard/witch for those with magic, muggle for those without (in America we call them No-Maj, which is fucking awful)

Some of the bad characters will say it in a sneering or mean-spirited way, but they often don’t use it at all and go instead for subtler terms like “those lesser than us” or “the filth” and similar

The only term in the series that’s considered “offensive” is mudblood, which is basically a mixed race slur (it’s a wizard/witch born to one or both muggle parents), and it’s very much addressed as not OK to be said and why it shouldn’t be said and how much it can hurt people (from Rowlings fave character, no less!)

It’s insane to me that the person who wrote that into book 2 went on to be a fucking TERF

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

It’s “the British term” because Rowling made it up.

sailingbythelee ,

I don’t care about HP, but it’s just a standard fairy tale. I read the books to my kids. Stories about knights, kings, princesses, super heroes…pretty much any story in which a normal person can fantasize about being someone who has much more power than they do, have been the stock-in-trade for story-tellers forever. Harry Potter lives a terrible life with his abusive relatives until he gets whisked off to a fancy private school where, it turns out, he is pretty special. Does it glorify the British class system? Sure, in some ways. But, it also undermines it insofar as Harry’s friends are mostly from the lower classes, and the villains are mostly “old money” and those who are obsessed with genetic purity. Also, the entrenched authorities like the Ministry of Magic are shown in a rather poor light, with their dementors, cruel bureaucrats, and insanity-inducing prisons. Hermione is meant to symbolize someone who got to Hogwart’s based on ability, not birth or connections. So, the story is at least partially about the transformation of the old structures of power from being based on money and birth to being based on ability. It shows British power structures in transition, I would say. What do you think?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

That may very well be so. I did not get that impression from the first book, but, as I said, it was the only book I read and maybe it was clarified in the sequels.

By the way, my father was a similarly privileged to go to a prestigious British school on scholarship despite coming from a poor background and had nothing but bad things to say about it, so that does color my judgment a little.

sailingbythelee ,

That explains it. Each book gets progressively darker. The first book was written for 11 year olds, if I recall correctly. It doesn’t really get into politics. The subsequent books expose the corruption of the class system and the horrifying complicity of the bureaucracy.

trashgirlfriend ,

And at the end the main characters shut up and perpetuate the system

I love liberals

sailingbythelee ,

I don’t understand why you are criticizing liberals here. Would you prefer illiberalism? Or are you an armchair revolutionary?

trashgirlfriend ,

End of history looking ass thinking the only two political positions are lukewarm defense of the current system and nazis

sailingbythelee ,

What? That isn’t even a sentence.

trashgirlfriend ,

I’m sorry I just ran out of crayons and won’t be able to explain it to you :(

sailingbythelee ,

Okay, good, keep doing what you’re doing.

djsoren19 ,

That’s the thing that makes everyone defending this shit so sus. Harry Potter has so. many. layers. of terrible shit in it. Maybe people didn’t realize it when they were reading the books as a child because they were young and naive, but as an adult you should be able to recognize shit like the only Asian character being named “Cho Chang” and realize you’re reading an awful book written by an awful person. The fact that people know about Rowlings bigotry and still read HP to their kids blows my mind. If we all just agreed she was a shitty person and stopped passing her garbage writing along, she’d be forgotten in a generation.

feedum_sneedson ,

There’s a city in China called Chongqing, I’m guessing that’s racist too?

djsoren19 ,

If you’re grasping at straws trying to defend a well known bigot who is publicly proud of her bigotry, it’s time to re-evaluate your life.

feedum_sneedson ,

I think it’ll be alright.

noseatbelt ,

Hogwarts is not elite. Anyone can enrol if they have magical ability. It’s addressed in a later book that attendance is not mandatory but nearly every witch and wizard in Britain is educated there. It’s just a school that doesn’t even have an admittance exam.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

if they have magical ability

That’s exactly what makes it elite. There’s automatically a class system.

noseatbelt ,

I’m sorry I don’t understand what you mean, do you want non magical people to attend a magical school?

Fungah ,

They could just fail every class for 8 years and be passed to the next anyway.

No different then public school system st the end of the day.

Cosmicomical ,

The fact that magic is only for some, that’s the elitist part. There are some people that are inherently better than others

Cosmicomical ,

A genetics-based one, no less

Lath ,

Sadly, for those involved, society at large didn't really give a shit enough to teach about every group attacked by nazis. From the history books openly available at the time in my country at least, post communist era, Jews were the main victims, gypsies second and the handicapped or malformed in third place, as per importance in extermination.
That's it.

I doubt her education was better than mine and she seemed willing to accept the updated information as explained in the article, so it's not that she's completely rigid.

And to be unbiased, "deviants from the norm" were attacked in every major country, before and after the nazist period. Book burnings are common enough even now. So linking this exclusively to the Holocaust is in poor taste and denies it being a global issue that has little to do with Nazism itself but rather the causes that elected its rise.

LainTrain ,

But it’s also true that the Nazis specifically exterminated them, as opposed to for example Weimar or GDR.

It’s a good point that British education is awful, it was illegal to talk about gays at all when JK was getting her education, but also that’s why you shouldn’t make bold definitive claims like this and when you get proven wrong you should apologize and stop and when you get schooled by George Takei you should listen.

Burn_The_Right ,

It’s almost like conservatives are vile, grotesque garbage-based life forms who thrive on the misery and death of others.

Conservatism is a plague long overdue for a cure.

Lath ,

Conservative are also the people looking to save various fauna and flora from extinction due to unbridled human activities.
Are they also a plague?

You should avoid bringing negative connotations to words that can be or are a force for good.
Rename the evil if you want, but don't turn away the good as you focus solely on the bad.

Burn_The_Right ,

Conservative are also the people looking to save various fauna and flora from extinction

No. “Conservative” and “conservationist” are two very different words with two very different definitions. You seem to be confusing the two.

Lath ,

You're partially right. I am confusing the two, but not the spirit of their meaning, which is "to conserve". Conservation is a force for good, but this political party thing is only focused on the bad.
Why let it occupy the entire meaning and overshadow its better uses? To say "Conservative" with disgust is to ignore its potential for better uses.

entity ,

Why change things when you can argue semantics?

Lath ,

This is about changing things. But we're talking about different things to change it seems.
And yes, semantics.

suodrazah ,

Oh my fuck, clearly the context is lost on you.

Leviathan ,

I think context is more important and in this context disgust is the correct emotion.

Lath ,

I've found that context matters little when emotion takes precedence.

Leviathan ,

So which of your emotions made you ignore the context?

Lath ,

Pity.

Leviathan ,

Well time to pack up the pity party, Lath. There’s context to consider.

Lath ,

Nah. Context rarely matters.

Burn_The_Right , (edited )

I appreciate that there has been some confusion regarding the use of this word. And I also appreciate your sentiment that it would be nice to focus on the positive. However, so much evil throughout history has come from conservatism, that the word weighs heavily with negative connotation that should not be removed.

In social context, nothing good in the history of mankind has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.

Here is a non-political definition, for some clarification. Note the lack of preservation of nature.

conservative /kən-sûr′və-tĭv/ adjective


<span style="color:#323232;">Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. Traditional or restrained in style.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">"a conservative dark suit."
</span><span style="color:#323232;">Moderate; cautious.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">"a conservative estimate."
</span>

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

(My apologies for the American dictionary reference in a thread about an English person. It was just the easiest one to copy/paste on a phone.)

Lath , (edited )

Moderate; cautious.

Yes, these are my thoughts on the word's meaning, in large.

A moderate and cautious approach to change.

Absolute refusal of change is the extremism part of this definition that seems to be viewed as its defining attribute instead.

Edit: Maybe this view of mine is flawed, but it's how I see a Conservative party should be. To avoid unchecked progress, maintain stability and implement only rigorously verified policies, in small, but certain steps. Their core tenets are moderation and cautiousness.

Burn_The_Right ,

Fair enough. If politically conservative people legislated with a moderate, cautious demeanor, I would respect that. In fact, I might even side with them on several policies.

Dasus ,

Their core tenets are moderation and cautiousness.

Lol no

Viewing words that prescriptively is kinda insane and willfully ignorant.

When someone says “gay”, do you start arguing about how “it has nothing to do with sexuality, it just means carefree’, ‘cheerful’, or ‘bright and showy’.”?

Cmon. Cmon. CMON

Lath ,

It means both. And both meanings started as positive, then one meaning became the focus and the other completely ignored.

That's what you should be upset about.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

A moderate and cautious approach to change.

What would the moderate and cautious approach have been to gain independence from colonialists?

What would the moderate and cautious approach have been to ending slavery?

What would the moderate and cautious approach have been to giving workers basic rights?

Lath ,
  • Shore up the defenses, create logistics trains, be certain of the allies available, initiate battle when ready and after all diplomatic recourses have failed.
  • Have a standing replacement framework, compensate losses, ratify laws to support equal rights in its entirety, reduce support of transgressors in public eyes over time. There were few slave owners. Turning the masses against them wouldn't have been difficult.
  • Prepare alternative replacement in case of refusal, then support unionizing while giving subsidies to encourage participation.

Ideally, it's supposed to advance slowly while keeping everyone relatively happy and stable.
A government is supposed to consider all of its citizens and that means taking into consideration the consequences of failure, while also planning how to remedy them.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

I’m sorry… are you actually going against revolutions against colonial powers?

And if turning the masses against slave owners wouldn’t have been difficult, why did a war have to be fought over it?

Lath ,

You asked for a moderate and cautious approach. I gave you an example of one.
If you draw from this more than what it is, then that's on you, not me.

The war in the US at least was fought due to a poor approach on the subject.
The UK, at the very least if anything, managed to end slavery peacefully on its soil.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Britain has not ended slavery. And when it technically outlawed slavery within the British Isles (which is actually all the anti slavery laws did), it was neither a moderate nor a cautious approach.

But, more importantly, there is still slavery in Britain:

en.wikipedia.org/…/Human_trafficking_in_the_Unite…

Britain didn’t even end slavery in the 19th century either. They just changed the term to ‘indentured servitude’ and ‘blackbirding.’

So it wasn’t ended peacefully because it wasn’t ended.

Also, the idea that you even should end slavery gradually is pretty offensive to all of the people enslaved throughout history. Would you be comfortable saying to them, “you won’t be freed, but we’re ending this eventually because it’s a gradual process.”

Lath ,

Yes, it should be done gradually.
What did the former slaves in the US have after they were freed? Nothing.
Food, clothing, housing are burdens we can't afford even now. Did you expect them to magically appear out of thin air once the slaves were freed?

You want everything to be done now, on the spot, a fair and just world for everyone. How nice of you. But do you have the resources? The infrastructure? The personnel?
You think that everyone will without a doubt respect everyone and everything without enough basic necessities to go around?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Weird, that wasn’t an issue for freeing Holocaust victims.

Or should the closing of Treblinka been cautious and casual?

Lath ,

But there were issues. The starving ones who were fed too much and too fast died, while because the train tracks and roads leading to these camps were destroyed, logistics was slow in giving them the help they needed.
So freedom wasn't as instant as you'd like to believe.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

There is a gulf between instant and gradual. You advocated for the latter. The latter means only killing fewer Jews.

Lath ,

When death is unavoidable, the goal is to minimize the number of deaths. Taking into account the situation before, during and after can help create the better results.

If we just free someone without taking into account whether they'll be able to live afterwards is just patting ourselves on the back. Sure we can say we did the right thing, but without making certain they at least have a starting point, we might just be condemning them to desperation or crime.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

Like I said- kill Jews less until they can all be freed. That’s the gradual way of ending death camps.

Lath ,

Yes, not killing people in general is preferred.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

“In general”

“preferred”

Still sounds like “kill fewer and fewer Jews until the killing can stop.”

Lath ,

Actually, by in general, I was thinking about people who live their lives in constant suffering and would like to have the option of a peaceful release.
Euthanasia is still taking a life, and I would prefer an alternative to that.

Was writing "in general" not enough to go beyond this particular instance?

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

When talking about gradually and cautiously ending a genocide? No, it was not.

Lath ,

Really? How many good men or women can one find in a country, willing and able to head out across borders to get involved into a war, solely to sacrifice themselves for the sake of saving others from genocide?

I'm not seeing armies heading out to save Palestine. Ukraine. Any of the African countries currently at war that i know so little about.

Simple truth is that not everyone agrees with this kind of selfless sacrifice.
The US had a small, but growing Nazism political party in its ranks before the war and the majority of those able to vote were against sending troops before Pearl Harbor happened. What do you think would have been the result had the acting US government sent troops into Europe without the approval of their citizens and without the shaming of the middling Nazis among them?

When forcing the issue, without making sure the ones opposing it won't suddenly strike at your back, you only send out more people to their deaths. And instead help the enemy achieve their goals more easily instead.
Nazist America was a real possibility at the time, not just a fantasy.

So yes, moderate, cautious and gradual isn't the evil you want it to be. It's just another route that considers the consequences of failure. And it's not without flaws, principal being the people involved.

Also, you may think I'm advocating for it, but that's just a side effect of my original point. Anything can be a force for either good or bad. Only focusing on the bad points and ignoring the good, vilifies it.

Tell me how that at its most basic meaning is different from what those you claim to hate are doing. Just because the subject of the hatred is different doesn't change the fact that the act of hatred is the same damn thing.

You don't like that things can be both bad and good? That's fine. But what you're pursuing is purity. Doesn't matter which side of the extreme you're looking for, it's still an extreme.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

None of that has anything to do with the idea that gradually ending genocide is anything but abhorrent.

The fact that people do abhorrent things doesn’t make things less abhorrent.

And gradually ending the Final Solution, slowly killing fewer and fewer Jews, is a monstrous idea. But that’s what ‘gradual’ means.

Lath ,

I wrote a lot of stuff, but then I realized I don't really understand what you're trying to say.

Are you speaking exclusively about the idea itself or the circumstances of the past?
Because if you're talking only about the theoretical idea, then I agree with an immediate stop or prevention.

But if you're talking of the circumstances of the past, I was pretty much wrapped up in the details of realistically trying to reduce the losses. Couldn't figure out what magic way you wanted for the allies to save them sooner.

gedaliyah ,
@gedaliyah@lemmy.world avatar

No, the freedom was instant. There may have been logistical issues with medical treatment of the now free people. In all my conversations with Holocaust survivors, I have never heard one say that they were not free after the camp was liberated. That is just a nonsense take.

Lath ,

Then you know better than I.

Noel_Skum ,

The big problem about discussing conservatives / Conservatives here is that this board seems quite US-focused. The British Conservative Party (the current party of UK government) pretty much came in to existence back in the day to “conserve” things and put a check on “progressive / liberal” policies. Conservative means something different whether your context is American-politics or whether it’s politics-politics.

frunch ,

Conservative is yet another word that’s been commandeered to the ends of the right wing. They have a long history of distorting or outright willfully misinterpreting words and symbols. Their use of the punisher logo is a classic example

Lath ,

That's the thing though, anyone can twist words to fit one's view. So why accept their vilification? Why jump into that pot of vitriol and say "yes, this is how it has to be"?

Drivebyhaiku ,

To believe “conservative” branded political parties are conflated with the English connotations of the word is quite frankly falling for propaganda at this point. Politically speaking “conservative” has a unique meaning that has nothing really to do with financial prudence or slow and measured progress. What they seek to “conserve” is old power structures. Heirachies founded on intergenerational wealth or old exclusionary policy that created privileged citizen classes. Sometimes they dress it up in the mask of “traditional values” but it’s all basically just smoke and mirrors. It’s why they attack inclusive policy, civil rights fights including education policies, social safety nets and tax policies that target wealthier citizens. They have to “conserve” the pecking order where old money remains uncontested power, new money casts the illusion that upward mobility it possible and nobody is allowed to mention that they are being treated as a second class citizen.

The idea of self branding yourself a “conservative” serves by flattering ones own ego because as a label it’s primed to make one feel reasonable and measured… But. It’s just fluff.

Leviathan , (edited )

Oh! I thought they were referring to hunters or something.

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

even if they were the same word… context has meaning.

in a politics news sub, talking about politics; you’d have to be a moron to conflate conservatives [individuals who espouse conservative politics] with something else.

Lath ,

One, this is regular news. Nowhere in the title of the community or the rules listed does it say only politics news, far as I've seen.
Two, you'd have to be a moron to consider people who don't think the same way you do as morons.
Three, morons are allowed to participate in society. If you disagree with this, well, good thing we're in the right place to discuss discrimination.

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

context.

You wouldn’t expect an article about MC Hammer, some one saying “its hammer time!” to mean home improvement. it’s a news sub, and the article is about politics, not wildlife conservation. you’re being obtuse.

towerful ,

That could actually be a great The Onion theme.
Inflamatory - but ambiguos - headline with the article jumping from theme to theme through homonyms and context changes

FuglyDuck ,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

Only if we get the construction vest guy from the Village people to do a cover. Is he still alive?

AbidanYre ,

Homonym: The Game from 30 Rock.

Lath ,

Why not? Here's an example.

"It's Hammer Time"

MC Hammer, famously known for hit song decides to change careers and go into home improvement.

It's completely in line with media expectations.

TIMMAY ,

sheesh you have thoroughly drunk the kool aid, wake up

Grass ,

This makes me think of that woman who was insistent that she was not a musician because she makes music, not magic

afraid_of_zombies ,

Hey can everyone please assume good faith. This is an easy enough mistake to make if you are ESL.

PM_Your_Nudes_Please ,

Lol bro really doesn’t know the difference between conservatives and conservationists.

captainlezbian ,

That’s conservationists. Different word, different meaning, and most importantly different people for the most part

rottingleaf ,

It’s almost like you were posting this in a space full of people who will agree with you just cause you are of the same bunch.

fustigation769curtain ,

Absolutely.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

The person above apparently posts here specifically because they don’t agree with us based on their responses in this thread. So I guess they don’t understand why people would want to be around those they are in agreement with.

kralk ,

https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/ac21cdac-3cf7-49cd-b1d8-adcb4c55a952.gif

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •