I figure the reason peeps won’t reply is because he knows putting a burning cross in front of a church is a terrible thing but doesn’t want to admit swastikas on temples is just as bad.
Israel is doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to Jews. Presumably, the synagogue supports Israel’s genocide of Palestinians (I have no idea, frankly. It matters…but not at the moment). And thus, if you accept the new interpretation of the swastika as a mark of hatred and the wish for genocide generally (rather than the mark of hatred and the wish for genocide of Jews specifically), then the swastika acts as a protest against Israeli violence against Palestinians by attempting to remind them and their supports of what was done to them.
So, I’ll meet you half way: What would have to be done for a burning cross in front of a church to be warranted in the same way the swastika is warranted on a synagogue? Well, they would have to do more than “commit crimes”. They’d have to basically embody the ideals they hate. Just as Jews have become the Nazis for the Palestinians, the Black Panthers would have to terrorize communities, arbitrarily lynch its members, and generally violently enforce a sense of black superiority in those communities. And if a burning cross ended up in front of a black church in support of those atrocities, the symbol could be interpreted in the same way as the swastika on a synagogue.
Both are obviously bad, but that’s the point. It should be grotesquely offensive.
The black Panthers were involved in shootouts/turf wars with the black nantionalists, they kidnapped and tortured people, pouring boiling water on a member for 3 days before shooting him and dumping him in a swamp. Had female members savagely beat to keep them in line. Ambushed police officers, traffic narcotics…
Does that meet your criteria where you would condone someone going full klansman and putting burning crosses at churches and mosques that supported the black Panthers?
They have to embody the ideals they hate towards another group.
Look, it’s fine. I get that it’s hard to understand. That’s part of the appeal of the original article, where it redirects you back to the historical meaning of the swastika and insists that it’s meaning is fixed.
No true scottsman, I get it. Ambushing police officers and murdering them doesn’t count as hate, ambushing black nantionalists and murdering them doesn’t count as hate, pouring boiling water on a person doesn’t count as hate.
It doesn’t count as black supremacist hate. So, yeah “no true scottsman”, but the entire argument hinges on what a nazi/white supremacist is. It’s not a fallacy in this case. Because there’s a difference between hate generally and a specific kind of hate.
I’ve always wanted to ask a liberal about that. Would Hitler at the end of the war be racists? He didn’t have any power. Can a skin head in prison be racists? Can white people be racists in South Africa, Mexico?
Both are bad. The left doesn’t want admit the Palestinians are trying to kills Israelis. Israel is defending themselves. They can’t explain why Gaza and the West Bank are even policed by Israel. Could it be the Arabs tried to erase Israel?
Let’s just assume it’s okay to round up people who hate you and try to control them. Your assumption, certainly not mine. Then why shouldn’t Israel also extend their police infrastructure to the surrounding Middle East generally?
I figure the reason peeps won’t reply is because he knows putting a burning cross in front of a church is a terrible thing but doesn’t want to admit swastikas on temples is just as bad.
Well, I feel like you’re missing the point.
Israel is doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to Jews. Presumably, the synagogue supports Israel’s genocide of Palestinians (I have no idea, frankly. It matters…but not at the moment). And thus, if you accept the new interpretation of the swastika as a mark of hatred and the wish for genocide generally (rather than the mark of hatred and the wish for genocide of Jews specifically), then the swastika acts as a protest against Israeli violence against Palestinians by attempting to remind them and their supports of what was done to them.
So, I’ll meet you half way: What would have to be done for a burning cross in front of a church to be warranted in the same way the swastika is warranted on a synagogue? Well, they would have to do more than “commit crimes”. They’d have to basically embody the ideals they hate. Just as Jews have become the Nazis for the Palestinians, the Black Panthers would have to terrorize communities, arbitrarily lynch its members, and generally violently enforce a sense of black superiority in those communities. And if a burning cross ended up in front of a black church in support of those atrocities, the symbol could be interpreted in the same way as the swastika on a synagogue.
Both are obviously bad, but that’s the point. It should be grotesquely offensive.
The black Panthers were involved in shootouts/turf wars with the black nantionalists, they kidnapped and tortured people, pouring boiling water on a member for 3 days before shooting him and dumping him in a swamp. Had female members savagely beat to keep them in line. Ambushed police officers, traffic narcotics…
Does that meet your criteria where you would condone someone going full klansman and putting burning crosses at churches and mosques that supported the black Panthers?
No.
They have to embody the ideals they hate towards another group.
Look, it’s fine. I get that it’s hard to understand. That’s part of the appeal of the original article, where it redirects you back to the historical meaning of the swastika and insists that it’s meaning is fixed.
No true scottsman, I get it. Ambushing police officers and murdering them doesn’t count as hate, ambushing black nantionalists and murdering them doesn’t count as hate, pouring boiling water on a person doesn’t count as hate.
No, all of that definitely counts as hate.
It doesn’t count as black supremacist hate. So, yeah “no true scottsman”, but the entire argument hinges on what a nazi/white supremacist is. It’s not a fallacy in this case. Because there’s a difference between hate generally and a specific kind of hate.
Are you one of those liberals that thinks black people can’t be racists.
Ambushing white police officers certainly sounds racists, black nantionalism was part of the black panthers that’s certainly a racists movement.
You have to have power to be racist. It’s like newspeak. You change the definition of words to hit your agenda.
I’ve always wanted to ask a liberal about that. Would Hitler at the end of the war be racists? He didn’t have any power. Can a skin head in prison be racists? Can white people be racists in South Africa, Mexico?
Both are bad. The left doesn’t want admit the Palestinians are trying to kills Israelis. Israel is defending themselves. They can’t explain why Gaza and the West Bank are even policed by Israel. Could it be the Arabs tried to erase Israel?
Why doesn’t Israel police Lebanon, too?
Let’s just assume it’s okay to round up people who hate you and try to control them. Your assumption, certainly not mine. Then why shouldn’t Israel also extend their police infrastructure to the surrounding Middle East generally?
They do in self defense.
The problem is Egypt won’t take Gaza back and Jordan won’t take the West Bank back.
That’s why they are out in limbo. Nobody wants them.
I had to look that up…and of course, it’s false. Plus, it’s as if Israel is just offering either territory to either country.
I’m calling it. I’m done.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordanian_annexation_of_the_West_Bank
Did you even read the answer. It confirms what I said.