There are always exceptions and genocide is very obviously one. I was referring more to the socially constructed self inflicted battles society has been engaging in lately.

I was looking around for societal battles that were not socially constructed. But I guess I'm visually impaired in that respect. Maybe you can help me?

I was looking around for something that is not socially constructed. But I guess I am socio-constructually visio-impaired in that respect. Maybe you can help me?

In that case I think we have to find some one-eyed man and make him king.

Maybe we can take some of the 'intellectual dark-web'figureheads and blindly follow them. They pretend to have a grasp of this scoial-construction thing.

But I'd rather like to continue searching the intellectual deep-web for a person with actual sight.

Got me ;)

It's a somewhat common exception unfortunately.

Please don’t shoe horn in Jew and Nazi political points from 100 years ago into a hacker news tech discussion. We aren’t interested, lots of fights occurred in history, lots of people were slaughtered. Simply look at what the British Empire did to the 7 million Irish when they manufactured a famine and genocide. There are millions of examples and it’s off topic.

I didn’t know the British had manufactured potato blight. That’s quite advanced tech for the time.

Parent doesn’t say that they manufactured blight but that they manufactured famine.

This is also incorrect although they did preside over one and were reluctant to intervene for a variety of reasons, some economic and some philosophical.

Edit: and just to add, it was certainly not an attempt at genocide.

The blight in itself of course was not manufactured, however the policies that led up to the total dependency on one type of crop never failing, and the botched emergency reponse; was.

However, this famine is of course, not even a tear in the sea compared to the holocaust, which remains the most horrific act ever, forever; and every other act past or future will only be a tiny fraction of the depth of its importance. History begin and ends with the holocaust the plight of the Jews.

If you mean the disease, no.

If you mean blight as in "a thing that spoils or damages something", that something being the Irish substinence, they absolutely did. Read some history.

And since a million died, it's not exactly laughing matter to joke about.

Well, the nazis and jews and the evaluation of the events is a quite clear example.

The jews went into the death camps, because no one came to save them and they had no chance on their own at that time.

There are not many people debating this, I supposed. (but might have been wrong)

That's why choose this example and not to discuss about Hitler.

Where on the other hand your example, is pretty much debatable, like you see on the reactions.

So why on earth, are you lecturing me about HN from a green account?

Hi, I'm Jewish with family members who died in the holocaust. Get rekt with your phony savior fantasies. Your type would be the first ones to tattle on their neighbors.

So your family members would have rejected the help of Schindler and co while under occupation and in direct death threat?

Or would have rejected the allies when they came liberating the camps?

Seriously?

As far as I know, the jews and all other surpressed minorities of europe were making great risks, to get information (like from a hidden radio) about the advance of the allies. Because this was the main thing bringing hope.

>So your family members would have rejected the help of Schindler and co while under occupation and in direct death threat?

They would have accepted it out of necessity. Doesn't mean depending on "white knights" is desirable or effective. Didn't work out of several other million, for starters.

Even less desirable when there is no "direct death threat", and the victims are perfectly capable of having opinions and speaking for themselves, as opposed to others co-opting and/or hijacking their concerns.

"Doesn't mean depending on "white knights" is desirable or effective."

Well sure, no one wants to be in the position, where he or she needs to be saved in the first place, but if you are in that position - help is still needed and wanted.

"Didn't work out of several other million, for starters."

And that is simply, because no one came in time.

"Even less desirable when there is no "direct death threat", and the victims are perfectly capable of having opinions and speaking for themselves, as opposed to others co-opting and/or hijacking their concerns. "

And yes, which is why I wrote: "if you want to emporer people in general, you cannot fight their battles for them and declare them uncaple of fighting their battles. "

Nope. I did not made any claims about myself here.

I merly stated, that no one came to save the jews in europe, which is why they went to the death camps.

Which you are debating for some reason, along with personal insults.

I suppose because you think the jews should have been organized better and fend for themself? Well, maybe. But they were not organized. They were in the weaker position and chased by the Nazis. In this situation, outside help is needed in my perception, but you may think whatever you want about it all. And if you can share what you think without insults, I might read it.

> I suppose because you think the jews should have been organized better and fend for themself? Well, maybe. But they were not organized.

You sound like an autistic person in a fog of confusion. (not a dig)

Let me be as clear as possible: between far right Neo-nazis and woke do gooders I'm honestly not sure whom I'm alarmed by more as a Jewish person. Genuinely alarmed. As in afraid for myself and my loved ones futures. As in this shit is all too familiar.

I've had the misfortune of interacting with both of these groups in real life. They have many things in common not the least of which is this weird confidence combined with an ignorance of history as a trampoline into really dark beliefs. A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

Please don't try to "help" anyone or mention the holocaust again. I beg you.

Jews in WW2 needed the Allies to bomb Auschwitz, they did not need Churchill to stop using the word Jew because it is offensive.

It is not similar, unless if you have the preconceived notion that 'language is action'

"Jews in WW2 needed the Allies to bomb Auschwitz"

I don't really think, the jews in the camp, would have welcomed to be bombed, on top of the daily routine.

Can you elaborate how being blown to pieces would have helped anyone, except maybe a lucky person used the chaos to escape (to where exactly)?

Also I did not say anything about language equals action and were just speaking in broad terms about helping minorities.

And "jew" is not offensive, but there are offensive terms for jews. And whether banning them would have helped, I did not made any statement about.

But I forgot, it is friday and probably not the best time to comment here.

Auschwitz was effectively a factory of death. Bombing the gas chambers, crematorium, rail lines might have helped.

About Jew: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/05/jew-not-sl...

Also forgive me if I have assumed because of the context that you argued through analogy for protecting minorities of harmful language, my bad

As a Jew, what else would you call a group of us? A flock of Jew? A gaggle of Jew? A Jewbilee?

Feel free to use the word Jews, otherwise it's just going to get weird ;)

This right here strikes at the root of the issue - if someone wants to refer to a group with hate, there is NO way to fix that by changing the term.

And changing the term to try to avoid it just results in weird terms and euphemisms, it doesn’t eliminate hate.

Human migration.

The thing that makes it weird is that "Jew" represents both a religion and a people. We really don't see that in other cultures or religions. Now as likely as my profile isn't going to be outed, but 'joining in' is a great way to be tarred as an anti-semite, whether you sincerely hate Jews or not.

And also, since you're Jewish, you're allowed to use comments and jokes like "Jewbilee". It's similar to how African Americans can use "nigga/nigger" amongst each other but is completely forbidden for anyone else. That's primarily due to the power dynamic of those words, and how they traditionally were used as a slur. This is examples where members of the group change the definition to be positive rather than negative.

I grew up with my trash of parents teaching 6 year old me to negotiate at flea markets by "jewing them down". And although I won't have children, I make a conscious choice not to continue that language. My language shapes my reality. So no.

What do you call a group of Jews though? If Jews is off the table?

I totally hear what you are saying though and I know you are coming from a good place. The Jewish race/religion thing is an odd one. Ive always considered myself Jewish by race, 99% Ashkenazi but not religion, I have no religious beliefs.

Conversation reminds me of the infamous lunar new year invite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/comments/ap6022/man_...

A Jewish group

A group of Jewish people

So in a sentence you would say

"The church is full of christians and the temple is full of a group of Jewish people"

That sounds odd.

"The church is full of Christians and the temple is full of Jews" sounds correct and treats each group equally.

I know you mean well but I just disagree with linguistic gymnastics in order to be pc

To be fair, its best not even to discuss. It's not like discussing Jewish stuff is normal... well, outside being Jewish or being a neonazi/white supremacist, or awkward discussions here.

But discussing here, I try to keep as neutral as possible. If we're talking about the religion, I use people of Jewish faith. And if talking about Ashkenazi Jews (hereditary), I use that term. And past that, I try to keep as matter-of-factly plain simple language, and check for any colloquiums that have alternate white nationalist meanings.

But usually, this topic doesn't even come up. It's only awkward HN comment chains that have this weird political forced neutral writing. But that too is self-defense.

I hear you. I regret that we live in a society where we have to police ourselves for fear of cancellation and offence when no offence is intended.

as a fellow jew: “he’s a jew” vs “he’s a _jew_”

and “the jews run X”

i’d prefer jewish / jewish people.

we’re not a monolith, nor is any other minority group. and for that matter, navigating society and learning that not all people prefer the same terms/words/pronouns is just life.

i’m sorry people cant do and say what they please and offend others, but that’s just part of being an agreeable human and living in society

I'm not Jewish, but I find the distinction between Jewish and jew-ish to be entertaining, and really descriptive

When that congressman claimed he meant he was Jew-ish I flat out laughed. Dude is a liar and a crook and totally undeserving of serving in congress but the sheer chutzpah that took was amazing. I found myself more amused than offended. I still chuckle when I run across a reference to it.

Absolutely, each to their own but its never really bothered me. There is obviously a difference in the tone its said when used by someone like Kanye or a neo-nazi vs a rabbi. I've never really allowed myself to be defined or bothered by things like that. I've had beers with neo-nazis before with them full on knowing I was jewish. They obviously toned downed their rhetoric and we had a pretty decent conversation. No friends were made that day but it was a fun chat. Obviously there are levels to this though, they were not marching calling for my death.

> Auschwitz was effectively a factory of death. Bombing the gas chambers, crematorium, rail lines might have helped.

I think there's a misunderstanding happening here. You seem to be suggesting Auschwitz get bombed assuming it would not blowing up the Jews (and gypsies, and homosexuals, and others that made the Nazi list of "deviants") being actively imprisoned, which sounds great but would have been unfeasible. The previous reply doesn't seem to be asking what would be specifically helpfully in blowing up Auschwitz. I think it's unanimous "that factory of death was bad and making it stop is good, " so I think it's more like they're taking into account how dropping bombs in WWII actually worked, which was a pretty imprecise process. Ultimately, bombing Auschwitz would also have blown up the people held prisoner in Auschwitz, and those people might not think being blown up was super helpful for them, regardless of whether Auschwitz was destroyed in the process.

There a historical documentary film that tells the story of people who escaped Auschwitz to bring definitive proof of the atrocities happening there to the Allies.

As I recall it, their request was for the Allies to bomb Auschwitz, though presumably targeting railway lines and other elements that could knock it out of action.

Train loads of people were coming in daily to be slaughtered, over 80% were killed on arrival and were not kept as prisoners, while deaths among prisoners was very high.

This was not a static prison camps that kept the same people during the war (except for very few). That’s why I think this was effective even if bombs had hit the living quarters themselves.

You are setting up a Trolley Problem and solving it.

Such problems are known to not have correct answers, so it is reasonable to agree to disagree.

Well, they are known not to have correct answers, but in my brand of ethics risking the lives of people that are destined to die in order to save millions is pretty clear cut

Especially during a war where Dresden was fire bombed and Hiroshima was nuclear bombed

You mean the home-country-challenged people living among THE biggest oppressors in history needed help after literally-hitler was about to unalive them?

I can't explain the downvotes. Visit https://www.yadvashem.org/righteous.html for a chronicle of some of the people who saved some of my people.

"I can't explain the downvotes"

I forgot it is friday and "white Knight" is a trigger word for some.

So when there's a headline that says:

"Banning words won’t make the world more just"

and then I say "it depends" to a subpoint with white knight, then I seem to represent the woke enemy to them, who wants to dictate what words they are allowed to use (even though I am actually very pro free speech).

And as a german regarding the righteous and why there were so few of them:

I know the mindset from my grandparents and it was/is one of having a very strong taboo of doing anything against the state, or just thinking about it. They were not nazis and knew what the state was doing was wrong even though they didn't know the details. But they kept their head as low as possible, as most did. And marched in line, if ordered so. So they share their responsibility.

I would like to think, that I would have acted different, but would I? I would have been a different person, being born into that time and culture.

So it is also a tough question of what I personally feel about it. Should I feel personally sorry about industrial mass murdering done by "my kind"?

Well, I don't really feel connected to those germans as a whole at all.

But I do feel connected to my grandparents, so sorry on their behalf, that my family didn't do anything to my knowledge, to help your people. (And personally I do my best to keep the local nazis in check today)

edit: and those words still feel empty. But I don't find better words.

Because the holocaust was just outstanding industrial mass murder with the goal to wipe out a whole race. What can you say about it? Certainly not, what a member of the new german right said: "The german history is a great one and the holocaust was just a litle dirt on it"

So back on topic, I think this person should have the right to say this. Because everyone else now knows what those people (who are all officially against nazis) are really standing for.