• hikaru755@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    is a pretty good indication that the author(s) are deeply racist

    Or, maybe, they’re just using the most well-known instance of fascism in history as a concrete example, in order to not overcomplicate the message. Jumping to accusations of racism at the slightest suspicion is not gonna help anyone.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      If you’re obcessed with the race of the people involved, you’re probably a racist.

      Describing Fascism as something that only victimizes a specific ethnicity - Jews, curiously forgetting other Nazi-victimized ethnicities like Roma, not to mention non-ethnic groups such as those with disabilities - is also a long running hasbara strategy of Zionists to portray themselves as impossible to be Fascists, all the while behaving as such to quite an extreme level, something extra poignant right now when they’re in the middle of committing Genocide.

      Even if all that was just the product of naivety of the author rather than something else, to limit one’s description of Fascism to only Nazis is an insult to people who lived under other Fascist dictatorships, something which just so happens to include me - just because the dictator in my homeland “only” had censorship, a secret police, political prisioners, forced labour of the natives in the “colonies” in Africa and kept the country incredibly poor except for the 9 families of the Regime, doesn’t mean that shit wasn’t Fascism because he was “equal opportunity” when it came to the ethnicity of the people he oppressed and exploited.

      (PS: Also, thinking that it’s the race of a person that makes them behave one way or another is the very dictionary definition of racism. It’s quite irrelevant which race you think are “goodies” and which are “badies” - it’s the thinking that it’s the race that makes people “goodies” or “badies” that’s racism)

      The simplest explanation for somebody only seing the race angle of Fascism, only the Nazis and only a specific ethnicity they victimized when there is at least one other that they equally victimized (the Roma) is racism.

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      They’re doing the standard reverse racism charge, because you see, noticing racism is actually the real racism.

      In the English speaking world, anti-white racism isn’t really a thing.

      Some people will swear up and down that it is, but those people think racism is just a set of attitudes towards a race of people, and not a deeply entrenched system of oppression against entire swathes of society.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Racism is seeing race as what makes people “goodies” or “badies”. The “good” races and “bad” races in your thinking being different from those of mid and early XXth century racism in Western nations is wholly irrelevant for asserting that thinking like that is being a Racist.

        The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.

        It’s pretty telling that your entire defense of somebody else assigning race as cause of certain behaviours is to say that indeed for certain races, race is the cause of that behaviour and presume that the denial of that by others is due to the specific race which was said to be “badies”.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Please show me where I said white people were the bad people.

          It’s not a long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah, you’re right on that point: you’re dividing people into behavioural groups using “English speaking world” as identity tag rather than a race.

            So the prejudice you voiced was using “geographical area of birth defined by language spoken” to presume unrelated characteristics of people, rather race.

            It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by “geographical area of birth”.

            • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              Please tell me where in my comment I said anyone were bad people because of their “geographical area of birth”.

              It wasn’t a very long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.

              • Aceticon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Please tell me where in my comment I said that you said "anyone were bad people because of their ‘geographical area of birth’”.

                It wasn’t a very long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.

                • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.

                  It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by “geographical area of birth”.

                  Put those two together, in context, like you might do if you could read things, understand them and infer basic meaning, and that’s actually very clearly what you were saying.

                  In case you can’t follow it because for example you are trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you said: you said I divided people into good and bad by race, then you corrected yourself and said my prejudice was based on geography. That prejudice was clearly established as believing in good and bad people.

                  You’re right, that really wasn’t hard, because you absolutely did say that.

                  You clearly don’t have anything honest to say or you’d have said it. You’re 0 for 3 on actually saying something that makes sense yet. I don’t hold out hope for future comments.

                  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.

                    You’re pressuming that was about you rather than me making the counter-point to the posture you were supporting.

                    It’s funny that you repeatedly demanded me to point an exact statement and yet when faced with an equal demand, it was fine for you to “infer” meaning, though that was previously not fine for me to do.

                    It’s called a double standard.

                    Curiously and having in good faith taken that original riposte of yours (before you repeated it again, in slogan-like fashion) about me having unfairly infered something about your statement, I actually apologized for that since I had indeed presumed too much.

                    Well, at least it’s well beyond doubt (certainly you exhausted the original benefit of the doubt) to me that you are not making points in good faith and what drives you in this exchange is something else than a desire for an open and fair discussion, so you do you an I’ll do me.