“…there is living amongst us a non-German, foreign race, unwilling and unable to sacrifice its racial characteristics, to deny its feeling, thinking and striving, and which none the less possesses all the political rights that we ourselves have.”
It’s an odd hypothetical which posits the existence of a group that took the same role that the Jews did for Hitler - unable to assimilate because of cultural incompatibility, lack of loyalty to their nation-state, and this being true as a result of a self-isolation of the members of that community.
Or perhaps its a cheap shot to appeal to literal Nazis. How about the contemporary far-right?
“The Islamic culture is inferior to our Western culture… Mass immigration from Islamic countries means more crime, more terror, more anti-Semitism, and less freedom and democracy. Integration is impossible because Islam is not just a religion, but a totalitarian political ideology.”
It’s almost as if framing the problem as “the minority has big issues integrating” is in itself a kind of dogwhistle, a poisoning the well toward a racist explanation and therefore racist solution.
It’s almost as if framing the problem as “the minority has big issues integrating” is in itself a kind of dogwhistle, a poisoning the well toward a racist explanation and therefore racist solution.
So you confirm there is no place for debate because some people cry racism before even seeing any argument. The propaganda post working its wonders here: any criticism makes you a Nazi.
When someone’s using a Nazi strategy to talk about a Nazi talking point, it’s kinda hard not to notice a pattern and point it out.
Why are you mad people are pointing out that phrasing is making it harder to talk about racism? Do you not like it when people talk about racism or say things are racist? Why is that?
Why are you mad people are pointing out that phrasing is making it harder to talk about racism?
I specifically asked what phrasing would be ok and the other guy started quoting Hitler at me. I really don’t know how you can still claim there’s a room for debate and people just notice patterns. Everyone is just trying to outleft everyone else. “You can’t say that cultural differences are preventing social integration, that’s racist!”, “OMG, you said ‘social integration’, that’s racist!”. It’s hilarious to watch.
Except that they didn’t say anything racist and just wanted to start a discussion. If you cannot see the difference between an honest debate and literal genocide, maybe you need glasses?
The Godwin point being a meme doesn’t mean drifting immediately to Nazism is a valid way of debating.
Swiss people being way more strict about quiet-hours laws than most other countries. Some people think it’s important to respect that and any immigrants should adapt to those laws, even if in their home countries they are not obeyed as strictly. Good thing I know it’s fascism now.
There’s nothing wrong with having quiet-hours laws and enforcing them. The problem is when the criticism is framed in terms of groups by ethnic or national identity. Either the violations should be enforced, as with any other rule/law, or perhaps there could be some kind of policy change.
All of that is worth talking about. My objection is to the idea that its appropriate to frame the problem in essentializing and racialized language.
Suppose I have a dispute with my Jewish neighbor. He loves to grill his kosher meat every Saturday with his family. I don’t like the smell. Here is one way to frame this dispute: “My neighbor has a custom of grilling meat on Saturdays, but I don’t like it because the smell wafts into my house and I’m vegan.”
Here is another “My JEW neighbor grills his JEW meat every Saturday because Jewish culture is just murderous and doesn’t care about animals like I and my culture do. He is such a piece of shit asshole, just like all of THOSE people.”
Which one sounds like a fair way to frame a discussion about a conflict between two people?
Now obviously your initial comment didn’t say anything overtly racist like in my example, which is very extreme. But you framed it as a conflict between some anomalous THEM and the ‘local’ culture, a.k.a., US. The problem is subtler, but its the same problem.
Haha my comment got removed by /u/cannedtuna@lemmy.world because apparently noticing that different countries have different customs regarding quiet-hours is racist 😂 Looks like someone never traveled to Spain.
As if every restaurant server in America who’s had to deal with white European tourists trying their damndest to get around our alcohol laws so their kids can have beer or wine with dinner are lying.
“…there is living amongst us a non-German, foreign race, unwilling and unable to sacrifice its racial characteristics, to deny its feeling, thinking and striving, and which none the less possesses all the political rights that we ourselves have.”
It’s an odd hypothetical which posits the existence of a group that took the same role that the Jews did for Hitler - unable to assimilate because of cultural incompatibility, lack of loyalty to their nation-state, and this being true as a result of a self-isolation of the members of that community.
Or perhaps its a cheap shot to appeal to literal Nazis. How about the contemporary far-right?
“The Islamic culture is inferior to our Western culture… Mass immigration from Islamic countries means more crime, more terror, more anti-Semitism, and less freedom and democracy. Integration is impossible because Islam is not just a religion, but a totalitarian political ideology.”
It’s almost as if framing the problem as “the minority has big issues integrating” is in itself a kind of dogwhistle, a poisoning the well toward a racist explanation and therefore racist solution.
Removed by mod
So you confirm there is no place for debate because some people cry racism before even seeing any argument. The propaganda post working its wonders here: any criticism makes you a Nazi.
When someone’s using a Nazi strategy to talk about a Nazi talking point, it’s kinda hard not to notice a pattern and point it out.
Why are you mad people are pointing out that phrasing is making it harder to talk about racism? Do you not like it when people talk about racism or say things are racist? Why is that?
I specifically asked what phrasing would be ok and the other guy started quoting Hitler at me. I really don’t know how you can still claim there’s a room for debate and people just notice patterns. Everyone is just trying to outleft everyone else. “You can’t say that cultural differences are preventing social integration, that’s racist!”, “OMG, you said ‘social integration’, that’s racist!”. It’s hilarious to watch.
Except that they didn’t say anything racist and just wanted to start a discussion. If you cannot see the difference between an honest debate and literal genocide, maybe you need glasses?
The Godwin point being a meme doesn’t mean drifting immediately to Nazism is a valid way of debating.
You have a real hard time with reading comprehension don’t you
Ok, I will take that as a “no”. In your opinion there’s no way to talk about cultural differences that’s not literally fascism. Thanks.
What are these “cultural differences” that you can’t have a conversation about? Would you care to give us some of your opinions?
Swiss people being way more strict about quiet-hours laws than most other countries. Some people think it’s important to respect that and any immigrants should adapt to those laws, even if in their home countries they are not obeyed as strictly. Good thing I know it’s fascism now.
There’s nothing wrong with having quiet-hours laws and enforcing them. The problem is when the criticism is framed in terms of groups by ethnic or national identity. Either the violations should be enforced, as with any other rule/law, or perhaps there could be some kind of policy change. All of that is worth talking about. My objection is to the idea that its appropriate to frame the problem in essentializing and racialized language. Suppose I have a dispute with my Jewish neighbor. He loves to grill his kosher meat every Saturday with his family. I don’t like the smell. Here is one way to frame this dispute: “My neighbor has a custom of grilling meat on Saturdays, but I don’t like it because the smell wafts into my house and I’m vegan.” Here is another “My JEW neighbor grills his JEW meat every Saturday because Jewish culture is just murderous and doesn’t care about animals like I and my culture do. He is such a piece of shit asshole, just like all of THOSE people.”
Which one sounds like a fair way to frame a discussion about a conflict between two people? Now obviously your initial comment didn’t say anything overtly racist like in my example, which is very extreme. But you framed it as a conflict between some anomalous THEM and the ‘local’ culture, a.k.a., US. The problem is subtler, but its the same problem.
Removed by mod
Haha my comment got removed by /u/cannedtuna@lemmy.world because apparently noticing that different countries have different customs regarding quiet-hours is racist 😂 Looks like someone never traveled to Spain.
Censorship on lemmy is reaching new levels.
Removed by mod
Always little hitlers in the comments. Say “romani” and watch you appear like roaches
Yea sure I’m the roach, not the guy in prison with a kid that has an alcohol addiction at age 12
As if every restaurant server in America who’s had to deal with white European tourists trying their damndest to get around our alcohol laws so their kids can have beer or wine with dinner are lying.
OP’s meme is absolutely true. This is an American boomer grandparent rant about black people with a single word substitution.