442
submitted 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) by CollisionResistance@lemmy.world to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Anybody that goes on and on about how people in some groups defined by the genetics they were born with are victims or are aggressors, is using the very same framework of prejudiced treatment as the far right.

Fair treatment is to classify people as victims or aggressors by those people having actually been victims or having victimized others and then help the former and stop and punish the latter. Not only is it wholly irrelevant the etnicity of the people involved (unless the people who victimized others did so due to the etnicity of said others, in which case they should be punished extra hard, IMHO) but it's also massivelly unfair to paint a wide brush over everybody else who happens to have been born with the same genetics as either because of the actions of just those.

There is no such thing as Positive Prejudice: if you're judging people differently because of their etnicity, you're being unfair, even if you are judging them more positivelly than you would otherwise.

Successive ultra-nationalist and ever more far-right governments of Israel weaponized the "positive" prejudice of many towards Jews, and this is why we find ourselves were we are now: because complete total murderous racist sociopaths hid being this whole etnic group and committed ever more hideous acts of violent racism whilst avoiding punishment for it by taking advantage of people who still run around thinking in the very same mental framework of discrimination as the Nazis had - with a different list of "good" etnicities and "bad" etnicities in their minds than said Nazis, but still judging and behaving towards others differently depending on their etnicity.

[-] Tinidril@midwest.social 2 points 9 months ago

What does any of this have to do with misuse of "antisemitism"? Progressives are best defined by their opposition to wealth inequality, so how is any of this on them? If you think progressives in the US are too soft, that's fine, but they are certainly better on wealth inequality than the conservatives and neoliberals.

[-] Aceticon@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Well, not being in the US, most exposure I've had to self-proclaimed "Progressives" is British neoliberals (mainly the New Labour types).

If "progressives" are indeed against wealth inequality (what in other countries is just called "being leftwing"), maybe it's as somebody else said that it's just that the people I've mainly run across claiming to be "progressives" were just liberals.

this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
442 points (93.2% liked)

World News

32352 readers
865 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS