The cognitive dissonance is astounding. This shows that what’s happening is far more than just a genocide. it’s a level of hatred and dehumanization so intense that even the possibility of appearing indirectly sympathetic to Palestinians is controversial. A universal moral statement like 'Never Again’ Can’t Only Mean Never Again For Jews' becomes unacceptable, not because it’s false, but because it dares to imply that Palestinian lives are worth grieving.
And because the hatred and dehumanization of Palestinians serves the interests of western capital, this attitude is hidden under buzzwords or just ignored completely by mainstream media.
Yep. I saw two stories in the same day get flagged a week ago. Denial and censorship... Sillicon Valkey is complicit and no one wants to rock the boat.
I have question on a related note. Why do public fora like HN and the western society in general, frown upon and harshly censor any comparisons of contemporary human actions with Nazi tactics (and explicitly not the magnitude of their consequences), made in order to highlight the underlying human behavior? The responses are as if they just saw Nazism or the Holocaust being glorified. Many replies often contain such exaggerated and inordinate amount of outrage that it makes you wonder if they witnessed the holocaust in person (in which case, the response would be justified on account of trauma. But the incident was 80 years ago).
There is no question that the Holocaust was a horrific chapter in human history. But that extreme nature is also what makes it a treasure trove of references for human behavior - be it bad or good (like the heroics and selflessness of those who opposed it). Isn't that why we learn history? To reference it when relevant and to prevent a repeat of the past mistakes? Now especially, since Nazism is rearing its ugly heads again in multiple places on the planet, quite overtly at times. Instead, it's now difficult to draw any such parallels in human psychology for the fear of accidentally offending some people's fragile sensitivities. I still don't understand what it is that they get so offended about. The entire reaction feels quite pretentious and has strong vibes of virtue signalling and gatekeeping.
That's a great question. I think on one hand people don't want the term to be diluted by comparisons to less heinous crimes. Maybe the following will help make sense of it: In the case of Palestine the comparison is made routinely on the left (socialist / anti war flank of the democrats). On the other hand you will see plenty of people on the center left flank (neoliberals) who refuse to talk about Palestine but are more than happy to compare Trump to Hitler. Now in this example I would agree with both comparisons at a high level but the IDF is clearly killing more people than ICE ever has and ever will. So you could argue that the center left is diluting the comparison and even making a mockery of it by not also talking about Palestine. But like I said more and more people are viewing the treatment of Palestine as on par with the treatment of the Jews in Germany. And accusations of "anti-semitism" don't work anymore after you've seen videos of kids missing limbs and settlers harassing old women in the West Bank.
> I think on one hand people don't want the term to be diluted by comparisons to less heinous crimes.
I'm asserting that this stance is irrational, arbitrary and even harmful at times. Why do people insist that every comparison must match by magnitude of the events, when other meaningful comparisons exist - like intent, motive and MO? That connection may even extend beyond the abstract similarities. Some crimes are directly inspired by horrible historic events, including Nazi activities. Will people start objecting to comparative case studies in general someday, because the magnitudes of the cases rarely ever match? This sort of gatekeeping serves no worthwhile purpose and is counterproductive in most cases.
> Maybe the following will help make sense of it
Actually, no (will elaborate). But thanks for taking the effort to provide an example.
> Now in this example I would agree with both comparisons at a high level but the IDF is clearly killing more people than ICE ever has and ever will. So you could argue that the center left is diluting the comparison and even making a mockery of it by not also talking about Palestine.
The problem I have with this argument is that it's whataboutery by proxy (strictly a characterization of the argument, not an accusation). Actions of ICE and IDF are two different cases. The discourse on one must not influence or dictate the discourse on the other. For example, my views on the Trump regime doesn't reliably indicate my views about IDF. Contrary to your example above, what if my stances on both are consistent (non-contradictory)? It up to the people taking the contradictory stances to explain themselves (hypocrisy and opportunism). The arguments themselves are not affected by their double standards.
Coincidentally, the IDF's actions are blessed by the pres himself. That provides anyone with two different ways to make that comparison - the destruction of democracy and the genocide. I don't know the full situation now and I don't know how far it will slide. But my question is, do you want to put that uncomfortable comparison aside, until you wake up one day to realize that the most infamous mistake in history was repeated all over again? Let's hope that doesn't happen. But if it does, that will be the worst insult and disrespect the world would have shown towards the victims of the Holocaust. Not only did they meet a horrible end, we would have also callously ignored their final lesson for us.
No one is doing the Holocaust victims or the present world any favors by avoiding Nazi/Holocaust comparisons and references. We always compare the smaller things to the golden standard. As of now, the golden standard for human depravity is the Holocaust. Thus, it's never a dilution or belittling of that event to compare anything else with it. It's a very shameful and uncomfortable chapter in our collective history. Refusing to acknowledge, embrace and learn from it might make some people comfortable. But that's just an illusion that won't last. I really don't want to see the order of that comparison being reversed, because some people are too sensitive to face the terrible and harsh truth.
That also brings me to a broader point. I hope I was able to convince you to some extend that this censorship is a hollow gesture that achieves nothing besides some virtue signalling. But this is hardly the only case I've seen. I'm going to make another comparison that's strictly based on motive and not the magnitude. Take the example of bigtech renaming the master branch as main branch. Apparently, this is a gesture against slavery and oppression. I don't know how a 'master record', from which the branch derives its name, represents slavery or oppression in any manner. It would have made more sense in the case of 'master-slave' terminology. But there are no 'slave' branches. Meanwhile, professionals from the historically enslaved and oppressed race point out that they remain under-represented and widely discriminated against in those same corporations. These are all just smoke and mirrors to create an illusion of moral and ethical positivity that is clearly missing. The world really needs to quit these deceptive empty gestures and get back to genuine discourse on serious issues, no matter how uncomfortable they seem.
I think we're in agreement. Personally I compare Trump and the project 2025 folks as nazis probably once a week in casual conversation. But it bothers me when I see neoliberals saying that and ignoring Palestine. So I think it depends on the comtext, so maybe I'm just being pedantic. But I do think there are edge cases where it's been counterproductive:
> For example, my views on the Trump regime doesn't reliably indicate my views about IDF.
This is true. But the reverse is not: Someone's views on the IDF do reliably indicate their views on ICE (opposed to both).
The Democrat leadership abdicated their moral high ground when they refused to halt arms sales to Israel. Biden never stood up to Netanyahu like he should have.
So their words about facism ring hollow now. And they are the ones that diluted the Nazi comparison.
The premise of some sort of "dilution" of the term nazi doesn't seem true -- usually I see that assertion in the context of an actual increase in nazi-like actions. Thus the more likely explanation is that the term 'nazi' isn't diluted at all, but more applicable now than in quite a while!
I assume the connection to israel perpetrating a genocide upon Palestinians is that, in similar fashion, a small, vocal minority is claiming some sort of "dilution" of the term 'genocide', and receiving a similarly weak reception?
hacking used to be deeply political but i guess i've come to learn over the past 15 years here that such a label here is just whitewashing for the kind of neoliberal capitalistic selfishness that has fueled modern day sv following the first wave of big tech successes that occurred a lifetime ago now
I think it’s newsworthy as related to managed web publishing/speech and the governance of online information. Did any Wikipedia articles cite this page? Do those need revision now??
Why they don't understand this is just giving fuel for some awful people with sinister intentions?
This mob censorship is absolutely counter-productive.
> The first slide featured a drawing of a hexagon formed by six linked arms — various shades of brown and tan, the lightest one bearing a holocaust prisoner number tattoo — with the words “‘Never Again’ Can’t Only Mean Never Again For Jews.”
Why would this mean Gaza? It could also very well mean the famine and human crisis in the Congo right now?
Frankly, Israel extremist religious-right immoral actions are detrimental to all the Jewish people. I am sad to see so many of my Jewish friend falling in the trap built by those crazy fanatics.
This is not what you are, my friends! You don't owe allegiance to those monsters, we stand with you, but you need to find your courage to dissociate yourself from those killers!
Ah, yes. “Genocide is bad, actually” is a strong position, so I can see why a museum devoted to the idea that genocide is bad might want to walk that back a bit.
