Except the word nazi denotes and is defined by the hate of Jews.
You might say that sionists and nazis are similar, but they are categorically different. Or it would be slightly self-destructive as a Jewish state to want to exterminate all Jews, dont you think?
Nazism is a form of fascism, identifying ethnic Germans as part of what the Nazis regarded as a Nordic Aryan master race.
Lots of ethnic Germanic folks in Israel, to be sure. Yes, this is sarcasm.
It’s funny to compare the definitions of nazism in English versus Swedish though. It would appear that English speaking really want to shift what nazi means, rather than have zionism be its own term with similar meaning.
Direct translation from the Swedish version
Nazism is part of fascist ideologi. It made the claim that certain races of human had greater value than others. The “Aryan race” and the Germanic peoples were seen as the highest in the racial hierarchy. The “enemy race” were the so-called untermenschen (subhumans), who were often called “the masses from the East”, which mainly included Jews, Slavs, Poles and Roma, but also the disabled and homosexuals. [
It would be like calling the Japanese during world war 2 nazis. It’s just silly.
pettifogging it matters not what you call the fascists, they’re still practicing fascism. This pedantry your arguing is just that, pedantry, and it’s distracting.
Like i said. Some Zionists are fascists, but can’t be nazis. By definition. When you start to throw words around that doesn’t mean what you think they mean, they will eventually stop having any meaning at all.
Perhaps if you studied the history and origins of nazism you’d think differently. When you call people nazis, that really aren’t nazis, then you just rob it of meaning.
The fact that sarcastic irony has twisted the meaning of a word faster during this age than should have been possible, only enforced my belief that the meaning of words are important. Otherwise you end up in a conversation with someone and you end up spending all of the time explaining ‘your’ definition of what a word means.
You are doubly wrong, distinctions between right-wing authoritarians isn’t important in this context.
Words do not lose meaning, they change and are understood through context. I gave you an example already:
When I use the word ‘literally’ in a sentence I do not have to explain my definiton (literally/figurativly) being used.
Otherwise you end up in a conversation with someone and you end up spending all of the time explaining ‘your’ definition of what a word means.
See above, if you had read my earlier comment you wouldn’t have wasted your, or my time with this. You have used the word ‘literally’ (I presume). You have heard the word ‘literally’ being used. You already knew your paragraph was untrue, you’re just saying stuff at this point.
Deeper explanation. ‘nazi’ and ‘facist’ in causal contexts (like this one) can be understood as ‘right wing authoritarian’. In other contexts they can’t be place holders, discussing ww2 for example. But here, now, they can and are. It’s understood, through context, which right wing authoritarian is meant.
Thats all well and good. But you’re wrong.
Nazi is a type of fascist.
Zionist is a different type of fascist.
So by mixing them up you are simplifying in a manner that is reductive and wrong. It would be akin to using maoist and anarchist interchangeably because they are economically “left”.
It would appear that English speaking really want to shift what nazi means, rather than have zionism be its own term with similar meaning.
It would appear that you really want to shift the conversation to the exact definition of the word “Nazi”, rather than have people talk about facists and the problems there of.
Except the word nazi denotes and is defined by the hate of Jews.
You might say that sionists and nazis are similar, but they are categorically different. Or it would be slightly self-destructive as a Jewish state to want to exterminate all Jews, dont you think?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazi
Lots of ethnic Germanic folks in Israel, to be sure. Yes, this is sarcasm.
It’s funny to compare the definitions of nazism in English versus Swedish though. It would appear that English speaking really want to shift what nazi means, rather than have zionism be its own term with similar meaning.
Direct translation from the Swedish version
It would be like calling the Japanese during world war 2 nazis. It’s just silly.
pettifogging it matters not what you call the fascists, they’re still practicing fascism. This pedantry your arguing is just that, pedantry, and it’s distracting.
Like i said. Some Zionists are fascists, but can’t be nazis. By definition. When you start to throw words around that doesn’t mean what you think they mean, they will eventually stop having any meaning at all.
Pedantry separating out one right wing authoritarian from another isn’t helpful in this context. Maybe in others, but not in this one
Also, language has always evolved, the words didn’t ‘lose meaning’ they changed meaning. ‘Literally’ became an antonym, it’s fine.
So you’re doubly wrong. Wrong for being a pedant, and wrong for your stated reason for pedantry.
Perhaps if you studied the history and origins of nazism you’d think differently. When you call people nazis, that really aren’t nazis, then you just rob it of meaning.
The fact that sarcastic irony has twisted the meaning of a word faster during this age than should have been possible, only enforced my belief that the meaning of words are important. Otherwise you end up in a conversation with someone and you end up spending all of the time explaining ‘your’ definition of what a word means.
You are doubly wrong, distinctions between right-wing authoritarians isn’t important in this context.
Words do not lose meaning, they change and are understood through context. I gave you an example already:
When I use the word ‘literally’ in a sentence I do not have to explain my definiton (literally/figurativly) being used.
See above, if you had read my earlier comment you wouldn’t have wasted your, or my time with this. You have used the word ‘literally’ (I presume). You have heard the word ‘literally’ being used. You already knew your paragraph was untrue, you’re just saying stuff at this point.
Deeper explanation. ‘nazi’ and ‘facist’ in causal contexts (like this one) can be understood as ‘right wing authoritarian’. In other contexts they can’t be place holders, discussing ww2 for example. But here, now, they can and are. It’s understood, through context, which right wing authoritarian is meant.
Thats all well and good. But you’re wrong. Nazi is a type of fascist. Zionist is a different type of fascist.
So by mixing them up you are simplifying in a manner that is reductive and wrong. It would be akin to using maoist and anarchist interchangeably because they are economically “left”.
It would appear that you really want to shift the conversation to the exact definition of the word “Nazi”, rather than have people talk about facists and the problems there of.
Zionists are fascist, but they aren’t nazis. Hope we cleared that up for you.