1
: a member of a German political party that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler
2
disapproving : an evil person who wants to use power to control and harm other people especially because of their race, religion, etc.
Now you can try to make the argument that we’ve all been brainwashed by the media and that that these people wouldn’t fit into the description of “an evil person harming other people for their race religion etc” :
On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:
My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.
So I really don’t know what you’re disagreeing with here, since none of these are my opinions, or shitty examples I’ve made up. They’re definitions in such common usage you can find them listed on big linguistic organisations.
You’re just offended that people are justifiably horrified by the nazi shit Israel is doing and wish to pretend it isn’t happening.
Descriptive language is a thing even if you pretend it isn’t. So are Israeli war crimes.
Yeah, we both do know why. It’s not because anyone is being antisemitic, as explained several times.
You’re ashamed that you didn’t understand what “colloquial” and “prescriptive” meant.
“Nazi” as a colloquialism means “horrible fascist”. It is literally synonymous with it, as I’ve shown several times with several links to several different dictionaries, even explaining what “common usage” is and what linguists call an error and what not.
The reason the Israelis are being called nazis is that Israel is acting worse than historical Nazis, raping, pillaging, attacking hospitals, torturing prisoners, destroying aid convoys on purpose. And the leaders of Israel are worse than a lot of actual Nazi leaders.
Do you think your “you’re just using Nazi because you hate Jews” rhetoric will work? No-one else has your magical powers to ignore an actual holocaust going on.
Now I suppose you’ll protest the use of “holocaust”, and that makes me antisemitic, because you don’t understand the difference between “holocaust” and “the Holocaust”.
On the basis of evidence collected and examined by my Office, I have reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin NETANYAHU, the Prime Minister of Israel, and Yoav GALLANT, the Minister of Defence of Israel, bear criminal responsibility for the following war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of the State of Palestine (in the Gaza strip) from at least 8 October 2023:
My Office submits that the war crimes alleged in these applications were committed in the context of an international armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, and a non-international armed conflict between Israel and Hamas (together with other Palestinian Armed Groups) running in parallel. We submit that the crimes against humanity charged were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population pursuant to State policy. These crimes, in our assessment, continue to this day.
People who stuff like that are rightfully called nazis, and your lame protestations definitely won’t make calling Israel’s genocidal fascist leaders nazis any less common or any more anysemitic.
No-one is talking about the Jewish people here except you. Is there a reason you’re trying to equate Israel and Judaism? Perhaps something like… this word which apparently can’t be used either, as it’s “antisemitic” as well, according to some.
Tldr you didn’t read that anyway. You’re angry you didn’t understand basic linguistics so now you’re trying super hard to pretend Israeli leaders aren’t horrible fascists, because you can’t pretend anymore that you don’t understand what “colloquial” and “prescriptive” mean, because several commenters beat it into your low brow.
Your refusal to acknowledge that descriptive language exists doesn’t make you right. In fact, it makes you wrong. Trying to give out some ultimatums comes across as a six-year old stomping their foot and saying “no no no no no no no no”
Thats specifically the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying to you. The IDF are lead by and is full of fascsists.
Ah, so you’re not denying the genocide Israel is committing? (Provably so.) Ah, so this is literally actually only about you being so ashamed that you were caught saying something stupid by people smarter than you that you’re desperately trying to get the last word.
No, using “nazi” in colloquial parliance as synonym for “fascist” isn’t antisemitic. Even suggesting that means you still don’t understand what “prescriptive” and “descriptive” actually mean.
You’re wrong, but you’ll never be able to admit to it. So just stop replying, it’ll be easier for you that way and maybe next time you’ll do some Googling before commenting on linguistics you don’t understand.
I didn’t say it doesn’t exist. I said its existence doesn’t make you right, as only an idiot would think that. That people can be called nazis in a non literal way doesn’t make calling Jewish people nazis right or wrong. Its a non sequitur, invalid argument that only an idiot would make.
No, in never denied it or came even close to it at any point. You were just kitchen sinking.
Bless you for thinking that you’re smarter than anyone, after your little outbursts.
Again, grow a spine, stop being a pathetic little coward, and let me know why you HAVE to use that word to describe Jewish people who happen to also be Israeli?
That people can be called nazis in a non literal way doesn’t make calling Jewish people nazis right or wrong. Its a non sequitur, invalid argument that only an idiot would make.
It is, isn’t it. So why are you so adamant that people who are using everyday colloquial language like calling fascists ‘nazis’, is actually A DEFINITE SIGN of actual antisemitism?
Because that doesn’t follow from you not understanding linguistic terms.
“who happen to be Isreali”
Are you on crack? We’re talking about specifically the Israeli people. This whole thread is about Israel and their fascism, which is rightfully compared to the actual Nazis. And once more, using “nazi” in colloquial parliance (such as forum interactions for instance) does not mean one is drawing a comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany.
You are the one who’s afraid to stand behind their words. You said EVERYTIME, ANYONE uses “nazi” to refer to anyone Jewish, no matter the context or even awareness of the speaker, it’s ALWAYS antisemitism. That is prescriptivism, which you STILL don’t understand. Maybe watch a few youtube lectures on linguistics and come back in a few days if you seriously have to keep this childish bullshit up.
Just admit to your errors and be on your way. It’ll be much easier on your emotional well-being, this is clearly upsetting you.
Due to the definition of antisemitism, in the country I live in. Its also the most widely accepted definition, as far as im aware.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, you’re clearly a very unpleasant person with some appalling social skills but my emotional well being is fine. Thanks all the same though. Also, let’s not pretend you have the empathy or emotional range necessary to care about someone else’s wellbeing.
What makes you think you know better than the European equality and rights commission? Are they all idiots who don’t understand “the very basics of linguistics” too?
I am standing by that and the EHRC definition of antisemitism. I reject your “not a hard N” argument. Nothing has changed here. I’m not sure what you’re pretending its changed to.
Its also the most widely accepted definition, as far as im aware.
Why would anyone give literally any credibility to any of your brainfarts, when you won’t accept your mistakes despite several people explaining in detail how you made them and why?
No, it’s not the most “widely accepted definition” and in what context would that even be?
We’re talking about colloquial use of language, which you now want to redirect this conversation from, because again, you’re just seething over having made an error and being physically unable to accept it.
What makes you think you know better than the European equality and rights commission?
At NO POINT ANYWHERE do they EVER claim that using “nazi” colloquially is remotely antisemitic. NOWHERE.
You’re just sad and mad that you’re wrong and that people online — the one place where you felt comfortable — told you as much.
You’re trying to cover up your ignorance with pathetic equivocation. (Yes, I know you need to check what that word means. Maybe stay on Wikipedia a year or two and well see about having a new conversation when you can actually understand at least half the terms used.)
Man those arguments keep getting worse, eh?
How about grab yourself by the neck and actually Google some of these words so you don’t have to keep publicly humiliating yourself like that.
Strawmen worse than what my niece comes up with, and she doesn’t even speak well yet.
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/Nazi
Now you can try to make the argument that we’ve all been brainwashed by the media and that that these people wouldn’t fit into the description of “an evil person harming other people for their race religion etc” :
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
So I really don’t know what you’re disagreeing with here, since none of these are my opinions, or shitty examples I’ve made up. They’re definitions in such common usage you can find them listed on big linguistic organisations.
You’re just offended that people are justifiably horrified by the nazi shit Israel is doing and wish to pretend it isn’t happening.
Descriptive language is a thing even if you pretend it isn’t. So are Israeli war crimes.
Then why couldn’t you just use another word?
Lol, I’m kidding, we both know why you HAVE to use that one.
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/combating-antisemitism/definition-antisemitism_en
Yeah, we both do know why. It’s not because anyone is being antisemitic, as explained several times.
You’re ashamed that you didn’t understand what “colloquial” and “prescriptive” meant.
“Nazi” as a colloquialism means “horrible fascist”. It is literally synonymous with it, as I’ve shown several times with several links to several different dictionaries, even explaining what “common usage” is and what linguists call an error and what not.
The reason the Israelis are being called nazis is that Israel is acting worse than historical Nazis, raping, pillaging, attacking hospitals, torturing prisoners, destroying aid convoys on purpose. And the leaders of Israel are worse than a lot of actual Nazi leaders.
Do you think your “you’re just using Nazi because you hate Jews” rhetoric will work? No-one else has your magical powers to ignore an actual holocaust going on.
Now I suppose you’ll protest the use of “holocaust”, and that makes me antisemitic, because you don’t understand the difference between “holocaust” and “the Holocaust”.
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
People who stuff like that are rightfully called nazis, and your lame protestations definitely won’t make calling Israel’s genocidal fascist leaders nazis any less common or any more anysemitic.
No-one is talking about the Jewish people here except you. Is there a reason you’re trying to equate Israel and Judaism? Perhaps something like… this word which apparently can’t be used either, as it’s “antisemitic” as well, according to some.
Tldr you didn’t read that anyway. You’re angry you didn’t understand basic linguistics so now you’re trying super hard to pretend Israeli leaders aren’t horrible fascists, because you can’t pretend anymore that you don’t understand what “colloquial” and “prescriptive” mean, because several commenters beat it into your low brow.
Its either antisemitism or ignorance. Take your pick.
Thats specifically the exact opposite of what I’ve been saying to you. The IDF are lead by and is full of fascsists.
You’ll have to try again there.
Your refusal to acknowledge that descriptive language exists doesn’t make you right. In fact, it makes you wrong. Trying to give out some ultimatums comes across as a six-year old stomping their foot and saying “no no no no no no no no”
Ah, so you’re not denying the genocide Israel is committing? (Provably so.) Ah, so this is literally actually only about you being so ashamed that you were caught saying something stupid by people smarter than you that you’re desperately trying to get the last word.
No, using “nazi” in colloquial parliance as synonym for “fascist” isn’t antisemitic. Even suggesting that means you still don’t understand what “prescriptive” and “descriptive” actually mean.
You’re wrong, but you’ll never be able to admit to it. So just stop replying, it’ll be easier for you that way and maybe next time you’ll do some Googling before commenting on linguistics you don’t understand.
I didn’t say it doesn’t exist. I said its existence doesn’t make you right, as only an idiot would think that. That people can be called nazis in a non literal way doesn’t make calling Jewish people nazis right or wrong. Its a non sequitur, invalid argument that only an idiot would make.
No, in never denied it or came even close to it at any point. You were just kitchen sinking.
Bless you for thinking that you’re smarter than anyone, after your little outbursts.
Again, grow a spine, stop being a pathetic little coward, and let me know why you HAVE to use that word to describe Jewish people who happen to also be Israeli?
It is, isn’t it. So why are you so adamant that people who are using everyday colloquial language like calling fascists ‘nazis’, is actually A DEFINITE SIGN of actual antisemitism?
Because that doesn’t follow from you not understanding linguistic terms.
“who happen to be Isreali”
Are you on crack? We’re talking about specifically the Israeli people. This whole thread is about Israel and their fascism, which is rightfully compared to the actual Nazis. And once more, using “nazi” in colloquial parliance (such as forum interactions for instance) does not mean one is drawing a comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany.
You are the one who’s afraid to stand behind their words. You said EVERYTIME, ANYONE uses “nazi” to refer to anyone Jewish, no matter the context or even awareness of the speaker, it’s ALWAYS antisemitism. That is prescriptivism, which you STILL don’t understand. Maybe watch a few youtube lectures on linguistics and come back in a few days if you seriously have to keep this childish bullshit up.
Just admit to your errors and be on your way. It’ll be much easier on your emotional well-being, this is clearly upsetting you.
Due to the definition of antisemitism, in the country I live in. Its also the most widely accepted definition, as far as im aware.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, you’re clearly a very unpleasant person with some appalling social skills but my emotional well being is fine. Thanks all the same though. Also, let’s not pretend you have the empathy or emotional range necessary to care about someone else’s wellbeing.
What makes you think you know better than the European equality and rights commission? Are they all idiots who don’t understand “the very basics of linguistics” too?
I am standing by that and the EHRC definition of antisemitism. I reject your “not a hard N” argument. Nothing has changed here. I’m not sure what you’re pretending its changed to.
Why would anyone give literally any credibility to any of your brainfarts, when you won’t accept your mistakes despite several people explaining in detail how you made them and why?
No, it’s not the most “widely accepted definition” and in what context would that even be?
We’re talking about colloquial use of language, which you now want to redirect this conversation from, because again, you’re just seething over having made an error and being physically unable to accept it.
At NO POINT ANYWHERE do they EVER claim that using “nazi” colloquially is remotely antisemitic. NOWHERE.
You’re just sad and mad that you’re wrong and that people online — the one place where you felt comfortable — told you as much. You’re trying to cover up your ignorance with pathetic equivocation. (Yes, I know you need to check what that word means. Maybe stay on Wikipedia a year or two and well see about having a new conversation when you can actually understand at least half the terms used.)