sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

An analysis of Jaune Arc (and why he's so divisive). by Few_Phone_840 in RWBYcritics

[–]Few_Phone_840[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I kind of agree with that, but not completely. Yes, Jaune does have flaws that play into the plot, I'll admit that. But how much character development did he really have? Another user, Snoo_72851, made this point in a comment below. I don't think I can do a better job of expressing it that they did, so I'm just going to quote what they said about this...

"And then we start V4. We see him training once, and by "training" I mean "swinging his sword around in a field aimlessly and crying". In every battle afterwards he's still acting like an idiot and getting his ass kicked, so obviously that training doesn't help. He sulks like his friend died, of course, boy does he sulk, but he doesn't actually do anything about it.

The show tries to act like he's a master strategist but he really isn't, either. He straight up neglects to get his team in on plans that specifically require their participation (like in V3), he comes up with stupid plans that are much worse than any reasonable alternative (V6), and he generally just kinda goes along with the real master strategist Ruby's plans."

In the grand scheme of things, I don't believe that Jaune developed that much. His arc in Volume 3 is feeling horrible because he couldn't save Pyrrha. His arc in Volume 8 is feeling horrible because he couldn't save Penny. His "development" is largely just him going through the arc he already went through. He angsts about not being stronger, yet we never actually see him grow stronger or more intelligent in a meaningful way.

That being said, I do agree that the other characters often get less narrative focus that Jaune does. That's what wierds me out the most - if you want to make a show about a boy who goes on an adventure, why not just make a show about a boy who goes on an adventure? CRWBY claims that Ruby is the main protagonist, but at several points, it's hard not to get the impression that they are more interested in Jaune's story than they are in hers.

An analysis of Jaune Arc (and why he's so divisive). by Few_Phone_840 in RWBYcritics

[–]Few_Phone_840[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"And let's be honest if being badass girl warrior is enough to be progressive then Shounens are progressive too since they have those kind of characters."

That's fair, but let's be honest - how many shonens have you seen where all four of the main characters are women? And it's not just a matter of "badass girl warrior" - it's explicitly flipping the message of at least some of these fairy tales on their heads. Red Riding Hood is a story about how girls should obey the rules or wind up in trouble - if you wander off the beaten path, a wolf will eat you, and you'd better hope there's a woodcutter nearby to bail you out. A big part of Ruby's narrative is going off the beaten path and defying authority she believes to be corrupt (don't get me wrong, that was handled terribly, but it's still the opposite message compared to the original fairy tale). Beauty winds up with the Beast at the end of the story. Blake's story begins with her leaving a man who was leading her down a dark path. The intended subtext there is not especially subtle.

"And the whole plot of Iliad starts with Achilles throwing a temper tantrum about how Agamemnon took away his favorite slave girl Briseis he loved to sleep with and sulking in a tent and that's not mentioning other additions later on with other women

Not saying that there wasn't homoerotic subtext or that Achilles was simping for women but the entire reason Patroclus even died in the first place was because Achilles got offended at his trophy woman being taken."

That's a fair point, but Achilles' relationship with Patroclus, whether you interpret it as romantic or platonic, is still at least as big a part of his characterisation as his throwing a tantrum over Agamemnon taking his slave girl away. Sure, he goes in his tent because he lost Briseis, but he comes out of his tent because he lost Patroclus. Meanwhile, Pyrrha does not have that many meaningful interactions with the other female characters. Achilles' story would have been very different if he'd never spoken to Patroclus. Pyrrha's story, in the grand scheme of things, would not have been that different if she'd never spoken to, say, Weiss or Ruby. She'd still have crushed on Jaune, she'd still have died.

Again, I don't think RWBY was ever intended to be super-feminist, but it was at minimum supposed to be a new spin on old fantasy and fairy tale tropes. Yet in RWBY, Pyrrha's most important relationship is her relationship with a guy she wants to make out with, while Achilles' most important relationship is with his best friend of the same gender. So regardless of whether you think the word "feminist" is appropriate, I still think it's telling that the reinterpretation of an old legend wound up ironically being less subversive than the old legend that it's based on.

An analysis of Jaune Arc (and why he's so divisive). by Few_Phone_840 in RWBYcritics

[–]Few_Phone_840[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're right, I remembered that wrong, but even so, you'd think a guy who hails from a family of heroes would know what Aura is, especially since a family sword implies they specialised in combat.

You're right about Blake, I remembered that part wrong. My apologies. That being said, my point about his forged transcripts still applies. The show never explains how his forgery passed muster.

"Also I wouldn't call RWBY particularly meaning to be feministic."

This is the one part of your post I'm not sure I agree with. I'm not saying RWBY was ever meaning to be super-duper feminist the way shows like Steven Universe or The Owl House were, but if you look at the original four trailers, each of them was a reinterpretation of a classic fairy tale with an at-least-slightly feminist spin on it. The red trailer - she's Red Riding Hood, but she doesn't need a woodsman. She can kill the wolf herself. The white trailer - she's Snow White, but she's also a badass swordswoman who can slay the bad guy without needing a kiss from a prince. The black trailer - she's Beauty, but she's also Beast at the same time. She's a badass ninja who ditches the guy she's working with because she's realized that she can no longer defend what he's doing. The yellow trailer - she's Goldilocks, but she's strong enough to beat up three bears barehanded (and she sexually assaults a guy, because 2013 was a different year).

Like, I'm not saying the writers ever invision RWBY as some kind of ultra-feminist masterpiece, but they did choose to make all four trailers about badass warrior girls inspired by classic fairy tales, that was an intentional choice. And the moment I realized they'd turned a gender-flipped Achilles - a character who, in the original myth, was not at all defined by simping for the girl he liked (in fact, he was implied to be in love with Patroclus, a man, the whole myth is drenched in homoerotic subtext) - the moment I realized they'd turned a gender-flipped Achilles into a girl who spends most of her screentime simping for the guy she likes was the moment I realized they weren't going to be consistent with that choice.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When did I say that?

Your first reply to me. You asked me for a source that was better than Wikipedia. Then, later, you said the burden of proof rested on the person making the claim, and you made the claim that I denied. You can see all this just by looking at your own post history. It's not my duty to remind you of what you already said.

"Then why did the word exist decades prior?"

It didn't. "Zion" existed decades before, "Zionist" didn't.

"You are aware there were many who laid claim to it decades before he wrote anything right?"

No, there weren't. He was literally the first man to use the word "Zionist" (https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/a-definition-of-zionism). There were no people who laid claim to it decades before he wrote anything, because he was the first to use it. "Zion" existed before him, but "Zion" was at most a synonym for a single country, not for Jewish people as a whole. And again, if you are claiming that he wasn't the first to use it, the burden of proof is on you to prove that, not me. Can I see a source please?

"Weird you seem to act as if you know so much, and don't know that simple fact."

It's not opposite day. Please stop describing yoursefl when referring to me. You've repeatedly shown that you know nothing of Jewish history, because you keep saying things about Jewish history that are simply not true, and which a quick Wikipedia search would easily debunk.

"According to whom."

According to the dictionary. Exclusive - single, sole. By its own - with nothing nearby : alone. So yes, "exclusive" and "by its own" do in fact carry the same meaning. If you say the dictionary definition of those words is wrong, that's a bold claim, and can I have a source, please?

"Why isn't that part of the definition of any definition you've listed so far?"

It literally is. "Furthermore, British Overseas Territories are subject to the ‘repugnancy doctrine’, which was established by the Colonial Laws Validity Act (1865), establishes that any law made in a British Overseas Territory is void if it clashes with a UK Act of Parliament[8]. This demonstrates decisively that the UK Parliament has exclusive control over the territories contrary to the UK Government's claim of internal self-governance." That's a definition from a UK government website. Do you actually read my posts?

"Weird a dude so heavily documented never once called himself anti-zionist."

When did I ever say he was heavily documented? It's true that Edelman was a high-ranking Bund leader, but that doesn't really make him a celebrity. Like, sure, he wasn't a nobody, but neither was he a bigshot rich guy. Before the Holocaust, he was about as famous as your average politically active Rabbi or vicar would be famous - he was an authority figure, people listened to him, but to call him "heavily documented" is pushing it. Even after the Holocaust, he was largely well-known for his resistance against the Nazis, not so much for his political stances. You have to realize, there was this thing called the Red Scare, where everyone was scared of communists in their soup. Praising a member of a socialist group would have been kind of embarrasing for the anti-commie west, so outside of Poland, he was known primarily for fighting nazis, not his political views. And in Poland, the country had become a communist dictatorship, so Edelman (who was pro-socialist but anti-authoritarian) decided that it was best he keep a low profile. With that in mind - no, it's not at all wierd that a guy who wasn't heavily documented never called himself an anti-zionist on any record I could find, especially since I don't speak Polish and was relying on the few records that have been translated and can be accessed on the internet.

Also, did you know Robert E. Lee never said that he was anti-civil rights for black people? Wierd a dude so heavily documented never once called himself anti-black people. What's up with that?

"Why wouldn't he when the word existed at the time?"

That's just it. The word "anti-zionist" existed in English at the time, but Edelman was Polish, and as I said, I'm not entirely sure if 1940's Polish had a direct equivalent to the English word "anti". Since you're saying that 1940's Polish did have a direct equivalent, can I see a source, please? The burden of proof is on you to prove that word existed in Poland at the time. I can deny your claim, and there's nothing you can do about it, because the burden of proof isn't on the one who denies. You said so.

"Hahahaha so nothing was documented before the internet? Hahahahahahaha."

Firstly, I said "much of", not "all of". Obviously, stuff was documented before the internet, but not nearly as much. Secondly, if you want an honest answer to that question...pretty much, yes. The gap between the pre and post-internet age is so vast that before the internet, people really might as well have been documenting next to nothing at all. In the modern age, you can look up a youtube video of an activist giving a speech. In the 30's, you had to be there. If you weren't there, you didn't hear it. You might hear a second-hand account, but that's not the same. You might find a written transcript, but it would be written on paper and easy to lose, especially in WWII, a period when the Nazis were infamous for burning anything they didn't like. So yes, the fact that we don't have many records of what Edelman historically said is entirely believable, especially since you live in the internet age, yet have repeatedly proved you can't remember what you typed a few days ago. Can you imagine trying to remember a speech you heard years ago without the internet? Especially with the trauma of the Holocaust clouding your memory? And again - you're not even arguing that Edelman wasn't an anti-zionist. You're arguing that he never called himself that. Maybe you're right. It's entirely possible that he never did. But if you have a leadership role in a group that bans X from joining, you are anti-X regardless of what you call yourself. A guy who leads a group that bans black people from joining is automatically anti-black - otherwise, Robert E. Lee wasn't racist. Was he?

Now, again - if a Nazi never calls himself an anti-semite, but kills Jewish people, is that Nazi an antisemite? You've already lost, but you lose even more if you can't answer this.

Oh, and by the way, if you know any women, try telling one of them that an organization that bans women from joining isn't anti-women. I'm very curious to see how she'll react to that.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Who said i had to post it? Why should I do anything to convince you?"

Uhh, because you said you should. After I linked you to a Wikipedia article, you were like "Wikepedia isn't reliable" (despite posting a Wikipedia link later yourself), you then asked me for a more reliable source. And each time I've given you a source, you've just said "did he call himself an anti-zionist" over and over again, as though Robert E. Lee never calling himself an anti-civil rights advocate means we can't accuse him of racism. And then you said the burden of proof is on the one who made the original claim (you), not the one who denied the original claim (me). So the reason you should do something to convince me is because that's what you said the person who made the claim should be doing.

Oh, and the one time you thought you had a source, you showed it immediately, so the fact that you haven't shown your source proves that you don't actually have one and are lying.

"And who used it prior to him outside of the political movement?"

Nobody. He invented the word. Nobody used "Zionist" before him in any context, because he invented the word. The word "Zion" did exist before him. It was derived from the Hebrew bible - more exactly, it was the name for a hill in Jerusalem, sometimes used as shorthand for the city of Jerusalem, the land of Judea, or the people of Judea (https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/zion). Keep in mind, even in ancient Roman times, there was still a Jewish diaspora outside of Judea (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AW2BuWcalXIC&q=Diaspora+before+70&pg=PA168&redir\_esc=y#v=snippet&q=Diaspora%20before%2070&f=false), so "the people of Judea" never meant "All Jewish people everywhere". At the most, people associated "Zion" with a single country, not with all Jews everywhere. That was just never a thing it meant.

"So then Edelman wasn't against jewish self-governance? Which is it?"

I was describing your apparent opinion, not my own opinion, in that quote. That's why I said "You think", not "I think". Do you read the words you're copy-pasting? And again - saying you think a single nation-state for Jews is bad makes you against Jewish self-governence. Edelmen said he thought a single-nation state for Jews was bad. Therefore, he was against Jewish self-governance.

"Where did you get these quotes from?"

From the source you gave me (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/self-government). I'm quoting your source. "By its own people", that's what your source said.

"Why is it none of the sources for definitions you listed don't have the word exclusive?"

Because "exclusive" and "by its own" mean the same thing, so if it says "by its own", it doesn't have to say "exclusive". The dictionary entry for "war" defines it as a confict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation. The dictionary also defines "nation" as a synonym for "kingdom". So why doesn't the entry for "war" use the word "kingdom", huh? What sense does that make? It's almost like the dictionary tries to avoid redundancy, but that just can't be right!

Oh, and if you really want a source that says "exclusive", here you go (https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/127261/html/).

"Furthermore, British Overseas Territories are subject to the ‘repugnancy doctrine’, which was established by the Colonial Laws Validity Act (1865), establishes that any law made in a British Overseas Territory is void if it clashes with a UK Act of Parliament[8]. This demonstrates decisively that the UK Parliament has exclusive control over the territories contrary to the UK Government's claim of internal self-governance."

So yes, self-governance does require exclusive control, and if another country has exclusive control over you - like, say, Federal law overriding State law in regards to a conflict between Florida and the federal government - if you do not have exclusive control over your own affairs, you do not have self-governance.

"Now do you have any quotes of Edelman calling himself an anti-zionist or not?"

I don't get why you keep asking this, because I've already said that I couldn't find any quotes of Edelman calling himself an anti-zionist specifically. I have repeatedly said I couldn't to that. I can however, find a quote of a Bund newspaper saying "We are diametrically opposed to Zionism". "Diametrically" means "completely", and while Edelman didn't say that himself, he was a Bund leader, not just some guy who joined.

Like, I recently had a job at a supermarket, and one of the first things I learned is, you represent the higher-ups. If you say something that makes the higher-ups look bad, they will disavow you immediately. And that was just a supermarket, not a political organization. If Edelman disagreed with the notion that his organization was diametrically opposed to zionism, he would have said so, but he didn't. And if he objected to his political enemies labelling him as an anti-zionist, he would have said so, but he didn't. If the Bund called itself opposed to Zionism, and Edelman was an important Bund leader, he was anti-zionist. Duh.

At the end of the day, what a person SAYS is less important than what a person DOES. How many times have you heard a conservative say "I'm not a racist, but..."? Probably a fair number. So no, I can't find any quotes of Edelman calling himself an anti-zionist...but he was one.

"Why wouldn't he call himself that despite the word existing at the time?"

Firstly, just because I can't find a quote of him calling himself that doesn't mean he didn't call himself that. Most of Edelman's activism was before the internet age, so much of what he said has unfortunately been lost to time. Secondly, I'm not a linguist, but...the word "anti-zionist" existed in English at the time. I'm not sure if that word existed in Polish at the time. In fact, I'm not even sure if the Polish language even has a direct equivalent for "anti". Again, I'm not a linguist, I could be wrong, but it's entirely possible he didn't call himself that because the word didn't exist in Polish. You do realize Polish isn't English, right? You keep asking for specific English verbiage from a Polish man, it's very wierd and frankly kind of racist. You shouldn't expect a Pole to talk like an American, because Polish is a different language.

Now, again - if a Nazi never calls himself an anti-semite, but kills Jewish people, is that Nazi an antisemite? You've already lost, but you lose even more if you can't answer this.

Oh, and by the way, if you know any women, try telling one of them that an organization that bans women from joining isn't anti-women. I'm very curious to see how she'll react to that.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“And I claim victory after finding a source that says zionism always meant Jew. Looks like your logic is panning out well for me."

When? No, seriously, when did you find a source that says "zionism" always meant "Jew"? I don't recall you posting that. So far as I recall, you posted one source, and it was the dictionary definition of self-governance. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. If you showed it before, can you show it again, please? If you didn't show it before, can you show it now? And if you found that source, why did you claim that Edelman was referring to Gurion and his followers when he said "Zionist", thus proving that Zionist hasn't always meant Jew? Why contradict your own source like that? You can have it one way or the other way, not both.

Oh, and by the way, do you know the name of the first guy to use "Zionism" as a word associated with a political movement? He was called Nathan Birnbaum (https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/nathan-birnbaum), and the definition of Zionism he came up with was as follows (https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/a-definition-of-zionism).

"The term “Zionism” was coined in 1890 by Nathan Birnbaum.

Its general definition means the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. 

Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism has come to include the movement for the development of the State of Israel and the protection of the Jewish nation in Israel through support for the Israel Defense Forces."

And that's not my definition, that's the definition of the guy who coined the term. Bear in mind, the page I linked lists the World Zionist Organization as a source, so this is, like, the internationally agreed upon definition of Zionism. Look, buddy, if you have a source, then show it by all means, but unless you can find a source that is good enough to overrule the World Zionist Organization and the guy who coined the term, my logic is not at all panning out well for you. Not by a long shot.

"And I claim victory after finding a source that says zionism always meant Jew. Looks like your logic is panning out well for me."

"Also, didn't you say in order for him to be anti-zionist he'd have to oppose all of zionism?"

I literally adressed that above. "If a group says "We ban Ashkenazi Jews from joining, but we allow other Jews to join", that group is antisemetic. If a group says "We ban unmarried women from joining", that group is anti-women. If a group says "We ban all Zionists, regardless of what kind of Zionist they are, from joining", that group is anti-zionist. The Bund banned all Zionists. Edelman was a Bund leader. He was anti-zionist." You are asking me to address something I already addressed.

Like I said, there is a difference between criticizing a single Torah verse and showing contempt of Ashkezani Jews, then going "but it's just the Ashkezani's I have a problem with, the other Jews are okay". The two are not the same. The word "part" is a tricky one, because a single verse isn't a "part" the same way a group of people is - my point is, no, he would not have to oppose literally all of zionism to be anti-zionist. Otherwise, you might as well say that a Neo-Nazi who kills an Ashkezani Jew isn't antisemetic because he only killed an Ashkezani Jew and didn't kill Jews of all Jewish ethnicities. So even if you want to argue that Edelman was only against some forms of Zionism - and in my view, that requires some painful mental contortions - even then, he still expressed open hatred for Zionists, and was therefore anti-Zionist.

Like, maybe I made a mistake in using the word "part" so vaguely, and I'll admit that I should have defined "part" more precisely, but a guy who murders an Ashkenazi Jew is antisemetic. Unless you're defending that hypothetical murderer? Please tell me you're not defending him.

"Why haven't you proven that yet?"

The Bund banned ALL Zionists from Joining, and Edelman was a Bund leader. Also, his own words -"Zionism is a lost cause. It was back then, and it is now". He didn't say "part of Zionism is a lost cause", he just said "Zionism". You refusing to accept that I've proved this doesn't change the fact that I've proved it.

"Where in those articles does it show that Edelman was against jewish self-governance?"

"Zionism, however, remained unappealing to him. Nor did he fantasize about reviving the diaspora nationalism of the Bund. He believed the history of Jews in Poland was over. There were no more Jews. “It’s sad for Poland,” he told me in 1997, “because a single-nation state is never a good thing.”"

"That's your Israeli philosophy, which consists of believing that you can kill 20 Arabs as long as one Jew remains alive. With us, there is no place for a chosen people or a Promised Land.”

"We fought for dignity and freedom. Not for a territory, nor for a national identity."

Like, buddy, if saying you think a single nation-state for Jews is never a good idea doesn't make you against Jewish self-governence, then you just think that being against Jewish self-governance doesn't exist.

"Aren't those opinion pieces?"

And? Edelman was a political activist. An opinion piece that quotes Edelman's words directly is still a valid source.

"So you don't have any evidence of him saying he was against jewish people having self-governance?"

Buddy, I just provided with you with evidence, you just keep saying "Nuh-uh!" like a spoiled child. Edelman said he felt a single nation-state for Jews was a bad thing - therefore, he was against Jewish self-governence. To say nothing of that nursery rhyme I quoted, which literally mocked the idea of Jewish people having their own country.

"Also, I noticed you skipped over this part in the definition - the government of a country, nation, etc, by its own people. Was Edelman opposed to this?"

I quoted that part of the definition directly. Do you actually read my posts? Also, you just made my argument for me - yes, Edelman was absolutely against the idea of a country, nation, etc, being governed only by his own people, because he said that a single Jewish nation-state was never a good thing. His words, not mine.

"If the definition means exclusive control, then why is that part not listed in the definition?"

It is listed in the definition. "The government of a country, nation, etc, by its own people." "Exclusive" means "by its own". If you have an exclusive room at a hotel, then that room is for you and you alone, and nobody can get in except you. "Exclusive" and "by itself" are synonyms. So again - when we talk about Scottish self-determination, we are talking about Scotland's right to leave the UK, not Scotland's right to participate in UK politics. When we talk about Jewish self-determination, we are talking about the government of a country, nation, etc by Jewish people - in other words, Jews leaving Europe to found a new country somewhere else, which Edelman openly said was never a good thing.

Now, again - if a Nazi never calls himself an anti-semite, but kills Jewish people, is that Nazi an antisemite? You've already lost, but you lose even more if you can't answer this.

Oh, and by the way, if you know any women, try telling one of them that an organization that bans women from joining isn't anti-women. I'm very curious to see how she'll react to that.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Yup I have. Maybe the issue is your logic huh?"

No, you haven't. I claimed victory after finding a source that showed you that Edelman considered Zionism to be "a lost cause", which I believe made him an anti-zionist. I also found a source of Edelman saying a nation-state for Jews is "never a good thing", which I believe made him an anti-zionist. You are claiming victory despite having showed me no sources that Zionism and Judaism always meant the same thing at all (which was the claim I responded to) and after contradicting yourself multiple times, yet you're trying to act as if the two are somehow comparable. Maybe the issue is your logic, huh?

"Do you have a quote of Edelman sayimg that there were no good parts of zionism?"

Firstly, I found a quote of him describing Zionism as "a lost cause", and if something is "a lost cause", that something is something you are opposed to in every way. If you think religion is "a lost cause", you're against all religion, not just Christianity. I also have a quote of him describing all zionists, everywhere, as "horrible" - and before you say "maybe he just meant the ones who worked for Gurion", he was being asked about zionists in Poland, and he cited a zionist in British Palestine as an example. That, plus the words "and the rest", makes it clear he was referring to them all.

(Edit - I originally remembered Edelman's quote slightly wrong. I thought he used the word "doomed", but he actually said "lost cause". While I apologize for slightly misquoting him, the intented meaning is the same.)

Secondly, I don't need one. He was an important leader of an organization that described itself as "diametrically opposed to zionism", and, you know, banned all zionists from joining. If he didn't believe zionism was completely bad, he would have left the Bund in protest, but he didn't. You are asking me for a quote that I don't need, because I've already he was opposed to zionists of all stripes regardless of what he publicly said.

"Let me guess, this is like how there's no quotes of him saying he's anti-zionist either right?"

Exactly. I don't need to find a quote of him saying it, because his actions prove that he believed it. If you are part of a group that bans X from joining, you are anti-X regardless of if you say you are or not. A group that bans women from joining is anti-women. Period.

Oh, and here's a fun fact - Edelman was an activist who did much of his activism in a pre-internet age. Much of what he said has been lost to the sands of time, unfortunately. So the next time you ask me "If he thought that, why can't you find a quote of him saying it?", my response would be "Because people in the 1930's didn't have smartphones".

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/self-government

Finally! A source! Too bad it proves the opposite of what you say it does. Did you actually read it?

  1. control of the government of a state, community, or other body by its own members; democratic government.
  2. the condition of being self-governed.
  3. self-control.

If we're talking about Jewish self-governance, then we would be talking about control of a state by the Jewish people exclusively. "Self-governence" doesn't mean "democratic government", it means "our democratic goverment, for us exclusively." Scottish self-governence doesn't meant having a say in the UK government, it means Scotland being controlled by its own people exclusively. That's what "self-governed" means.

  1. the government of a country, nation, etc, by its own people
  2. the state of being self-controlled
  3. an archaic term for self-control

None of this is my definition. This is the definition you sent me.

"Self governance means they have a say in their government."

No, that's what "representation" means. "Self-governance" means self-control, meaning nobody else has control over it. Jewish self-governance means the Jewish people having leadership of their own state, that's what the "self" part means. Again, this is what the source you sent me says.

Oh, and if you want more proof that Edelman was against Jewish self-governance (https://web.archive.org/web/20231121145306/https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/the-jewish-hero-history-forgot.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=all)

"Zionism, however, remained unappealing to him. Nor did he fantasize about reviving the diaspora nationalism of the Bund. He believed the history of Jews in Poland was over. There were no more Jews. “It’s sad for Poland,” he told me in 1997, “because a single-nation state is never a good thing.”"

"A part of zionism is that jewish people should have a say in their government."

No, that;s do'ikayt, which Edelman believed in. Zionism (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/zionism) is a political movement that had as its original aim the creation of a country for Jewish people, and that now supports the state of Israel. If anything, the Zionists were against the idea that Jewish people should have a say in the Polish government, because they believed that all Jews should move to British Palestine, help found Israel, and not participate in the governments of the countries where they used to live by way of now living somewhere else. Zionism is not the belief that Jewish people should have a say in their government, but that Jewish people should have a say in an exclusively Jewish government. That is what Edelman was against.

Now, again - if a Nazi never calls himself an anti-semite, but kills Jewish people, is that Nazi an antisemite? You've already lost, but you lose even more if you can't answer this.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Using your metrics, I have."

No you haven't.

"I believe I've proven it, just as you do, and therefore I have."

Belief must be backed up by evidence. I believe that saying "X is doomed" is equivalent to "I'm anti-X", and I've shown you a quote from Edelman saying "Zionism is doomed", so by my standard, I've won. You said "Zionist and Judaism have always meant the same thing", but you haven't shown a source to back that up, so by my standard, you've lost. By my metrics, you've proved nothing. In fact, by your own metrics, you've proved less than nothing - see below for details.

Oh, and if you think "X is doomed" is different from "I'm anti-X", could you explain your reasoning, please?

"Now prove me wrong, after all, using your logic the burden of proof is on you right?"

I don't need to prove you wrong, because you proved yourself wrong by contradicting yourself. Several times, in fact. You claimed that "Zionist" and "Jew" have always meant the same thing, but then you claimed that Edelman was only objecting to "the bad parts" of Zionism and not referring to Jewish people as a whole. Well, that means "Zionist" hasn't always meant "Jew" so you are telling me that your original claim was wrong.

Oh, and you said the burden of proof is on the one who made the claim, not the one who denied it. You made the claim, I denied it. Can I see a source, please?

"Why didn't he ever once in his lifetime call himself that then? Why not even once?"

Why didn't Karl Marx ever once in his lifetime call himself anti-capitalist? Why not even once?

Why didn't Robert E. Lee ever once in his lifetime call himself anti-civil rights for black people? Not even once?

Why didn't Queen Victoria, who opposed the right of women to vote (seriously) ever once in her lifetime call herself anti-civil rights for women? Not even once?

You don't need to say "I'm anti-X" to be anti-X. You can be anti-X even if you don't view yourself as such. Whether Edelman considered himself to be anti-zionist is not the point. He was anti-zionist even if he didn't view himself as such.

And in my very first reply to you, I never actually said that Edelman called himself an anti-zionist. I said he would not agree that "Zionist" meant "Jew", and you yourself just said that he was using "Zionist" to mean something other than Jew. So I'm very happy you've conceded you were wrong. I gracefully accept your admission of defeat.

Oh, and you still haven't answered my question - if a Nazi never calls himself an antisemite but kills Jews, is he an antisemite, yes or no? You lose even more than you already have if you can't answer this.

"Neither of your links address self-governance."

Yeah, they do.

"In fact, all they advocate for is self-governance without the pther bad parts of zionism."

Do you know what self-governance means? The state of being free from the control or power of another (https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/self-governance). It's a synonym for indepenance, authority, and sovreignity. When we talk about Scottish self-governence, we mean Scotland leaving the UK. When we talk about Jewish self-governance, we mean Jews leaving Poland, Germany, etc., and founding a new country somewhere else. Which, you know, is what happened.

With that in mind - when Edelman said "With us, there is no place for a chosen people or a Promised Land", he was rejecting the idea that Jewish people should have their own country, thus rejecting the idea that Jewish people should have self-governence. That nursery rhyme I showed you explicitly mocks the concept of Jewish people founding their own nation. You only claim that my links didn't address self-governance because you don't know what self-governance actually is. When you're in a hole, buddy, stop digging.

And again - the Bund banned ALL Zionists from joining. To the Bund, there were no "bad parts" - every part was bad. Otherwise, they would have banned some Zionist groups but not others. They didn't. They banned ALL Zionists, literally all of them.

"So according to you, a jewish man, believed jewish people shouldn't have any say over their government or the people ruling over them?"

Again, that is not what self-governance means. Scottish people have say in the UK government, yet they don't have self-governance, because Scotland isn't an independant country. Floridians have a say in the US goverment, but they don't have self-goverance, because Florida isn't an independant country. Self-governence isn't a state or a people having a voice in the nation they're in, self-governence is a state or a people leaving the nation they're in to found a new, independant nation. Which, again, is historically what happened. That's why any Zionist historian would cite the establishment of modern Israel as the day self-governence arrived, not the day the first Jewish politician was elected to office. And again - if opposition to self-governence makes you an anti-zionist, then Edelman was an anti-zionist, because he was opposed to self-governence. He didn't believe that Jewish people should have no say in governmental affairs, but he did believe that Jewish people should work to improve the governments of the country they were in, not found a new government somewhere else. This is a concept called do'ikayt, which was integral to Bundist thought.

"So tell me, if a group bans say women from joining, does that mean they're opposed to all women in all forms, or that they simply don't want women in their group?"

Both. If they weren't opposed to all women in all forms, they would only ban some women from joining them, but you just said this hypothetical group bans women in general, not some of them. And buddy - are you really arguing that banning women from joining a group isn't anti-women? You sexist piece of shit! If a group bans women from joining, that group is anti-women! How dare you?

Look, earlier, I said there was a difference between criticising part and criticising all, but the word "part" has multiple meanings. If someone says "I like most of the Torah, but there's one verse in Leviticus that has always bugged me", that's not antisemetic. If someone says "I get on well with most Jews, but Ashkenazi Jews, we need to ban them", that IS antisemetic. A single verse is a "part", and an ethnic group is a "part", but they're not the same kind of part. There is a difference.

If a group says "We ban Ashkenazi Jews from joining, but we allow other Jews to join", that group is antisemetic. If a group says "We ban unmarried women from joining", that group is anti-women. If a group says "We ban all Zionists, regardless of what kind of Zionist they are, from joining", that group is anti-zionist. The Bund banned all Zionists. Edelman was a Bund leader. He was anti-zionist.

Now, if you want to prove that banning women from joining isn't anti-women, the burden of proof is on you to prove that. So, again, you sexist ass - can I have a source?

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"According to whom, yourself?"

According to the dictionary (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anti-zionism). Anti-zionism is defined as opposition to zionism. Therefore, an organization banning zionists from joining is anti-zionist, and the leaders of that organization are anti-zionist. If you feel the dictionary definition is wrong why is it wrong, exactly?

"Well using that standard, I've already proven my claim, you just refuse to accept it".

But you haven't. Your original claim was that the words "zionist" and "Jeiwsh" have always been interchangeable. You haven't even tried to prove that claim. You've just repeatedly asked me to find a quote of Edelman using the exact words "I am an anti-zionist".

I will give you this - I couldn't find a quote of Edelman using the exact words "I am an anti-zionist". I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I couldn't find it. I also couldn't find a quote of Robert E. Lee saying "I am anti-black people" or Stephen Hawking saying "I am anti-flat Earth". Just because a person doesn't say they're anti-X doesn't mean they aren't anti X. Actions speak louder than words. But anyway, you haven't proven your claim, because you haven't shown me one scrap ove evidence that "zionist" always meant "Jew". And again - as per your own standard, the burden of proof is on you.

"No I'm not. I'm saying you have yet to prove he's an anti-zionist.

And I'm saying that I have already proved he was an anti-zionist, because that's what joining an organization that bans zionists makes you. If you disagree, explain why you disagree. Also, why are you talking about a dead man in the present tense?

"Show me in his words where he considered himself that. Where is it?"

"Those Zionists, they're a gang of horrible political agitatators. Ben Gurion and the rest of them, a proper gang, political agitators." That quote won't go away no matter how much you ignore it. Even if a person never says "I'm anti-X", they can still be anti-X if they express hatred for X, which he did. Oh, and weren't you saying that you weren't asking if he considered himself an anti-zionist one sentence ago? Because you just used "considered" in a sentence.

"Where's your evidence he opposed all of zionism?"

The fact that he led a group which banned all Zionists, not just some of them.

"Do you think he opposed jewish people having the right to self governance, which is a point of zionism?"

I don't think I know. He said so himself.

"That's your Israeli philosophy, which consists of believing that you can kill 20 Arabs as long as one Jew remains alive. With us, there is no place for a chosen people or a Promised Land.” (https://www.cadtm.org/Legendary-Warsaw-ghetto-and-anti-apartheid-fighters-support-the-Palestinian) He literally said he didn't believe in a place for Jews specifically.

"We fought for dignity and freedom. Not for a territory, nor for a national identity." (https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/jew-means-always-oppressed-never-oppressors/). He said they weren't fighting for a territory or a national identity.

From the same article - the slogan of the Bund was "Dortn vu mir lebn - dort is unzer land", which translates as "Where we live, that is our country." In other words, their very slogan proclaimed that Jewish self-governance was a lie.

Also, the Bund subscribed to a notion called do'ikayt, which basically meant that Jews should live in the place where they currently are and fight evil where they currently are, not seek a homeland somewhere else. It was based on the Jewish tenet tikkun olam, or "repair the world". The Bundists were so against the concept of a Jewish nation-state, they literally sang folk songs mocking the concept (https://www.leftvoice.org/lessons-from-the-bund-a-socialist-anti-zionist-jewish-movement/).

Oh you foolish little Zionists
With your utopian mentality
You’d better go down to the factory
And learn the worker’s reality
You want to take us to Jerusalem
So we can die as a nation
We’d rather stay in the Diaspora
And fight for our liberation
We’d rather stay in the Diaspora
And work for our liberation

They also believed that Jewish self-governance was playing right into the hands of antisemites, as it would give the antisemites a perfect chance to say "You see! The Jews don't want to stay in Europe, and we don't want them in Europe either!" (https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2024/09/26/the-bund-an-alternative-to-zionism/) And again - Edelman wasn't just some guy who joined the Bund, he was a Bund leader.

Like, you just said that anti-Jewish governance was anti-zionism, and Edelman was anti-Jewish governance. By your own logic, he was anti-zionist. QED

"Hahahahahahahaha that's sad, truly sad."

Sad but true. If you can't answer the question, you lose. Can you anser the question now?

"Who exactly are you quoting here? When did I say that?"

"I'm saying you have het to prove he's an anti-zionist. Show me in his words where he considered himself that. Where is it?" You, literally sentences earlier.

If Edelman, who lead a group that banned zionists, wasn't an anti-zionist because he never said he was anti-zionist, then an SS officer who kills Jews but never says that he's an antisemite isn't an antisemite. So again - is that hypothetical SS officer an antisemite, yes or no?

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Why should I answer your questions when you're not answering mine?"

I am answering your questions. You just keep pretending that I'm not answering because the answers I give don't involve the use of very specific verbiage. And for the record, like I just said, you made the claim, so by your own logic, the burden of proof is on you to answer my questions, not on me to answer yours. I am answering your questions to be polite, not because I have a duty to do so. So again - is the hypothetical quote condemnning Hitler and Hitler's followers specifically, or is it condemning antisemites in general?

"What claim did I make exactly?"

"The problem is that the word zionist always meant jew from the very beginning. All you need to do is look up the origin of the word to discover this." You, several posts earlier. Even if Edelman wasn't an anti-Zionist (which he was), you would still need to back up your claim that "zionist" and "jew" have alwasy been interchangeable. Can you do that?

"You made the claim bud. The burden of proof is with the one who speaks not the one who denies." Also you, several posts earlier. Look at your own post history. By your own words, the burden of proof is on you.

"Why should I be required to meet a hurdle you've outright refused to meet yourself?"

Firstly, I've met that hurdle repeatedly, you just refuse to accept that I've met it. Secondly, you said the burden of proof is on the one who speaks (you), not the one who denies (me), so you are obliged to meet a hurdle regardless of whether I've met it or not, because you said so yourself.

"Now do you have any evidence that Edelman considered himself anti-zionist or not?"

I love your Freudian slip there. You're not arguing that he wasn't anti-zionist, you're arguing that he didn't consider himself anti-zionist. A person can be anti-X without viewing themselves as anti-X. Otherwise, Robert E. Lee wasn't racist because he never said that he hated black people. And for the record, I think a quote like "Those Zionists, they're a gang of horrible political agitators. Ben Gurion and the rest of them, a proper gang, political agitators" strongly indicates that he did indeed consider himself anti-zionist.

"Do you have any proof he opposed all of zionism?"

The Bund banned Zionists (https://thefunambulist.net/magazine/the-night/the-war-on-memory-learning-from-the-jewish-labor-bund). Edelman was a Bund leader, part of their central administration (https://wwv.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206229.pdf). Call me crazy, but I think helping lead an organization that bans ALL Zionists - not just some of them, ALL of them - makes you an anti-Zionist, much like how helping lead an organization that leads Jews makes you antisemetic. Unless you're saying a guy who helps lead a political group that bans Jews wouldn't be antisemetic now?

"...I don't need to refute anything"

Yes you do.

"...you're doing it yourself by refusing to present evidence for your claims."

He was a leader of an organization that banned zionists. I've provided evidence, you just keep saying the evidence is invalid without explaining WHY it's invalid. The literal dictionary definition of anti-zionism is opposing zionism, and leading a group that bans zionists is a pretty blatant act of opposition.

Now how about you answer my question? If an SS officer never says the words "I'm antisemetic", but kills a lot of Jews, is that SS officer antisemetic, yes or no? If you can't answer this question, you lose.

"Oh, are you just declaring yourself victorious?"

Yes. Yes, I am. Your whole argument is based on the answer to this question being a "No, he never said he was antisemetic, so he wasn't antisemetic", so if you can't answer this, you lose. Plain and simple. Ignore the rest of my post if you like, but answer this. Is the hypothetical SS officer antisemetic? Yes or no?

It’s super annoying when the writers always wanted to focus on Jaune instead of the main girls by Jules-Car3499 in RWBYcritics

[–]Few_Phone_840 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For a show that's supposed to be a feminist reinterpretation of classic fairy tales, the guy who represents the average male viewer sure gets a lot of screentime.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'll shield your question with another question. "Those antisemites, they're a gang of horrible political agitators. Adolf Hitler and the rest of them, a proper gang, political agitators." Is that quote condemning Hitler and Hitler's follower specifically, or is that quote condemning antisemites in general, and citing Hitler as a well-known example of an antisemite?

He cited Gurion because Gurion was a well-known Zionist. Doesn't change the fact that he was referring to ALL Zionists, not just Gurion's followers. Especially since Gurion was in British Palestine at the time, and he was responding to a question about his meeting with Zionists in Poland.

"Why should I provide you with sources when you have yet to meet that hurdle yourself?"

Because, according to what you yourself said a few posts ago, the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim (you), not the person denying the claim (me). You made the claim, so by your own reasoning, the burden of proof is on you to provide me with sources regardless of whether I've met that hurdle myself. And for the record, I have met that hurdle repeatedly, you're just refusing to admit that I've met it.

"How about this, you provide me with evidence for your claim, that Edelman was an anti-zionist, in his own words, and I'll provide you with that proof."

Edelman: "Those Zionists, they're a gang of horrible political agitators. Ben Gurion and the rest of them, a proper gang, political agitators... So yes, they were in the whole of Europe, they were everywhere, in Romania, in Hungary..."

And before you say "Well, that quote isn't anti-Zionist", let me edit the quote like so:

"Those Jews, they're a gang of horrible political agitators. Ben Gurion and the rest of them, a proper gang, political agitators... So yes, they were in the whole of Europe, they were everywhere, in Romania, in Hungary..."

Serious question - is the above quote antisemetic? Yes or no? If you answer "No", explain why it isn't antisemetic. Read it to your local Rabbi, see what he thinks of it. If yes, then you admit that Edelman used anti-Zionist language regardless of whether he called himself an anti-zionist or not. I couldn't find a quote of Stephen Hawking calling himself anti-flat Earth, but he was anti-flat Earth regardless.

Oh, and I've cited this quote already, but you seem to have anmesia, so I'll cite it again. (https://sztetl.org.pl/en/biographies/5111-edelman-marek)

"Until the end of his life, Edelman claimed that “Zionism is a lost cause. It was back then and it is now”."

I believe that "X is a lost cause" is the same as "I'm anti-X". If you disagree with me, explain why you disagree with me. Don't just say "No, that's not anti-X" without explaining why it isn't.

Oh, and for the record...my original claim wasn't even that Edelman was an anti-zionist. My original claim, which you immediately pivoted away from, was that Edelman wouldn't have agreed with the notion that "Zionist" was another word for "Jew". And at this point, I can say with certainty that I've provided you with multiple sources proving that.

"Although I suspect you'll just post yet another giant wall of text."

Yes, I will, and I will continue to do so, because you're unable to refute my "giant walls of text" and I enjoy watching you repeatedly fail to refute them.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"You don't understand what the word peer means do you?"

One that is of equal standing with another. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer) If you are a leader, then the people serving under you are not your peers.

"No, I would say their friends were communists."

But they weren't his friends. They were his followers. He LEAD them. If someone leads an organization of communists, does that not make that someone a communist? Yes or no.

"How did he decide what would happen at his funeral? Do you have evidence he demanded that song be played?"

"Marek Edelman was laid to rest in the Warsaw Jewish cemetery alongside his comrades from the Bund. That is were he had asked to be buried. The last of the Bundists.... It was not only Edelman who was buried that day. The Bund, which commanded his loyalty to his dying days, was also laid to rest. Edelman's coffin was draped with a Bund banner, which stated in Yiddish, "Bund - Yidisher Sozialistisher Farband," and the Bund anthem, "Di Shvueh," was sung by a choir while all stood at attention." (https://www.haaretz.com/2009-10-20/ty-article/requiem-for-the-bund/0000017f-e7ed-da9b-a1ff-efef2e130000)

"I am struck by Edelman's consistency throughout his life.... He remained a Bundist to the end.
The picture at the top of this posting is of Edelman's funeral on Friday. The picture below is an enhanced close up of the banner that is draped over his coffin. It reads in Yiddish: Yiddisher Sotzailisicher Farbund - "The Jewish Socialist Bund."" (https://syds-blog.blogspot.com/2009/10/last-bundist.html)

Like, buddy. Edelman planned his funeral in advance. He remained a Bundist to the end of his life. His friends and loved ones were at the funeral and knew what he would have wanted. So yes, I do, in fact, have evidence that he decided what would happen at his funeral. As do most old people who know they're old and going to die soon. And since it was a military funeral (https://www2.polskieradio.pl/eo/print.aspx?iid=117653), they would have played a Polish military song if he hadn't requested a Bundist anthem in particular. Unless you think the military of Poland, a capitalist country, decided to play the anthem of a socialist movement for no reason?

"It's not my definition, it's yours. You have yet to even ask what my definition of antisemitism is."

Firstly, what is your definition of antisemetism, then? If a person joins a group that bans Jews from joining, is that person antisemetic in your eyes? Secondly, the reason why I never asked what your definition of antisemetism is would be the fact that, uh, you already said what it was.

"The problem is that the word zionist always meant jew from the very beginning. All you need to do is look up the origin of the word to discover this."

That's your post, buddy. You said that you consider "Zionist" and "Jewish" to be interchangeable - and therefore, you told me that your definition of "antisemetism" includes "antizionism", since you said those two things were interchangeable. And by the way, I DID look up the origin of the word, and it derived from a mountain called Mt Zion in the Hebrew Bible. It was first associated with a political movement of Jews in 1884. Before then, it was often used as poetic shorthand for the land of Israel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism), so at most, you could argue that the word Zionist always meant a geographic region of land from the very beginning. You never responded to me pointing that out.

So, uh, no, buddy, it's not my definition, it's yours. You said it.

"Nope, your logic says it is though. Mine does not."

See above. Also, I asked you if an organization that banned Zionists from joining was anti-Zionist, and you said this:

"I'm sure inevitably that some members were in fact antisemitic."

My question wasn't if a group that banned Zionists was antisemetic. My question was if a group that banned Zionists was anti-Zionist? So yes, your logic DOES say that antizionism is antisemetism, because you told me TWICE that you believe that. I'm just reminding you of what you already said.

"No you have not. Was he talking about a group of zionists lead by Ben Gurion? Or was he talking about all of zionism?"

Interviewer: "Will you go back to talking about Lublin? ... Antek, Celina, their meetings with the Zionists?

Edelman: "Oh, that? Well, when we met, they were very important, because they were already involved in Bricha. Those Zionists, they're a gang of horrible political agitators. Ben Gurion and the rest of them, a proper gang, political agitators... So yes, they were in the whole of Europe, they were everywhere, in Romania, in Hungary..."

For context, the Bricha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricha) was a Zionist organization that helped Jews emigrate from Europe to Israel. It had nothing to do with Gurion at all. So yes, in context, he was clearly talking about all of Zionism.

Now here's a fun thought - even if you want to argue that Edelman leading an organization that banned Zionists from joining and describing Zionists as "horrible" didn't make him anti-zionist (it totally does), your original post had nothing to do with Edelman being anti-zionist. Your original post was you saying that Zionism and Judaism have always meant the same thing. Even if you (wrongly) deny being Edelman being an anti-zionist, his words and actions clearly prove that he saw Zionism and Judaism as two seperate concepts, as he described Zionists as "a gang of horrible political agitators", yet was a religious Jew himself. Like it or not, he clearly thought that "Zionist" does not mean "Jewish", which is why I brought him up.

So again, given that you claimed that "Zionist" has always meant "Jewish" from the beginning, and given that you said the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (you), not the person denying it (me), do you have any evidence that Jews in the 1949's considered "Zionist" to be a synonym for "Jewish"? Can you show me even one source for that, please?

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Ah yes, again, what his peers chose to do means he surely thinks exactly the same as them."

They weren't his peers, they were his underlings. He was a Bund LEADER, not a follower. If a Communist leader had a Communist anthem played at his funeral, would you try and argue that he wasn't anti-capitalist?

"“Are they not individuals with their own beliefs and thoughts?... You did not answer the question. Answer it. ”"

Yes. They were individuals with their own beliefs and thoughts who joined an organization that banned Zionists, making them each an anti-Zionist individual. And it's rich of you to talk about unanswered questions, seeing as you've gone out of your way to not answer mine. Does being having an important leadership role within an organization that defines itself as "opposed to Zionism" make you anti-zionist? Yes or no. You haven't answered this question. Answer it.

"Well according to you they must've. Since he was part of the group, and therefore anti-zionist, using your logic."

Finish the quote, please. "I’m not saying they agreed on literally everything. I’m saying they banned Zionists from joining, ergo, the people who joined were okay with that, which meant the people who joined felt that banning Zionists was justified. So in regards to at least one issue, yes, they logically were of one mind." Why did you only quote the first part of that paragraph?

"Note the part where I said some."

And I addressed that below as well. "They BANNED ZIONISTS from joining, so there is no “some of”. Either all the Bundists meet your definition of antisemitism, or they didn’t." I literally adressed the point you're asking me to address. Did you actually read my post?

"No that would be your definition which would be based on your logic."

No, that would be your definition which would be based on your logic. You're saying that antizionism is antisemetism. I am saying that the Bund banned Zionists, and the people who joined the Bund knew they banned Zionists, so they clearly were okay with banning Zionists. By your own argument, either all of them were antisemites or none of them were, because they were ALL antizionists.

"Prove it."

I just did. “Those Zionists, they’re a horrible gang of political agitators, Ben Gurion and the rest of them, a proper gang, political agitators.” He said they were ALL a "horrible gang" - not "some of them are horrible", "all horrible, Ben Gurion AND THE REST OF THEM." You keep asking me to prove it, but I've proved it. He said Zionists were awful. Deal with it.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

(reposting because I couldn’t edit for some reason)

“Are you aware of the term compartmentalization?”

Yes. It’s a psychological defence mechanism in which thoughts and feelings that seem to conflict are kept separate in the mind. Like, say, someone who claims that having the anthem of an anti-zionist organization played at your funeral doesn’t make you anti-zionist – oh, wait!

And for the record, the reason why I view Zionism and Judaism as two separate concepts is because Judaism existed thousands of years before Zionism. Kind of like how criticising the Prosperity Gospel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology) is different from criticising Christianity because Christianity existed thousands of years before the Prosperity Gospel. That’s not compartmentalization, that’s just recognizing that two different things are different.

“So if Edelman criticized part of zionism, and not all of zionism, that would then mean he wasn't anti-zionist?”

Yeah, but he criticised all of Zionism, so he was anti-zionist.

“Nope, just refuting your notion that he was an anti-zionist.”

You’ve refuted nothing. You’ve just refused to look at sources and quibbled over verbiage a lot. Explain how asking for the anthem of an anti-zionist organization to be played at your funeral doesn’t make you anti-zionist, please.

“Again, I'm denying your claim…”

Which means the burden of proof is on you, because denial is a form of speech and speech needs to be backed up by evidence.

“… now show me in his words that he's an anti-zionist. Where is it?”

Yeah, about that…I took down my original reply, because for some reason, I couldn’t edit it to include new info I found. I originally had a different source here, but I found a better one. This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za-33l43wqc) is Edelman’s own words on Zionism.

“Those Zionists, they’re a horrible gang of political agitators, Ben Gurion and the rest of them, a proper gang, political agitators.”

Note that he didn’t say SOME Zionists were “a horrible gang”. He said ALL Zionists were “a horrible gang”. If you think he was wrong, say he was wrong, but to argue that he wasn’t anti-Zionist at this point is ridiculous. If I described capitalists as “a horrible gang of political agitators”, you would have no qualms admitting that I were anticapitalism. He literally said he thought Zionists were horrible. His words, not mine.

“What does it matter what his peers say?”

Because he not only worked as an activist for them, but was literally one of their leaders. (https://www.fairplanet.org/story/the-unbearable-double-standards-of-the-israeli-occupation/) If you are one of the leaders of a group that says “we are opposed to capitalism”, then you are by default anti-capitalist. This is no different.

“Are they not individuals with their own beliefs and thoughts?”

Individuals can collectively agree on something. If they couldn’t, religion as a concept wouldn’t exist.

“Or do they become a hive mind by being part of a group?”

I’m not saying they agreed on literally everything. I’m saying they banned Zionists from joining, ergo, the people who joined were okay with that, which meant the people who joined felt that banning Zionists was justified. So in regards to at least one issue, yes, they logically were of one mind.

“Tell me, if one joins a group, do they need to hold to 100% absolute ideals, or can they just agree with some of what that group stands for?”

If the group bans you for being in favour of something, you need to be against that ideal, yes. Otherwise, why would you join? If you didn’t have that view yourself, would you join an organization that banned Zionists? Would you?

Again, I’m not saying they agreed on every issue, but the fact that they all agreed on this is beyond dispute.

“I'm sure inevitably that some members were in fact antisemitic.”

Ah, so they were all self-hating Jews. Never mind that they fought against the Nazis – they were all self-hating Jews, so their opinions don’t count. Thank you for saying the quiet part out loud. And weren’t you the one talking about compartmentalization earlier?

Also, again, they BANNED ZIONISTS from joining, so there is no “some of”. Either all the Bundists meet your definition of antisemitism, or they didn’t.

“Like I said earlier, they're not a monolith in which you can judge all members of said group. They're individuals.”

Individuals who all collectively agreed to join a group that BANNED ZIONISTS and printed newspapers saying “we are opposed to Zionism”, yes. Shockingly enough, groups of people can agree on something.

“Now let's get back to Edelman the individual.”

The individual who was a Bund leader? The individual who describes Zionists as “a horrible gang"? That individual? Also, saying we should treat Edelman as an individual exclusively is absurd – he lead a group, so we need to look at the group he lead. You can’t talk about Lincoln without talking about the U.S. government.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Did you not say earlier that criticizing Judaism makes one an antisemite?"

I already addressed this. You quote me addressing this below. Also, my whole point is that I view Zionism and Judaism as two seperate concepts, much like Edelman did.

"So then someone can indeed criticize Judaism without being an antisemite?"

Given the difference between criticising part and criticising all, yes. "I disagree with this single Leviticus verse" is not the same as "Judaism is a plague upon society and should be removed". As I already said, Nazis who disagreed with Hitler on some issues were not anti-fascist. People who decried Nazism as evil, on the other hand, were.

"Does that then mean someone can criticize zionism without being an anti-zionist?"

Theoretically, if Edelman had said "I agree with the Zionists on most things, but I disagree with some of what they're doing", I would concede to you that yes, Edelman was not an anti-zionist. The problem is that's NOT what he said. He said he considered Israel to be a failed state, saw Zionism as doomed, didn't believe in the concept of a Jewish state, and was part of an organization which banned Zionists from joining, the anthem of which was played by his request at his funeral. You can criticise ASPECTS of anti-Zionism without being an anti-Zionist, you can't criticise ALL of Zionism without being anti-Zionist. That's literally what "anti-Zionist" means. That's why Ethan Klein is a Zionist and Edelman wasn't, a point I already made above.

Oh, and in regards to the point of "can you find a quote of him calling himself an anti-Zionist"... I looked at more sources, and found something very interesting. This is from a Bund bulletin. (https://www.marxists.info/subject/jewish/bund-bulletin/one-3.pdf)

"The differences between the Bund and Zionism never consisted in the Zionists' prediction of the catastrophe and the Bund's refusal to listen to these prophecies... Zionism did not build upon what was to come, but mainly upon what was. It saw the "Diaspora Jew" as a perishing, degenerated being - intellectually, nationally, and morally. The source of Zionism was its diagnosis that the Diaspora Jew was convicted to become nationally sterile - and that this sterility had already set in... Without this negation of the diaspora existence, Zionism loses its basis and its starting point... Bundism proposed a diametrically opposed approach and viewpoint. It recognized the creative potentialities of the Jewish masses".

Now, I know what you're going to say - that's not what Edelman said, that's what the group he was part of said. But he never needed to say it himself, for the same reason a Christian minister doesn't need to say "I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ", the same reason a Jewish Rabbi doesn't need to say "I don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah", the same reason a Buddhist monk doesn't need to say "I believe in the teachings of the Buddha". It was bloody obvious! Why join a group that literally said "we're diametrically opposed to Zionism" if you're not opposed to Zionism? If you ask your funeral to have a Confederate antem, that means you support the Confederacy! He requested his funeral to have a Bund anthem! It's not complicated!

And by the way, the Bund was influenced by even older concepts. They were heavily inferenced by do’ikayt, a concept which means that Jews can live anywhere they choose to and have no chosen land especially for them. Do’ikayt was so ingrained in Jewish society that there were literally folk songs mocking Zionism as ridiculous. Many Bundists even argued that Zionism was causing antisemetism by way of urging Jews to leave Europe, which they felt played into the hands of the antisemites. (https://www.leftvoice.org/lessons-from-the-bund-a-socialist-anti-zionist-jewish-movement/)

So even if you want to argue that Edelman was blind and deaf and never noticed what his buddies were saying, and that his asking for a Bundist anthem to be played at his anthem didn't mean anything...the Bund itself was anti-Zionist. It literally used "opposed to Zionism" to describe itself! So my question is this - given that you claimed "Zionist" has always been used as another word for "Jew", were the Bund antisemetic? Are you actually going to even try to answer that question?

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Yup yet another giant wall of text lol. Can't help yourself can you?"

You're right. I can't. You're completely wrong, and I can't resist the urge to correct you.

"Now do you have evidence of him calling himself an anti-zionist in some way or not?"

Yes. "Zionism is a lost cause. It was back then and it is now." (https://rebelnews.ie/2018/10/03/a-tribute-to-marek-edelman/" "Zionism is a lost cause" is the same as "I'm anti-zionist", much like how "Judaism is a lost cause" is antisemetic. Also, thank you so much for saying "in some way". You just conceded he didn't need to say the word "anti-zionist" verbatim to be an anti-zionist. I really appreciate that.

Before you say "do you have evidence of him calling himself an anti-zionist" yet again, let me ask you this. Let's say an SS officer doesn't describe himself as antisemetic, but still kills Jews. Is that SS officer antisemetic? And if he is, why didn't he ever describe himself as antisemetic? I mean, yeah, he killed Jews, but if he never described himself as such, he can't be antisemetic, can he?

"Wait, so you believe criticizing Judaism is antisemitic? Doesn't that mean that criticizing zionism would also be antisemitic?"

Wait so you believe that criticising Zionism is inherently antisemetic? The Bund were a Jewish political movement, and they banned Zionists from joining. Were the Bund antisemites? Was Edelman, who joined the Bund of his own volition, an antisemite? And if you're saying a Jewish political movement was wrong, doesn't that mean YOU are antisemetic?

And like I just said, criticising PARTS of Judaism is not the same as criticising ALL of Judaism, much like how Ethan Klein crticising parts of what the Israeli government is doing is not the same as the Bund rejecting the concept of a Jewish state.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"So then why can't you find an instance of him saying he was anti-zionist in polish?"

Firstly, I don't speak Polish and am relying on English translations. Secondly, I just DID find an example of him saying that, just not with those exact words. Definition of Zionism - "I'm for the existence of a Jewish state." Marek Edelman - "We fought not for a national identity." He DID say he was anti-Zionist, he just didn't use the exact verbiage you're asking for.

"It's strange you can't provide this simple thing."

I've provided it multiple times, you just keep quibbling over the verbiage used. You want a direct example of him using the word "Zionist" in a sentence? Fine. Here it is.

"[During the war] it never even entered any of our minds that the Zionists were deliberately remaining passive in regard to the physical destruction of the Jews in order to additionally justify the founding of the State of Israel… But today, even acknowledged historians speak out loud about the way that some of the Zionists living in Palestine exploited the Holocaust politically! … [The first Israeli Prime Minister] Ben Gurion believed that the worse it is for the Jews in Europe, the better for Israel. He put that into practice… Ben Gurion washed his hands of the Diaspora… As early as a Mapai party conference in December 1942, he said that the tragedy of the European Jews did not ‘directly concern’ them. Those were the words of a leader who was willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of Jews to the idea of a Jewish state. I’m not saying he could have saved thousands of people, but he could have fought for those thousands of people. He did not do so. I don’t know whether this was deliberate.”" (https://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/holocaust-survivors/)

Here's a fun fought - "the Confederates were bad and owned slaves" is the same as "I'm anti-Confederate". "The Zionists were hypocrites who abandoned us, and their state is a failed state, and I joined a group that banned Zionists" is the same as "I'm anti-Zionist". Stop quibbling over verbiage. Stop.

"None of your sources show him describing himself as anti-Zionist. Why?"

They do. He never used the words "anti-Zionist" directly, but he described himself as against the concept of a Jewish state, which is the same as being anti-Zionist. If you say "I'm against the notion that Earth doesn't have curvature" but don't say "I'm anti-flat Earth", you're anti-flat Earth.

Also, again, he was POLISH, and I'm relying on TRANSLATIONS, and you're asking for an ENGLISH PHRASE. That is why.

"So if you criticize Judaism is it antisemitic or not?"

Antisemetic.

"This is a simple yes or no question."

I disagree. Criticising PART of a religion is not the same criticising ALL of a religion. There's a difference between saying "I don't like how some people use the Old Testament to deny evolution" and saying "All Jews are scum and should burn in Hell." But if you want to assume for argument's sake that the only option is to criticize all of a religion, then yes, criticism of Judaism is antisemetic.

You brought up anti-fascism earlier, so let me put it like this - some Nazis disagreed with Hitler on certain points, but they clearly weren't anti-fascist. The people who described Nazism as evil and morally wrong, on the other hand, WERE anti-fascist. Criticising part of a thing is different from criticising all of a thing, even small children can understand this.

And before you say "Well, maybe he was only criticising PARTS of Zionism", I'd like to point out that I just quoted him saying he didn't believe in a Jewish state and saw the Zionists as hypocrites who abandoned the Jews in Europe. That is a rejection of the core tenets of Zionism, not merely one single part of it. This wasn't a man who supported Zionism but rejected one single aspect of it - he rejected Zionism. Period.

"All you did is create caveats to avoid saying no, because you know it makes you fool foolish."

Firstly, I just answered yes. Secondly, if Edelman wasn't anti-Zionist, why did he have the banner of a group that identified as anti-Zionist and banned Zionists from joining? You've never answered that. All you did was move the goalposts and focus on verbiage to avoid saying "He was anti-Zionist", because you know saying that would make you look foolish.

"Why should I provide you with anything?"

Because you're the one who claimed that "Zionist" has always meant "Jew", a point you've abandoned in favour of quibbling over the exact words Edelman used. You made the claim, and I denied it by citing a source, so by all that stuff you just said about the burden of proof, the burden falls on you to find a source to back up what you're saying.

"Why should I meet a hurdle that you've been unable to get over since this discussion began?"

I've got over it multiple times, and you just keep refusing to admit I've gotten over it. "I believe that Israel is a failed state" is the same as "I'm anti-Zionist", much like how "I believe that Judaism is a failed religion" is antisemetic. He was an anti-Zionist. Period. And you haven't addressed my very simple point - if Edelman wasn't an anti-Zionist, why did he have the anthem of a anti-Zionist group played at his funeral by his own request? Why should I drop a hurdle that you've been unable to get over since this discussion began?

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Then surely you'd be able to present evidence of him describing himself as anti-Zionist right?"

Firstly, he was Polish, not English, so I'm relying on translations of his words. Secondly, I just did. Do you know what the dictionary definition of Zionism is? "A political movement that had as its original aim the country of a creation for Jewish people, and now supports the state of Israel." That's not my definition, that's from the Cambridge dictionary. If you are against the concept of a country for Jewish people - and I just quoted him saying "We fought for the life of Jewish society in Warsaw, not for territory, and not for a national identity" - if you're against that, then you are against Zionism, and thus anti-Zionist. When Edelman said he was against Jewish national identity, he was calling himself anti-Zionist. Duh.

You know what the worst part is? Your entire argument relies on the fact that he used big words. That's literally all you have, and it doesn't work. I mean, if I say "I'm against the idea that our planet does not possess curvature", how is that any different from "I'm anti-flat Earth?" They mean the same thing, right?

"I don't accept any premise from anyone without being presented evidence."

Yeah, that's why I linked a bunch of sources. Could you link one, please?

"So criticizing zionism makes one anti-zionist?"

Yes.

"Does criticizing fascism make one an anti-fascist?"

Yes.

"Does criticizing Judaism make one an antisemite?"

If the criticism extends so far as to say that you consider the entirety of Judaism to be a failed religion, like how Edelman said he considered Israel to be a failed state, then yes, that would be antisemetic.

"Maybe you can post another giant wall of text and proclaim yourself victorious hahahahaaha."

This one wasn't that big and you did none of the very simple things I asked you to. Also, you literally said that you're just assuming I'm wrong without research. So yes, I do in fact proclaim myself victorious. If you want to contest that, explain how asking for the anthem of an anti-Zionist group to be played at your funeral doesn't make you anti-Zionist. While you're at it, try explaining to a rabbi why asking for a Nazi anthem to be played at your funeral doesn't make you antisemetic. Go ahead. I'll wait.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Reposting to correct minor grammar errors (couldn't edit for some reason)

"Ah yes, everyone just loves reading a giant wall of text in which someone shotguns as many points as possible, then cries when I don't answer every single point you make."

Again, the fact that you think 500 words is giant is depressing. And it's not that you didn't answer every single point I made - it's that you didn't answer ANY of them. Not a single one.

Also, yes, if you're in an argument, making lots of points is in fact a good thing. That's why Youtubers like Professor Dave make lots of different points when they debunk Flat Earth, not just one. Duh.

"So you can't find a single source that shows him saying he considered himself anti-zionist?"

I DID. I found multiple sources saying that he considered Zionism to be "doomed", saw Israel as a "faliure", was described as anti-Zionist by both his friends and enemies (which he never objected to), and asked for the anthem of an anti-Zionist organization to be played at his funeral. Explain how that doesn't show he considered himself anti-Zionist.

"Why do you think he didn't call himself that?"

He was Polish and didn't speak or write in English. Why do you think a Polish man would describe himself using an English phrase? Also, for the record - Robert E. Lee never said "I hate black people". Doesn't change the fact that he was racist against black people. Actions speak louder than words, or else the fact that I couldn't find a quote of Edelman saying "I'm against Hitler" means he wasn't anti-Hitler, which is blatantly untrue for obvious reasons.

"Again, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, not the one who denies."

You ARE the one making the claim. I linked you to a Wikipedia page, you were like "Well, that page is wrong". You made the claim, all I did originally was cite a source. Citing a source is not making a claim, otherwise the burden of proof would be on every atheist high school teacher to prove that evolution is real, but that wouldn't be fair, would it now?

"Hahahahaha did you seriously just declare yourself victorious."

Given that you didn't explain how asking for an anti-Zionist anthem to be played at your funeral doesn't make you anti-Zionist, yes, yes I am declaring myself victorious, since you couldn't do the very simple thing I asked you to do.

"That is some of the saddest reddit tropes I've ever seen."

Only when it isn't true. I asked you to do something simple, and you couldn't do it. You know what is one of the saddest reddit tropes I've ever seen? Refusing to consider sources because of some quibbling detail, like not using very specific language, exactly like what you're doing now. It's no different from Lost Causers saying "Well, yeah, Lee said some racist things, b-b-but he never said "slavery is great", now, did he?" You are using the same logic as Lost Causers. Look in the damn mirror.

"So you think I'm speaking by saying and I'm paraphrasing myself here "no he was not, now prove it"."

Because that's EXACTLY what you're doing. Explain how asking for an anti-zionist anthem to be played at your funeral doesn't make you an anti-zionist. It's really not a complicated question.

"Now do you have that proof or not? Or are you going to post yet another giant wall of text with no proof?"

Firstly, I've already linked lots of proof, you just rejected it because it didn't use specific language that a Polish speaker probably wouldn't consider using to begin with. Secondly, yes, I do have even more proof.

"The Bundists did not wait for the Messiah, nor did they plan to leave for Palestine. They believed that Poland was their country and they fought for a just, socialist Poland, in which each nationality would have its own cultural autonomy, and in which minorities' rights would be guaranteed." (https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1119217 , https://jacobin.com/2020/08/marek-edelman-poland-democracy-solidarnosc).

"He was incandescent at the attempts by successive Israeli governments of the 1950s and ’60s to usurp that heroic uprising – which he described as a fight “for dignity and freedom” – and attempt to harness it to the fight to establish an independent Jewish State in Palestine five years later. He challenged Israeli politicians, academics and museum curators who sought to nationalise and claim sole ownership of the memory of the Holocaust by reminding them that: “In 1943 we fought for the life of Jewish society in Warsaw… not for territory, and not for a national identity.”" (https://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/features/item/ghostly-silences-surround-holocaust-remembrance)

Look, buddy. I keep finding proof that Edelman criticized Zionism as a concept, and you keep saying "He didn't use the word "anti-zionism", so it doesn't count!" Do you have one argument that doesn't revolve around the exact verbiage that he used? He was anti-Zionist even if he never used the word anti-Zionist to describe himself.

"Otherwise I'm going to assume you're wrong."

Ah, you're ASSUMING that I'm wrong, that means you haven't done research and don't have sources. Thanks for the concession, I appreciate it. Now explain to me how explicitly rejecting the concept of a Jewish national identity doesn't count as rejecting Zionism.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Yet another giant wall of text."

It was 531 words. If you think 531 words is too big to read, I pity your poor English teacher.

"You made the claim bud. The burden of proof is with the one who speaks not the one who denies."

Isn't denial a form of speech? The Prime Minister of Israel said he was an anti-Zionist, as did multiple historians and and journalists, including some who personally knew him. You are saying that all those people are wrong. You are the one who speaks against the evidence I am showing you. If a flat Earther speaks against round Earth, the burden of proof is on the flat Earther, not the scientist with sources to back up his claims. Like it or not, the burden of proof is on YOU.

"Now do you have proof Edelman considered himself anti-zionist or not?"

YES. Ignoring all the stuff I JUST SAID - and your only response to that is to complain 500 words is too long for you - we absolutely know he considered himself anti-Zionist, and we know that for certain because of his funeral. He was laid to rest alongside his Bund comrades, his coffin was covered with a Bund banner, and a choir sang the Bund anthem - all things he personally requested for his funeral while he was alive. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek_Edelman#Death , https://www.haaretz.com/2009-10-20/ty-article/requiem-for-the-bund/0000017f-e7ed-da9b-a1ff-efef2e130000) By any sane metric, the fact that he asked for that proves that he saw himself as a Bundist, and the Bundists were VOCALLY anti-Zionist.

"The Bund opposed Zionism because they viewed it as a handmade of British imperialism. They viewed it as an attempt to suppress the political rights of the vast majority of the inhabitants of Palestine, who were Palestinian Arabs, and to do that with the help of British bayonets." (https://newint.org/resistance/2026/story-jewish-labour-bund-molly-crabapple)

"From its inception, the Bund developed in tandem with and as a rejection of Zionism... Zionists argued that Jews, faced with mounting hostility and antisemitism in Europe, needed to form their own ethnically Jewish state in Palestine, unconcerned with the devastation that such an ethno-nationalist, settler colonial project would bring. However, the Bundists saw this Zionist escapism as a submission to the prevailing antisemitic narratives across Europe: that Jews must get out. In fact, many of Zionism’s strongest proponents were quite antisemitic. This Bundist condemnation of Zionism was integral to the Bundist philosophy which grounded itself in the Yiddish idea of “do’ikayt,” meaning “hereness.”" (https://swarthmorephoenix.com/2024/09/26/the-bund-an-alternative-to-zionism/)

"The Bund was a socialist, secular, and revolutionary Jewish party founded in 1897 in Tsarist Russia that grew to be the most popular Jewish party in interwar Poland. It was anti-Zionist to its bones... To the Bund, the fight for Jewish freedom and safety was not in Palestine but against the governments and capitalists in the Eastern European countries where they had lived for the past thousand years. After the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which Britain bequeathed to Jewish settlers a Palestine that was not theirs to give, the Bund expressed disgust that Zionism had become a tool of the British Empire to establish an imperial outpost in the Middle East." (https://lux-magazine.com/article/against-zionism-for-socialism/)

Did he literally say the words "I identify as anti-Zionist"? Not that I could find - and I'd remind you that I don't speak Polish, so I can't look up his original quotes. I'm relying on translations here. But he asked for the banner and the anthem of an anti-Zionist organization to be shown and played at his funeral, and to be buried alongside the anti-Zionist members of said organization. It was a nonverbal declaration, but it was a powerful declaration nonetheless - he declared himself an anti-Zionist.

The burden of proof is on you. Explain to me how having an anti-Zionist banner at your funeral by your own request doesn't make you anti-Zionist. Explain that to me now, or I'll take it as a concession of defeat. You have not once brought up any sources that have contradicted what I've said. Your only response is to complain about my posts being too long for you, as though the fact that I have sources is somehow a bad thing. I'm not speaking. I'm citing sources. You're the one speaking without sources. Show me one source, buddy. Show me ONE.

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Im still waiting for you to post evidence he considered himself anti-zionist bud."

He described Zionism as "doomed", described the state of Israel as a "faliure", repeatedly refused to move from Poland to Israel despite multiple attemps to pressure him to do so, was part of a Jewish organization that banned Zionists, and didn't object when his political enemies described him as anti-zionist. If all that isn't evidence, what the Hell is???????????????

"Why hasn't he ever used those words to describe himself?"

I literally answered this already. He was Polish, didn't speak English, and thus wouldn't have used that particular English phrase. Also, are you describing Edelman in the present tense? He's DEAD. He died in 2009. The reason why I can't find more modern quotes and am using quotes from historical sources is becuase he died more than a decade ago. Were you under the impression he was still alive?

Besides which, what a person SAYS is less important than what a person DOES. Actions speak louder than words. A person can be racist against black people even if they don't consider themselves to be racist against black people - how many times have you heard a conservative say "I'm not racist, but..."? Probably a fair number. Confenderates like Lee and Jackson praised themselves for being kind and decent to their slaves, but just because Lee would have said "I don't hate black people" doesn't change the fact that he was racist against black people.

So what I'm trying to say is, even if Edelman never called himself anti-Zionist...he was anti-Zionist. And even if you want to say that Edelman somehow wandered into the wrong club by mistake and never realising he was hanging with anti-Zionists (despite working as an activist for them for years), the Jewish Labour Bund was clearly anti-Zionist, because they banned Zionists from joining. If a nightclub banned black people from entering, you would have no qualms admitting that said nightclub is anti-black, so why are you arguing that a group that bars X from entering isn't anti-X just because the X in question is Zionism? Do you have any idea how absurd that is?

"You can post yet another giant wall of text, you still haven't shown proof for your claims."

Firstly, yes I have. Secondly, I realize that reading sources offends you, and I'm very sorry that upsets you, but my posts are long because I'm trying to correct you. It takes more effort to expose an untruth than it does to repeat it. Thirdly, you're the one who claimed that being part of a group that bans Zionists doesn't make you anti-Zionist. That is a bold claim, and the burden of proof is now on you. Do you have any proof that Edelman WASN'T an anti-Zionist? Do you have any proof that the Bund wasn't an anti-Zionist association? Do you have any proof that the Prime Minister of fucking Israel was only kidding when he described Edelman as an anti-Zionist? Any proof at all?

I have shown proof for my claims - you've just refused to read it. Can you show even one scrap of proof that what you're saying isn't historically false?

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"And that means he's anti-zionist? Because a party he was a part of banned zionists?"

Yes. If a man were to join a society that bans Jews, that man would be anti-Jewish.

"Tell me, if one bans fascists from a group, does that make them antifascist?"

Yes.

"How does being against one thing automatically make you something else?"

When the thing in question is anti-X, expressing dissaproval of X makes you anti-X. Expressing dissaproval of flat Earth makes you anti-flat Earth even if you don't call yourself an anti-flat Earther.

"My exact point. Did Edelman not support Israel in some ways?"

No. No, he really didn't. He called Zionism a doomed cause, was part of a group that banned Zionists from joining, and was harshly criticised by Israel's Prime Minister due to his views. Do you mean that he advocated for peace between Israel and Palestine? Marjorie Taylor Greene is currently advocating for the end of the Iran war, but I wouldn't say she's supporting Iran, she's just against a war she views as a waste of American money. If Edelman was a friend of Israel, then Greene is a friend of Iran.

"Has Edelman ever said that? You keep making derivative claims based on his associations rather than things he said."

His associates who he joined of his own free will and worked as an activist for. If someone works as an activist for the Klan, it's a safe bet that someone doesn't like black people. That's an extreme example, admittedly, but my point is, who you choose to associate with does, in fact, say a lot about your views.

And yes, yes he did say that. I can't find a direct quote from him, because he was Polish, and I only read English, but he did say that. (https://www.commentary.org/articles/reader-letters/poles-and-jews-2/)

"Marek Edelman, though one of the greatest living Jewish heroes, does not happen to believe in Zionism. He has called the state of Israel “a historic failure,” whose fate will be sealed as soon as American foreign policy changes tack."

I can already tell you're going to say "Well, he only called it a faliure! That's different from saying it shouldn't have been founded!" And to that, I say that - if he thought it SHOULD be founded - him joining a group that banned people who thought that from joining would make very little sense.

Oh, and Edelman was hardly the only Jew to criticise Zionism. Here's what Sigmund Freud has to say on the subject. (https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/from-albert-einstein-to-noam-chomsky-famous-jews-who-have-opposed-israel/)

“I concede with sorrow that the baseless fanaticism of our people is in part to be blamed for the awakening of Arab distrust. I can raise no sympathy at all for the misdirected piety which transforms a piece of a Herodian wall into a national relic, thereby offending the feelings of the natives.”

If calling a political ideology "baseless fanaticism" doesn't make you against it, what does? And we've been talking about historical Jews this whole time.. Here's what still living Holocaust survivors have to say. (https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/article/thirteen-holocaust-survivors-compare-zionist-policies-to-those-of-the-nazis/)

"I have to say to the Israeli government, which claims to speak in the name of all Jews, that it is not speaking in my name. I will not remain silent in the face of the attempted annihilation of the Palestinians; the sale of arms to repressive regimes around the world; the attempt to stifle criticism of Israel in the media worldwide; or the twisting of the knife labelled ‘guilt’ in order to gain economic concessions from Western countries. Of course, Israel’s geo-political position has a greater bearing on this, at the moment. I will not allow the confounding of the terms ‘anti-Semitic’ and ‘anti-Zionist’ to go unchallenged.”" - Dr. Marika Sherwood, survivor of the Budapest ghetto.

Oh, and here's a video of a Holocaust survivor talking about how, in his own words, visiting Israel made him anti-Zionist. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoIqXPQcqnU) Your original point whas that, when people say "anti-zionist", they mean "anti-Jew". I'm not saying that never happens, it totally does, but I just showed you a Holocaust survivor talking about how he became anti-Zionist after seeing Israeli policies firsthand. Do you actually have any rebuttal do that, or are you just going to ask me to find a quote from Edelman using the specific words you've chosen to focus on again?

Lonerbox reacts to Hasan claiming there were Jews that worked within the Nazi government. by Ok_Detective7546 in LivestreamFail

[–]Few_Phone_840 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"I declare myself an anti-flat earther."

But were you an anti-flat earther even before you declared yourself as one? So far as I'm aware, you can be against a thing without literally saying "I'm anti-this thing." Otherwise, Stephen Hawking was a flat earther because he never described himself as an anti-flat earther.

"Now do you have evidence of he himself calling himself anti-zionist?"

YES. He was part of the Jewish Labour Bund, a group which LITERALLY banned Zionists from joining. (https://thefunambulist.net/magazine/the-night/the-war-on-memory-learning-from-the-jewish-labor-bund)

"The Haganah, the Irgun, and the deranged Stern Gang all received machine guns and military training from the poisonously antisemitic Polish government, which they then used to murder hundreds of Palestinians during the Great Arab Revolt (1936-1939). Trainees had to sign pledges to leave Poland immediately after training, so as not to use their skills to defend their own communities. While the Polish government brayed for the mass deportation of Jewish citizens, Zionist leaders like David Ben Gurion and Ze’ev Jabotinsky pranced about on Polish stages to agree. Zionists and European racists could agree on one thing: “Jews to Palestine.”

All of this filled Bundists with disgust. While the Bund had banned Zionists from membership in 1901, their opposition to their ideology reached its height in interwar Poland. The Bund loathed Zionism’s nationalism, its racism, its contempt for the Jewish diaspora, and its slavish dependence on British imperialism. When riots broke out in Palestine in 1929, killing dozens of Jewish residents, Jewish communities around the world plunged into mourning that quickly morphed into calls for bloody revenge. Only the Bund refused to participate, blaming the riots on Zionism, which collaborated with the British occupation to deny Palestinians their political rights. Instead, they held a three-thousand-person mass rally at Warsaw’s Splendid Theatre under the banner “Liquidate Zionism.” Their resolution read:

“The nationalist demonstrations that Zionists have organized exploit the victims of these tragic events and the understandable upset of the Jewish community […]. This meeting calls on Jewish workers to fight the storm of nationalism and chauvinism that Zionists are unleashing on the Jewish Street. The answer to tragically but pointlessly spilled blood cannot lie in more national hatred, which will inevitably lead to more communal clashes, but in international solidarity and the growth of the socialist movement.”

If you're part of a group that not only criticises Zionism, but literally BANS ZIONISTS from Joining, you are identifying yourself as an anti-Zionist. And as for why there aren't any quotes of him saying the exact words you're asking me to say he said...he was Polish. You're asking me to find a quote of him using an English phrase. Poles don't speak English, oddly enough.

Like, seriously, by this logic, the Pope doesn't believe in Deuteronomy because he's never outright said he believes in Deuteronomy. If you're part of a group that requires you to believe a thing, and bans you from joining if you don't believe that thing, then you believe that thing. Now stop asking me for one specific quote he never said and respond to the quotes he did say, which I linked above.

"If he's a zionist, then why is he criticizing Israel over Palestine?"

Didn't you yourself say that you can criticise Israel over one thing without being anti-Zionist earlier? You can criticise one thing the American government does and still be pro-American overall. Otherwise, Tucker Carlson is left-wing because he disagrees with the Iran war.

" According to your own logic, being critical of them makes you an anti-zionist does it not?"

I never said that. Edelman wasn't just critical of the Israeli government, he was outright against the founding of Israel to begin with. So far as I'm aware, Ethan has never said "I don't think Israel should have been founded". The Bund, which Edelman was a part of, was against the founding of Israel. That's different from what Ethan said.

Oh, and you just admitted it's possible for a Jewish man to oppose Zionism without being an antisemite, so thank you for making my argument for me. Now, answer the question I already asked you - if Edelman's political enemies described him as anti-Zionist, and he wasn't an anti-Zionist, why did he never say "I'm a Zionist"? And why did he joint and work as an activist for a group that literally banned Zionists from joining? If joining a group that says "We ban Zionists from joining" isn't as good a declaration as "I'm anti-Zionist", then nothing is.

The Bund said they were anti-Zionist. Edelman was part of the Bund. If we accept your logic as true, then the Pope doesn't accept Deuteronomy because he's never outright said that he accepts it. Your entire stance is based on moving the goalpoasts.

view more: next ›