Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WealthyRadish]

Of all the ways to find out that I'm literally hitler, this was probably the least expected.

[Baffler]

Because he read a single quote at the end of the introduction of the Wikipedia topic talking about the origin of Astrakhani Jews originating from a Jewish diaspora from said Khanate, removed all context of said quote, and used it to refute the notion that said khanate was jewish whatsoever.

No I saw that and agree that it's absurd, what I don't understand is why the theory that the descendants of Khazars make up part of the Ashkenazim population is antisemitic in the first place, as Vilanat seems to be implying.

[Loud Whispers]

No I saw that and agree that it's absurd, what I don't understand is why the theory that the descendants of Khazars make up part of the Ashkenazim population is antisemitic in the first place, as Vilanat seems to be implying.

The legitimacy of the state of Israel is founded on a twofold basis:

• Loads of Jews are already there and have been there for gorillions of years
• Jews don't have a state and could completely die out without one

Ashkenazim Jews make up loads of Israel's population. By saying the Khazars were Ahkenazi Jewish the inference is that Israeli Jews were Khazar settlers and not natives of Palestine who migrated throughout Europe from Italy. If they were migrants from Palestine who migrated throughout Yurop through the Holy Roman Empire and shit, then that makes the right of return stuff more legit, because it's a return to an ancestral homeland. By saying they've not got ancestral roots to Palestine but instead the Khazars of the steppes, it undermines legitimacy #1, basically saying they're yuropoor colonizers and have no right to be in Palestine

It's pretty complex shit, like 5 dimensional narrative chess and bullshit

[Rolepgeek]

The inverse also basically says that the Palestinians are usurpers of the land and therefore have no right to it. :/

yay complicated shit


Can't we just like build an island in the mediterranean?

[Culise]

The inverse also basically says that the Palestinians are usurpers of the land and therefore have no right to it. :/

yay complicated shit


Can't we just like build an island in the mediterranean?

Mmm.  We could, but who would give up their maritime rights to a part of the Mediterranean to build it?  We can't even just wait for an island to pop up ex nihilo.  The last time that happened there, no less than four countries (UK, Spain, France, Two Sicilies) got involved in a race to claim the nascent island, at which point it sank.  And of course, not even that was enough to finish the dispute off, considering that in 2000, the Sicilians dropped a plaque and flag (a Sicilian rather than Italian one, no less) reiterating their claim on it, in spite of it still being underwater. 
^{It's always fun to learn that Pratchett's Jingo was actually directly based on a real event.}

[Rolepgeek]

I mean, I was just thinking around a part of international(?) waters near-ish Jerusalem. I mean, hell, it'd be a lot more secure, for the most part. Make it nicely sized (Netherlands is thought to have been filled in and had water pumped out and whatnot, can't be that difficult, if time consuming), and they can even have their own agriculture 'n everything.

[hector13]

Neither Israel or Palestine would accept it anyway. Don't take away muh holy-land-home, bro.

[smjjames]

I believe it's because Jews have often been a persecuted minority, and have never really been the majority in any country except Israel for the last...how many thousand years?

Slightly less than thousands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Semien

How do you pronounce that without it becoming 'Kingdom of Semen'?

[TheBiggerFish]

...You pronounce the 'i'.  It's there for a reason.

[Vilanat]

Dear god the selective quotation, removal of context, and misrepresentation in that post above mine is so ridiculous it deserves a medal.

Really now? how is that so? what sort of context have i damaged? how was my quote selective? iv'e got this repeating feeling there's a problem with either my, or a lot of people's reading comprehension here so i would love clarification:
I ask for a source for Jews tendency to be socially conservative and i get a source for their recent political voting trend in the UK.
I give an anecdotal, totally informative and not argumentative one bit historic example of Jews having a majority in a country other than Israel, and i get in response an heavily loaded example of a country where there were Jews living in it.

Is the Khazars a good example of Jewish majority in a country? heck, that same source says no, it isn't. even if you accept everything said about the Khazars and Jews in that source, they still formed a very small minority in that country, even if it was the ruling elite, so no matter how you twist it, it wasn't a good example at Jews being a majority in a country which is what was being discussed.

So if it's such a lousy example of Jewish forming majority in a country, which is what was being implied by giving it as an example in the discussion context, why is it his favourite example? i mean, unless he adheres to that text i quoted, which i quoted only to show it was there written in that very same article which certainly negate the notion he wasn't aware of it, what's the reason for bringing a non-relevant example and emphasizing it as his favourite?

If the discussion was about the supposed origin of some of the Ashkenazy Jews, it could have been an okish, heavily disputed and debunked example. if the discussion was about countries where Jews used to live in, then sure, i'd still heavily suspect the motives for anyone singling out that example, but ok. but when the discussion is about Jews forming a majority in a country? what could be the reason?

In 99% of the times i see people mention the Khazars or bring up the Khazars-Jewish thing, it's by Anti-semitic and Muslim trolls on twitter, article comments sections and such. you do need to realize that this specific example is regularly being used by Russian supremacists, Neo-Nazis and Jihadists, some of it is being used to negate Jews historic relation to Israel, some of it was being used by the Soviets to blame Jews for everything wrong in the USSR, some of it is used to blame the Jews for the dissolution of the USSR and some of it is even being used as to blame Jews for WW1 and WW2. there is no getting around this fact so if you expect me to just assume it's in good faith, especially when it is being brought in out of context, then no, it is a too heavily loaded subject to just assume it was naively brought up.

It's like a white guy calling a black kid Boy and expecting the kid to assume it's in good faith. "hey, he is a boy, isn't he?"

[Loud Whispers]

Why is calling someone boy offensive

[smjjames]

Why is calling someone boy offensive

It'd be condescending, generally.

Though you Brits have it differently, culturally at least, with the saying 'my boy' which is more like saying 'my friend', I think. The difference is in the attitude and context probably. Also the history behind it.

[Loud Whispers]

It'd be condescending, generally.

Though you Brits have it differently, culturally at least, with the saying 'my boy' which is more like saying 'my friend', I think. The difference is in the attitude and context probably. Also the history behind it.

Two ways, 'my boy' equivalent to something like 'my son' and 'YEAH BOI BRLAP BRLAP BRLAP'

[martinuzz]

I believe it's because Jews have often been a persecuted minority, and have never really been the majority in any country except Israel for the last...how many thousand years?

Slightly less than thousands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Semien

How do you pronounce that without it becoming 'Kingdom of Semen'?

My seamen too stronk for your landlubbers

[scriver]

Why is calling someone boy offensive

As I understand it, "boy" was one of the ways to condescendingly address black men during... I dunno, in the past. Therefore it is still loaded in ways which similar phrases such as "kid" or "son" or even "girl" is.