It means there is a clear pattern of behaviour.
-
Looking for a smarter way to manage your heating this winter? We’ve been testing the new Aqara Radiator Thermostat W600 to see how quiet, accurate and easy it is to use around the home. Click here read our review.
The Genocide hating thread
- Thread starter JohnD
- Start date
It means there is a clear pattern of behaviour.
How is that relevant to hate crime. Why is it important. That is what I was asking!
Who are you addressing chicken boy?
- Joined
- 11 Dec 2012
- Messages
- 4,474
- Reaction score
- 2,208
- Country
You ask some stupid questions in almost every thread you post in....
Who knows. A random post by MBK aimed at no one in particular. Filly and MBK can take their dementia med's together.
Kind of ironic to see that here MNW67 is defending the right of someone to make provocative comments in the name of free speech, and in the other thread he is cheerleading the zero jail term sentence of a man who attempted to stab another man who was exercising his right to free speech. I wonder if the difference can be explained by who the free speech is against...
Antisemitism: The Israel – Nazi Comparison - Online Hate Prevention Institute
[wpsr_facebook] Antisemitism: The Israel - Nazi Comparison Nazism is the epitome of evil. It's not suprising that people gravitate to it in hyperbole. Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies, an observation about online discussion, holds that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a...
ohpi.org.au
Nazism is the epitome of evil. It’s not suprising that people gravitate to it in hyperbole. Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies, an observation about online discussion, holds that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1” (that is to say it will happen in any discussion eventually). Godwin himself has said of the rule that, “Although [it is] deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust”. This highlights one major problem with the inappropriate use of comparisons to Nazism; they trivialise the reality of the Holocaust.
What the Nazis did was far beyond other genocides (like Darfur). The Palestinian-Israeli conflict, even at its worst, doesn’t come close. The Nazis created an industrialised system to wipe out every last Jew. They moved people across Europe by train just to kill them more efficiently. The horror of the Holocaust goes far deeper than the fact a lot of people died.
When used in the context of Jews or Israel, it’s not just a really poor comparison; its use is designed to cause distress to those who survived the Holocaust or who grew up as the children of survivors. It’s like disagreeing with someone eating meat, and knowing they are a rape victim, choosing to make your point by comparing eating meat with rape and saying that someone who had been raped should know better. It’s not just a bad analogy, it’s applying a different standard to someone because they are a victim, making them a victim a second time.
Professor Yehuda Bauer is a leading expert on the Holocaust and the person who gave the address at the UN General Assembly’s first International Holocaust Remembrance Day commemoration (in 2006). He has noted the uniqueness of the Holocaust, saying that while it is important to compare the Holocaust to other genocides, in doing so one must mention that the Holocaust involved the creation of an industry to manufacture corpses. This is what makes it unique in human history. He explains that genocide occurs when one party is overwhelmingly powerful, and the targeted victim is nearly or totally powerless. He says “the Palestinians cannot overcome Israel with terrorism or rockets, nor can Israel annihilate the Palestinian population; it remains a bloody and difficult conflict, but not a genocide.” Please do read his paper.
The Working Definition of Antisemitism gives as one example of antisemitism “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”. The definition was created in 2004 by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now known as the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union. It has received widespread international use, for example in its adopted by the US Government for the State Department Report on antisemitism, and in its adoption by the British Police as part of their Hate Crimes Operations Guide. The London Declaration of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, signed by members of Parliament from around the world, including Australia, also adopts the Working Definition and encourages its widespread use.
There are plenty of ways describe something as bad. There is no need to make a poor analogy by invoking the Holocaust. To do so specifically because the target is Jewish, or the Jewish state (i.e. Israel), is to use that identity as grounds for attacking. That is almost a definition of racism; using someone’s identity as a basis to attack them. Comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, calling Israel a Nazi state, or saying Jews should know better and not behave like Nazis are all forms of the same racist attack. This needs to be called out.
Explain it for us then. MBK has made some serious accusations with almost zero explanation. The least he can do is try to explain how it all fits together. Which crimes have been committed and why is a "pattern of behaviour" important in establishing those crimes.
Why do you think there is a possibility the forum could be shut down?
MBK seemed to be saying there was a risk to the owner.
Antisemitism: The Israel – Nazi Comparison - Online Hate Prevention Institute
[wpsr_facebook] Antisemitism: The Israel - Nazi Comparison Nazism is the epitome of evil. It's not suprising that people gravitate to it in hyperbole. Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies, an observation about online discussion, holds that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a...
Nazism is the epitome of evil. It’s not suprising that people gravitate to it in hyperbole. Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies, an observation about online discussion, holds that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1” (that is to say it will happen in any discussion eventually). Godwin himself has said of the rule that, “Although [it is] deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust”. This highlights one major problem with the inappropriate use of comparisons to Nazism; they trivialise the reality of the Holocaust.
What the Nazis did was far beyond other genocides (like Darfur). The Palestinian-Israeli conflict, even at its worst, doesn’t come close. The Nazis created an industrialised system to wipe out every last Jew. They moved people across Europe by train just to kill them more efficiently. The horror of the Holocaust goes far deeper than the fact a lot of people died.
When used in the context of Jews or Israel, it’s not just a really poor comparison; its use is designed to cause distress to those who survived the Holocaust or who grew up as the children of survivors. It’s like disagreeing with someone eating meat, and knowing they are a rape victim, choosing to make your point by comparing eating meat with rape and saying that someone who had been raped should know better. It’s not just a bad analogy, it’s applying a different standard to someone because they are a victim, making them a victim a second time.
Professor Yehuda Bauer is a leading expert on the Holocaust and the person who gave the address at the UN General Assembly’s first International Holocaust Remembrance Day commemoration (in 2006). He has noted the uniqueness of the Holocaust, saying that while it is important to compare the Holocaust to other genocides, in doing so one must mention that the Holocaust involved the creation of an industry to manufacture corpses. This is what makes it unique in human history. He explains that genocide occurs when one party is overwhelmingly powerful, and the targeted victim is nearly or totally powerless. He says “the Palestinians cannot overcome Israel with terrorism or rockets, nor can Israel annihilate the Palestinian population; it remains a bloody and difficult conflict, but not a genocide.” Please do read his paper.
The Working Definition of Antisemitism gives as one example of antisemitism “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”. The definition was created in 2004 by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), now known as the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union. It has received widespread international use, for example in its adopted by the US Government for the State Department Report on antisemitism, and in its adoption by the British Police as part of their Hate Crimes Operations Guide. The London Declaration of the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, signed by members of Parliament from around the world, including Australia, also adopts the Working Definition and encourages its widespread use.
There are plenty of ways describe something as bad. There is no need to make a poor analogy by invoking the Holocaust. To do so specifically because the target is Jewish, or the Jewish state (i.e. Israel), is to use that identity as grounds for attacking. That is almost a definition of racism; using someone’s identity as a basis to attack them. Comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, calling Israel a Nazi state, or saying Jews should know better and not behave like Nazis are all forms of the same racist attack. This needs to be called out.
That's one of the better explanations I have read.
Only if there has been anti semitism, you and your cohorts are adamant there hasn't been, so nothing to worry about.
That said, I wouldn't want to be in JohnD's position if the site comes under scrutiny.
There are some crackers on how people have been convicted under the section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.
I have said I find the argument that comparing the actions of the State of Israel to the Nazis is automatically anti-Semitic, is complex and hard to get your head round, and that I can see both sides.
