Posting for the "Now guys he was MURDERED! Don't celebrate!" Crowd

I don’t know what “sionisom” is but to answer your question. Nazi, is a good way to describe a genocidal facist. The Nazis do appear to have aligned with Zionist in modern times. Nazism and Zionism are very similar because they both have goals to create a white ethnostate. The brand of nazism we are seeing in the United States is targeting and scapegoating (hallmark of Nazism) the homeless, and Latino communities. People are being disappeared off the streets without due process or accountability. In Germany the worst concentration camps were on foreign soil during the holocaust so the United States shipping people to Africa and El Salvador should worry even the most skeptical critic. RFK has talked openly about sending people with mental illness to camps. He also has openly made blanket statements about autistic people not having a life worth living.

Except the word nazi denotes and is defined by the hate of Jews.

You might say that sionists and nazis are similar, but they are categorically different. Or it would be slightly self-destructive as a Jewish state to want to exterminate all Jews, dont you think?

Here’s the frustration and why this should not be celebrated:

Charlie Kirk spent years dehumanizing people, making lives measurably worse, and profiting from hatred. The cosmic irony of him being shot while calling trans people dangerous and minimizing gun violence feels like the universe delivering a punchline he wrote himself. There’s a cathartic release in seeing someone who seemed untouchable suddenly silenced by the very violence he dismissed.

But that catharsis is blinding, vile, and destructive. Every celebration post, every “rest in piss” meme, every “fucked around and found out” joke is already being screenshot and weaponized. The worst people imaginable, those eager to exploit violence, are being handed exactly what they want: supposed proof that “they were right,” justification for crackdowns, and, most dangerously, a martyr whose blood sanctifies every awful thing he stood for.

Celebration may feel like a dunk on fascism, but in reality it accelerates it. It may feel like strength, but it exposes a movement so strategically bankrupt that it mistakes emotional satisfaction for political victory. Kirk alive was one influencer among many; Kirk dead is a rallying cry that will outlive us all.

The rage at what he represented is justified. But celebrating his death guarantees those very ideas will flourish. American democracy is dying, and a gravedigger falling into the hole is no victory when it only deepens the grave.

His ideas needed to be defeated. Instead, they’ve been immortalized.

But that catharsis is blinding, vile, and destructive.

My friend, you’ve got the right stuff. You have a very smooth and relatable style of communication and I really do value when those like you say something that I espouse and would otherwise butcher.

I won’t tell people not to celebrate because I know how disliked that sort of sentiment is on a thread like this. But you’re absolutely right and it sucks. They know that they just hit the “not crying wolf” lottery and will never stop banging that drum.

I’m frightened for whom the bell tolls.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazi

Nazism is a form of fascism, identifying ethnic Germans as part of what the Nazis regarded as a Nordic Aryan master race.

Lots of ethnic Germanic folks in Israel, to be sure. Yes, this is sarcasm.

It’s funny to compare the definitions of nazism in English versus Swedish though. It would appear that English speaking really want to shift what nazi means, rather than have zionism be its own term with similar meaning.

Direct translation from the Swedish version

Nazism is part of fascist ideologi. It made the claim that certain races of human had greater value than others. The “Aryan race” and the Germanic peoples were seen as the highest in the racial hierarchy. The “enemy race” were the so-called untermenschen (subhumans), who were often called “the masses from the East”, which mainly included Jews, Slavs, Poles and Roma, but also the disabled and homosexuals. [

It would be like calling the Japanese during world war 2 nazis. It’s just silly.

pettifogging it matters not what you call the fascists, they’re still practicing fascism. This pedantry your arguing is just that, pedantry, and it’s distracting.

That ‘right stuff’ didn’t work in the 1940s, what makes you think it would work in '25? Do you know what did work in the '40s?

Like i said. Some Zionists are fascists, but can’t be nazis. By definition. When you start to throw words around that doesn’t mean what you think they mean, they will eventually stop having any meaning at all.

Pedantry separating out one right wing authoritarian from another isn’t helpful in this context. Maybe in others, but not in this one

Also, language has always evolved, the words didn’t ‘lose meaning’ they changed meaning. ‘Literally’ became an antonym, it’s fine.

So you’re doubly wrong. Wrong for being a pedant, and wrong for your stated reason for pedantry.

Perhaps if you studied the history and origins of nazism you’d think differently. When you call people nazis, that really aren’t nazis, then you just rob it of meaning.

The fact that sarcastic irony has twisted the meaning of a word faster during this age than should have been possible, only enforced my belief that the meaning of words are important. Otherwise you end up in a conversation with someone and you end up spending all of the time explaining ‘your’ definition of what a word means.

You are doubly wrong, distinctions between right-wing authoritarians isn’t important in this context.

Words do not lose meaning, they change and are understood through context. I gave you an example already:

When I use the word ‘literally’ in a sentence I do not have to explain my definiton (literally/figurativly) being used.

Otherwise you end up in a conversation with someone and you end up spending all of the time explaining ‘your’ definition of what a word means.

See above, if you had read my earlier comment you wouldn’t have wasted your, or my time with this. You have used the word ‘literally’ (I presume). You have heard the word ‘literally’ being used. You already knew your paragraph was untrue, you’re just saying stuff at this point.

Deeper explanation. ‘nazi’ and ‘facist’ in causal contexts (like this one) can be understood as ‘right wing authoritarian’. In other contexts they can’t be place holders, discussing ww2 for example. But here, now, they can and are. It’s understood, through context, which right wing authoritarian is meant.

Thats all well and good. But you’re wrong.
Nazi is a type of fascist.
Zionist is a different type of fascist.

So by mixing them up you are simplifying in a manner that is reductive and wrong. It would be akin to using maoist and anarchist interchangeably because they are economically “left”.

What’s all well and good? I see no evidence you are listening, and some direct evidence that you are not.

Once again, you are railing against how the English language works, and has always worked.

‘Literally’ means both ‘literally’ and it’s opposite ‘figuratively’. People using ‘literally’ to mean figuratively aren’t wrong to do so. They don’t need to, as you suggest, define their usage of the word when using it. It’s understood. Once you understand a word can be expanded to mean its opposite, and people use it just fine, this expansion of ‘nazi’ should be a breeze.

In the current zeitgeist, it is understood, that in casual settings, ‘nazi’ is used to mean ‘right wing authoritarian’. Get all upset if you wish, there’s a long history of people being upset about time’s effect on language, I’m sure you can remember your grandparents clutching pearls at the slang and short hand you used growing up. You don’t have to like it, English doesn’t care. Keep up, or don’t, up to you. For what it’s worth, I’m one of the few people I know that still say ‘whom’ I type it less and less and I certainly don’t “correct” people who don’t because their lack of usage is correct now.

All you are doing is pettifogging.

I don’t have the slightest clue what concept you are trying to elicit, but regardless you’re taking my words out of context. It’s in bad faith and I’m not the least bit interested. No thank you.

It wasn’t in bad faith.

History has shown that fascists in power are going to do terrible things. It doesn’t matter what you do, or don’t do, they are going to do the terrible things they want to do regardless. They were blaming the left before Kirk’s body hit the floor, they weren’t going to waste this crisis. The left was ‘at fault’ before there even were memes. Facts don’t matter to them, why the fuck would memes?

This idea of “don’t provoke them with mean memes” is the kind of powerless fear that the abusers are trying to instill in you.

History has also shown that there a few ways of dislodging facists when in power. Smooth talking isn’t one of them.

I appreciate you’re not interested ZMonster, I’m not expecting a reply, I imagine I’m blocked. Purely an explaination for anyone reading through the thread.

You know the old adage “you wouldn’t follow your friend of a cliff if he jumped”.

I think i’d rather use the terms correctly, rather than follow the erronious zeitgeist.

Just because technology has created micro universes where word change meaning faster than anyone can follow, doesn’t mean they are right.

Or to put it more sarcastically so you have something to think about. I literally don’t care, literally.

So don’t use ‘nazi’ that way, no-one is forcing you.

‘Do you know the saying that movie was cool.’ You know they aren’t saying ‘the movie was a low but not freezing temperature.’

So here’s someone complaining about the use of ‘cool’ and they say ‘I think i’d rather use the terms correctly, rather than follow the erronious zeitgeist’.

Just imagine the scenario, some people talking about a film, someone says it’s cool, and here you come charging in with your pedantry. No-one is talking about the film anymore, because you’re arguing about the usage of the word cool. Then you go full sanctimonious and say “I think i’d rather use the terms correctly, rather than follow the erronious zeitgeist”. Is that a sufficient mirror for you.

Just because technology has created micro universes where word change meaning faster than anyone can follow, doesn’t mean they are right.

Faster than anyone can follow? I followed it. Everyone in this thread followed it. It only seemed to be you out of the loop. That’s fine, but you didn’t have to expose your ignorance so publicly. You’ll pick up the lingo eventually.

Or to put it more sarcastically so you have something to think about. I literally don’t care, literally.

But you didn’t explain how you were using each version of literally?! Thereby proving your earlier complaint “that it would render words meaningless” incorrect. If nothing else I am glad I could have taught you that much. Maybe if I was able to teach you that people don’t have to spend all their time explaining definitions, I can teach you how silly pedantry is.

But you do care though, you obviously care.

Faster than anyone can follow? I followed it. Everyone in this thread followed it. It only seemed to be you out of the loop. That’s fine, but you didn’t have to expose your ignorance so publicly. You’ll pick up the lingo eventually.

I find it hilarious that being correct is being ignorant. It’s ok that you’re wrong, it’s your right.

But you do care though, you obviously care.

Of course i do, but since it’s not clear from language that I do due to the reasons that I laid out, I understand that you’re confused. See how language is confusing when words change meaning? Oh, the irony.

Someone says that movie was cool. You protest that the movie wasn’t a ‘low but not freezing temperature’. You receive pushback for being a pedant. You:

I find it hilarious that being correct is being ignorant. It’s ok that you’re wrong, it’s your right.

Your last comment made such good progress. You recognised it was your failing to understand the language being spoken. You projected that lack onto everyone else by suggesting no-one could keep up. But you recognised it was a listener’s failure. Why the regression?

Communication is a co-operative tool. It is on the speaker to use language appropriate for the likely listeners true. Like an English speaker going into a rural Japanese restaurant and trying to order in English. The speaker did that, we all understood what was meant by ‘nazi’.

But also it is on the listener to learn the language likely to be spoken. Like an English speaker going into a rural Japanese restaurant and getting mad at everyone because everything is in Japanese. This is you, you are in an online ‘restaurant’ of a sort getting mad at everyone else for not speaking the language you speak, in the way you want to speak it. They aren’t incorrect, just using the appropriate language for the context they are in.

I’ll note that this main character syndrome that everyone else should conform to their way of speaking is common among English speakers.

Of course i do, but since it’s not clear from language that I do due to the reasons that I laid out, I understand that you’re confused. See how language is confusing when words change meaning? Oh, the irony.

It was clear from the context. Notice how I keep making great emphasis on the context in which the words are being used. I was mocking you for a point made you made without thought coming back to bite you.