Germany deciding who is a Jew again.
They really have been an embarrassment. They are trying to gain penance for their sins by enabling another genocide. I'm not even sure they know what they think they are doing.
I disagree in your theory of why.
It seems to me they're just racists who have never stopped being racist, hence why their support for Israel is anchored on it being "the Jewish Nation", or in other words they support any and all action of a specific nation because of the etnicity of the people who are the majority there and rule it, which is entirelly abour race and a dictionary definition "racial descriminiation", very much the same kind of judging and acting towards other people as in the "old days".
Humanitarians would've interiorized "Never again" as "never again should genocide be permitted to happen", but instead at least the German elites seem to have chosen for their theatre of "Never again" to the most racist interpretation possible: "never again will our race go against this other specific race, and we should treat them as a good race, not a bad race".
Their way of thinking wasn't changed, what changed was that one specific etnicity went from the list of "untermenschen" to the list of "ubermenschen".
I'm sure they have lists.
The bank demanded a list of the names of all of the members of Jüdische Stimme and their addresses, signed by members of the board by April 5 before adding that they were freezing the account immediately “as a precautionary measure.”
Wow, that... isn't ominous at all...
More specifically deciding who is "the right kind of Jew", same as in the old days.
"Germany" = a German bank
"seizing money" = temporarily frozen bank account until a legal dispute is settled
"seizing money" = temporarily frozen bank account until a legal dispute is settled
I didn't find this term in the text (ctrl+f). Why do you have it in quotes?
Apart from that nowadays if a bank freezes a person's account, it's really hard to live/survive in many places in this world and Germany is one of them. Unless you use crypto, and not everybody does.
"Germany" = a German bank
Banks often freeze accounts in order to follow governmental policies, often of protesters. Meaning, one way or another this move is backed by the government.
seizing money" = temporarily frozen bank account until a legal dispute is settled
I didn't find this term in the text (ctrl+f). Why do you have it in quotes?
It's right there in the headline
It’s right there in the headline
Oh the title. I read the article after a sneak-pick at the comment section and yours made me wonder to the point I did the ctr+f thingy.
Well, the title has a quite different quote and that’s what makes all the difference due to the historic reference. I think if you don’t like the title, you should hate the article because of what it is describing in relation to what is happening in Germany to Jewish people, and not about how this ~~article~~ title is written.
Do you deny that Jewish people suffer again on German ground, due to German policies using the argument of defending zionism?
Do you deny that zionism is historically related to fascism?
[edit: oops I thought I was replying to @Tarte and not @rimjob_rainer. Well the questions are for both of you or anyone who cares to answer them. Just to note that suffering is a spectrum. I am not claiming that Genocide is happening again in Germany, but people being targeted to the point of having their bank accounts frozen is a punitive measure to make people suffer]
I only wanted to point out that it's written in the headline. I have no opinion for myself because the topic is too complex and convoluted and I don't know enough to take part in the discussion. I don't deny anything you've written but I also can't confirm.
If you feel like you can take a look at Jewish Voice for Peace they are the once targeted as antisemitic due to the fact they are anti-zionist. It's not complicated, it is portrayed this way.
Founded in 2007, Jüdische Stimme is a group of anti-Zionist Jews in Germany that primarily organises pro-Palestine protests, becoming increasingly prominent and expanding its ranks significantly since 7 October.
The bank demanded a list of the names of all of the members of Jüdische Stimme and their addresses, signed by members of the board by April 5 before adding that they were freezing the account immediately “as a precautionary measure.”
Multiple legal experts who spoke to Novara Media believe that the request for members’ data is unlawful in at least two ways: a breach of their contract with the bank, to which they had not consented to give this information, and EU privacy law, specifically general data protection regulation (GDPR).
Many of the group’s members have been arrested at protests, as part of a wider crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism which has included outright blanket bans on demonstrations, the designation of “from the river to the sea” as outright illegal (in some states under the same law which criminalises displays of the swastika), a ban on wearing Palestinian keffiyehs in Berlin schools. Many of the group are middle-aged or elderly Israelis.
Germany of all should know a genocide when it is happening. Watching this all unfold is maddening. It doesn't matter what happened. Oblitering a city off the map and leaving an entire people without a nation is not an acceptable retaliation in our current world and time. Don't anybody come back with "if someone nukes you.. if someone kills your mom...." This is death on a biblical scale, this is what brought Europe together in the 1940s. It doesn't matter if the death camp's walls are Palestine's borders. They are not going to survive without intervention.
Germany of all should know a genocide when it is happening.
Oh they know. The problem is west germany just never went through denazification
Fully 77 percent of senior ministry officials in 1957 were former members of Adolf Hitler's Nazi party, a higher proportion even than during the 1933-45 Third Reich, the study found.
Zionism is just the new form. Same goals (getting Jews out of Europe, and imperialism and colonialism; this time in the middle east instead), and similar methods (weaponizing and exacerbating antisemitism). No wonder then that nazis and zionists worked together.
west germany just never went through denazification
neither did the east. AfD is strongest there.
"The biggest insult to the memory of the holocaust is not denying it but using it as an excuse to justify the genocide of the Palestinian people."
Hey now it's because it's antisemitic to support Palestine!
To me, the thing that makes this statement particularly ironic is that the dictionary definition of "Semite" includes just about anyone of middle-eastern descent. As such, purely based on the dictionary definition of "Semite", it is Israel who is being antisemitic for conducting a genocide against Palestine.
Granted, the specific definition of "antisemitic" only includes Jews, but imo that's an oversight that should be corrected.
Look and see mean roughly the same thing. Overlook and oversee have opposite meanings. Then there is oversight..
Such a weird language.
It's Latin, Greek, Germanic, and a whole bunch of other shit just thrown into a pot. Raise to boil, let simmer, and season with regional slang no one fucking understands to your tasting.
The best way I like reminding myself of this is by thinking of the words "noir" and "choir".
Overlook and oversee can have the same meaning. It depends on the context and the intent of the speaker.
People get very angry when you point out that Arabs are Semites. I saw someone claim that it’s like a gotcha argument from a 10 year old lol.
My response to that would be that just because it sounds like a "gotcha argument from a 10yr old" doesn't mean it's wrong. It just means a 10yr old has more sense than they do.
Ooh you’re good! Can you move into my head? There may be a vacancy available.
You don't want me in your head lol. Mine is a mess.
Germany to Israel: "It looks like you're trying to do a genocide. Can I help you with that? I have some experience with that sort of thing."
Israel: Please email us your CV.
Germany was cursed to not once be correct about things pertaining to jewish people and genocides.
MBFC link for Novara.
MBFC link for Times of Israel
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: Israel
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MODERATE FREEDOM
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
lol
When covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they usually are objective and cover both sides fairly, such as this: IDF strikes fresh Hamas targets after 2nd rocket fired from Gaza Strip. However, during the conflict of 2023, they were less objective, focusing on the objectives of the Israeli military. In general, the Times of Israel is factual with a slight left-leaning editorial bias.
Lol why is mbfc taken seriously by anyone?
Love how they don't go into any detail on why they have bad sources
I didn't post the link because I have a problem with the source or the story. If I use MBFC to look up a source and the link isn't in the thread, I'll post it. If I use an archive link to read an article and it's not in the thread, I'll post it. Reading their MBFC page, there's not really anything wrong with the source. Aside from having an extraordinarily terrible headline -- probably written by an editor, not the author -- there's nothing really wrong with the article. I upvoted the post.
As much as people whine about whatever thing about MBFC they're weirdly obsessed with, those pages contain a ton of useful information collected in one place. Do you have a good reason why we shouldn't know what country they're based in or press freedom issues in that country? Should we not know who owns the company, their publishing history, or how they're funded? Are we better off not knowing that they haven't failed a fact-check in the last 5 years? I don't think it speaks to their credibility at all, but it was interesting to learn that they're luxury communists and I don't feel worse off for knowing that. Do you have some other way to get all that info in a single click?
It's just that there doesn't seem to be any actual logic or publicly published citations for why they mark some sources lower or higher.
For example in this case they say there's been no failed fact checks in the last 5 years, yet they then mark them all the way down to Mixed simply due to sources with no examples of said bad sources other than they have a left bias
Failed Fact Checks
None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate Novara Media Far-Left Biased based on editorial positions that favor anti-capitalism and the promotion of Luxury Communism. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of poor sources and one-sided hyper-partisan perspectives. (D. Van Zandt 05/08/2022) Updated (02/21/2024)
Taken together it continues to seem the owner Zandt just wants to have their site used to check bias while we all have to ignore his bias.
As another user pointed out Zandt has no issues with Times of Israel being left and factual. There's also others, such as daily mail and Fox News with same factual rating with numerous issues listed so again calls into question why Zandt should be used as a reliable source for anything.
It’s just that there doesn’t seem to be any actual logic or publicly published citations for why they mark some sources lower or higher.
Their scoring methodology is available here.
then mark them all the way down to Mixed simply due to sources with no examples of said bad sources other than they have a left bias
They actually cite two examples of poorly sourced articles in their analysis summary. One appears to be an opinion piece that they're calling news analysis. The other uses social media as its only sourcing. Reading their MBFC page, there's nothing disqualifying. When reading an article, I'd just pay closer attention to who their sources are.
People (esp. critics) often treat MBFC like it's a binary good/bad indicator. It's really good at that at the edges. It's great at telling you if a source is very good (ex. BBC) or very bad (ex. Sputnik/Fox/InfoWars). The middle is murky. 'Mixed'/'Medium' tells you almost nothing without looking at the reason. It's a wealth of important information for evaluating a source but 'Medium Credibility' should be treated as 'things to keep in mind' or contexts where a source may be less trustworthy. Like, I don't have a problem with this source but I wouldn't trust them to report straight on something that was counter to Luxury Communism as a viable system. I don't think that's an unreasonable position and, again, I don't think I'm worse off for knowing that part of their mission is to promote that ideology. I don't particularly mind CBC News having a higher rating for having no agenda beyond reporting the news.
I don't think MBFC is beyond question but most criticism isn't assessing their strengths and weaknesses in context. It's mostly people taking issue with a single metric (most frequently left/right bias in my experience) and claiming they're "A JOKE" or "HAVE NO CREDIBILITY." And, honestly, 9 times out of 10 it's people who just want to share authoritarian propaganda as news. As I said before, metrics aside, there's a fuckton of valuable information on those pages and no indication that it's not factual. I've never seen an instance where an organization was owned by someone else, based in a different country, or had a different funding model than described. I've never seen someone take issue with their fact-checking. We're definitely not better off not knowing that and there isn't a better alternative.
There’s also others, such as daily mail and Fox News with same factual rating
They specifically list Fox News as a questionable source. They explain the Mixed Factual rating as being because their beat reporting is factual, which is true -- local beat reporters out of, say, Albany aren't far-right goons pushing conspiracy theories. The Daily Mail is rated low credibility and low for factual reporting. You're treating all "Mixed Factual" sources as essentially the same but they're not and aren't intended to be. There are numerous ways to end up with with a Mixed Factual rating, some more serious than others, including uncorrected failed fact-checks, poor sourcing, and lack of transparency by, for example, obfuscating sources by not citing or linking to them. You need to know the reasons and then assess whether it's a dealbreaker.
Zandt has no issues with Times of Israel being left and factual.
They rate the Times of Israel as being center-left. That rating is the least important thing on that site and they're basically trying to do something that's impossible. Left and Right are relative. They feel objective to everyone but vary considerably over time and space. Many (maybe most) Democrats would be Conservatives here in Canada. Being right-wing in the US means something pretty wildly different today than it did 20 years ago. Being "center-left" usually even means something different at the municipal level than federal. There is no universal definition of center-left. That metric is probably most useful at the extremes, but I typically pay little attention to it and wouldn't treat it as anything more than a rough ballpark figure.
Do you have examples of Times of Israel not being factual? People seem to hate them right now because they have "Israel" in their name and it's more asserted as "everyone knows" rather than pointing to any analysis I've seen. I'm not aware of any serious retractions or scandals and I'm almost always able to verify their reporting through other sources (there aren't many English sources reporting on daily goings-on at the Knesset). I did a quick search and couldn't find anything that doesn't reinforce MBFC's assessment. I'd be happy to read whatever you send my way though. Their description of TOI's slight shift toward government perspective since Oct 7 seems accurate. It's also not surprising and happens in every country at war. Ukrainian media, for example, is less critical of the government now than before the full-scale invasion; US media was less critical of the government post-9/11. Most of their reporting is just straight-ahead reporting without editorializing. Looking at their site now, I can't see anything that would even be controversial and their top stories have all been reported by numerous news orgs.
The Nazi spirit in Germany never went away, hence why they're both pro-Zionist (who are the modern age Nazis) and anti-Semite.
Shittiest take of the year! Congrats!
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/