you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -29 points 2 days ago (12 children)

The last one is straightforwardly antisemitic, the others are just unnecessarily hateful if you know a lawyer.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)
  • [+] -10 points 2 days ago

    No, but "Jews drinking blood" is an old classic of the genre.

    I'm not a Zionist, I'm just pointing out a historical linguistic parallel. 😄

    If I was a Zionist I'd probably call all of these anti-semitic because "Jewish lawyer" is also a thing. However, not nearly a strong enough thing to be antisemitic on its own, which is why I picked out the vampire one. Two insults usually aimed at Jewish people? That nudges it above the level for me.

    Bear in mind, I do not think the author was a bigot, or racist, any of that. I definitely don't think anyone would be a bigot for posting this. I just wanted to point out the interesting origins of a classic old joke.

    Maybe it would be more accurate to say "The vampire one has more direct antisemitic roots, while the others probably just originate from people who lost in court."

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    A joke neither directly referencing, vaguely alluding to, or attempting to draw parallels to Jews, being described as “straightforwardly antisemetic” is the most manufactured outrage I’ve seen on Lemmy so far.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Yeah, I agree, "straightforwardly antisemitic" really needs some direct reference to Judaism in the material. I definitely got that wrong. Dunno what I was thinking there. "I straightforwardly noticed an indirect reference to a bigoted trope" maybe got whacked around in my blender of a mind.

    Downvotes deserved. 😄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Based on this and the reest of the subthread, while I can't upvote the initial comment, I'm just pointing out that I've upvoted the entire subthread because we should encourage such discussions - especially ones that don't devolve into personal attacks and arguments. This subthread discussed the issue and pretty much cleared things up. While I knew basically all of this in this instance, with these types of discussions, I often learn things that are good to know.

    So I encourage folks to see this as a positive, and encourage it. :)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    Indeed! I am always a bit happy to get corrected on something, because it means I just learned something. It also means I will start spreading more accurate information in all my discussions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    Please explain how that could possibly be "anti-semetic"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

    Classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy:

    because the totality of antisemitic tropes include some about blood sucking, some Zionists and other misguided people assume that all blood sucking tropes are antisemitic. 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I just didn't see what it had to do with lawyers. Mind you, the bottom of the sea has nothing to do with lawyers either and I don't think I associate that with anti-mermaid tropes.

    What can I say, I got this one totally wrong. Cheers all for putting it right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment