Hacker News Reader

Comment by hutzlibu | Hacker News Reader

"Jews in WW2 needed the Allies to bomb Auschwitz"

I don't really think, the jews in the camp, would have welcomed to be bombed, on top of the daily routine.

Can you elaborate how being blown to pieces would have helped anyone, except maybe a lucky person used the chaos to escape (to where exactly)?

Also I did not say anything about language equals action and were just speaking in broad terms about helping minorities.

And "jew" is not offensive, but there are offensive terms for jews. And whether banning them would have helped, I did not made any statement about.

But I forgot, it is friday and probably not the best time to comment here.

View on HN

Auschwitz was effectively a factory of death. Bombing the gas chambers, crematorium, rail lines might have helped.

About Jew: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/05/jew-not-sl...

Also forgive me if I have assumed because of the context that you argued through analogy for protecting minorities of harmful language, my bad

As a Jew, what else would you call a group of us? A flock of Jew? A gaggle of Jew? A Jewbilee?

Feel free to use the word Jews, otherwise it's just going to get weird ;)

This right here strikes at the root of the issue - if someone wants to refer to a group with hate, there is NO way to fix that by changing the term.

And changing the term to try to avoid it just results in weird terms and euphemisms, it doesn’t eliminate hate.

Human migration.

The thing that makes it weird is that "Jew" represents both a religion and a people. We really don't see that in other cultures or religions. Now as likely as my profile isn't going to be outed, but 'joining in' is a great way to be tarred as an anti-semite, whether you sincerely hate Jews or not.

And also, since you're Jewish, you're allowed to use comments and jokes like "Jewbilee". It's similar to how African Americans can use "nigga/nigger" amongst each other but is completely forbidden for anyone else. That's primarily due to the power dynamic of those words, and how they traditionally were used as a slur. This is examples where members of the group change the definition to be positive rather than negative.

I grew up with my trash of parents teaching 6 year old me to negotiate at flea markets by "jewing them down". And although I won't have children, I make a conscious choice not to continue that language. My language shapes my reality. So no.

What do you call a group of Jews though? If Jews is off the table?

I totally hear what you are saying though and I know you are coming from a good place. The Jewish race/religion thing is an odd one. Ive always considered myself Jewish by race, 99% Ashkenazi but not religion, I have no religious beliefs.

Conversation reminds me of the infamous lunar new year invite.

https://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/comments/ap6022/man_...

A Jewish group

A group of Jewish people

So in a sentence you would say

"The church is full of christians and the temple is full of a group of Jewish people"

That sounds odd.

"The church is full of Christians and the temple is full of Jews" sounds correct and treats each group equally.

I know you mean well but I just disagree with linguistic gymnastics in order to be pc

To be fair, its best not even to discuss. It's not like discussing Jewish stuff is normal... well, outside being Jewish or being a neonazi/white supremacist, or awkward discussions here.

But discussing here, I try to keep as neutral as possible. If we're talking about the religion, I use people of Jewish faith. And if talking about Ashkenazi Jews (hereditary), I use that term. And past that, I try to keep as matter-of-factly plain simple language, and check for any colloquiums that have alternate white nationalist meanings.

But usually, this topic doesn't even come up. It's only awkward HN comment chains that have this weird political forced neutral writing. But that too is self-defense.

I hear you. I regret that we live in a society where we have to police ourselves for fear of cancellation and offence when no offence is intended.

as a fellow jew: “he’s a jew” vs “he’s a _jew_”

and “the jews run X”

i’d prefer jewish / jewish people.

we’re not a monolith, nor is any other minority group. and for that matter, navigating society and learning that not all people prefer the same terms/words/pronouns is just life.

i’m sorry people cant do and say what they please and offend others, but that’s just part of being an agreeable human and living in society

I'm not Jewish, but I find the distinction between Jewish and jew-ish to be entertaining, and really descriptive

When that congressman claimed he meant he was Jew-ish I flat out laughed. Dude is a liar and a crook and totally undeserving of serving in congress but the sheer chutzpah that took was amazing. I found myself more amused than offended. I still chuckle when I run across a reference to it.

Absolutely, each to their own but its never really bothered me. There is obviously a difference in the tone its said when used by someone like Kanye or a neo-nazi vs a rabbi. I've never really allowed myself to be defined or bothered by things like that. I've had beers with neo-nazis before with them full on knowing I was jewish. They obviously toned downed their rhetoric and we had a pretty decent conversation. No friends were made that day but it was a fun chat. Obviously there are levels to this though, they were not marching calling for my death.

> Auschwitz was effectively a factory of death. Bombing the gas chambers, crematorium, rail lines might have helped.

I think there's a misunderstanding happening here. You seem to be suggesting Auschwitz get bombed assuming it would not blowing up the Jews (and gypsies, and homosexuals, and others that made the Nazi list of "deviants") being actively imprisoned, which sounds great but would have been unfeasible. The previous reply doesn't seem to be asking what would be specifically helpfully in blowing up Auschwitz. I think it's unanimous "that factory of death was bad and making it stop is good, " so I think it's more like they're taking into account how dropping bombs in WWII actually worked, which was a pretty imprecise process. Ultimately, bombing Auschwitz would also have blown up the people held prisoner in Auschwitz, and those people might not think being blown up was super helpful for them, regardless of whether Auschwitz was destroyed in the process.

There a historical documentary film that tells the story of people who escaped Auschwitz to bring definitive proof of the atrocities happening there to the Allies.

As I recall it, their request was for the Allies to bomb Auschwitz, though presumably targeting railway lines and other elements that could knock it out of action.

Train loads of people were coming in daily to be slaughtered, over 80% were killed on arrival and were not kept as prisoners, while deaths among prisoners was very high.

This was not a static prison camps that kept the same people during the war (except for very few). That’s why I think this was effective even if bombs had hit the living quarters themselves.

You are setting up a Trolley Problem and solving it.

Such problems are known to not have correct answers, so it is reasonable to agree to disagree.

Well, they are known not to have correct answers, but in my brand of ethics risking the lives of people that are destined to die in order to save millions is pretty clear cut

Especially during a war where Dresden was fire bombed and Hiroshima was nuclear bombed

Reply on news.ycombinator.com