You must log in or register to comment.
Was spelling “teehee” as “TIHI” intentional? “TIHI” usually stands for “Thanks, I Hate It”; which kinda works, but it’d be odd for the instagrammer to be saying that about themselves.
It’s just me mixing up languages. “Tihi” is Danish for “Teehee”.
What’s “teehee”?
A giggle.
I remember when visiting Dachau, the guide said photos were permitted but please no selfies. I had my SLR all ready, but after entering the gates it just didn’t sit right. Didn’t end up taking a single picture.
Reminds me of the time I accidentally made the Nazi salute in Theresienstadt. That was… terrible.
You see, there’s a part separate from the ghetto called the small fortress which was used to house political prisoners. I went all the way to the wall used for executions and wanted to take a photo of the area from there, but the sun was shining into the camera, so I tried covering it with my hand, but it was visible in the shot. So I slowly extended it, focusing on keeping the shadow on the camera and trying to find the right angle so it would not be in the shot.
Then I suddenly realised what it must look like and was absolutely mortified. Luckily nobody was looking in my direction at the time…
How many other places in the world could she have taken this photo? All of them.
As a start, 6 million Jews were exterminated in camps like this, as well as many, many others, including some of my relatives.
I have my views, and they aren’t shared by everyone. I am obligated at times to go to a church, and as an atheist, I keep my mouth shut and let people observe their sacred places.
This location is sacred, to many people for many reasons. Nothing about it suggests “Look at me aren’t I cute?”.
The events that happened there represent some of the worst that man can do to thier fellow man. The defeat of that ideology and liberation of these camps represent the best that man has to offer.
Men women and children died there on mass because of who they were. Men died on mass to free, protect, and avenge those people.
When you are walking on someone’s grave, please show respect. When you are walking on a peoples grave, yes, take a photo, commemorate your experience, and have the humility and humanity to do it in a way that honors those who died.
En masse, but I can understand how you arrived at your spelling.
You should never be obligated to go to Church. People are pushing their beliefs on you. You not fighting back isn’t being polite rather it’s refusing to stand up for what you believe.
I was not going go let my beliefs prevent me from going to my fathers funeral or nephews wedding.
I have never been shy about expressing my beliefs, and haven’t been compelled to a Sunday service since I was in basic training in the 90s.
That’s not at all what you seemed to be implying
i read it as “obligated to go to church” too but he wrote “obligated to go to a church”. damn english.
Yeah, but boomers are the problem! /s
Wtf
The irony here is palpable: the author demands respect for the victims of historical atrocities while using language that inadvertently excludes and marginalises. Phrases like “the worst that man can do to their fellow man” and “the best that man has to offer” are not only outdated but also insensitive, as they ignore the gender inclusivity that should be a part of any respectful discourse. Furthermore, referring to the dead collectively as “men” fails to recognise the countless women and children who also suffered and perished. This linguistic insensitivity, while perhaps unintentional, detracts from the powerful message of the rant and reveals a blind spot in the call for inclusive and universal empathy.
- “Man” in certain contexts is shorthand for “Human” or “Humankind”. Imagine how tedious it would be to write a sentence where everytime you wanted to use this shorthand, you’d instead “Men, Women and Children”.
- OP even said “Men, women and children died because of who they were”, so your point of “referring to the dead collectively as men” makes no sense.
- 99.9% of people reading OP’s comment wouldn’t have even begun thinking about this.
Overall, I think it’s more insensitive to read a comment like OP’s, and instead of taking the right point home and moving along, you decide to nitpick in an attempt at some sort of “Gotcha”, which couldn’t have been done more wrongly and with such confidence (or arrogance?)
Overall I think you’re missing the point. The terms “man” and “mankind” have historically been used to refer to humanity as a whole, but their continued use is a subtle reinforcement of a male-centric view of the world. To suggest that “mankind” encapsulates all human beings is not just an oversight; it perpetuates a narrative where men are the default and women are an afterthought. This linguistic practice not only erases the presence of women but also reinforces patriarchal structures that have long excluded them from full participation and recognition.
Language shapes our reality. When we default to male-oriented terms to describe humanity, we implicitly suggest that men are the standard against which all others are measured. This isn’t merely about semantics; it’s about recognising the inherent dignity and equality of all people. Using “humankind” or “humanity” acknowledges the full spectrum of our species, respecting the contributions and existence of everyone, not just half of the population.
The argument that such terms are convenient or traditional falls apart when we consider the power of language to shape thought. Just as we have evolved from archaic practices and beliefs, our language must evolve to reflect a more inclusive and respectful understanding of our shared human experience. clinging to “mankind” is not a mere linguistic preference; it’s a refusal to fully acknowledge and respect the equal humanity of women.
I think you are missing the point here. Whenever anyone reads “Mankind”, they think of everyone. Not just the men. It’s not making anyone an after-thought.
Although I think you are not arguing in good faith I will once again attempt to make it crystal clear to you. The argument isn’t about what people currently understand when they read “mankind,” but rather about the subtle implications and historical context of the term. Language evolves, and the shift towards more inclusive terms like “humankind” reflects a broader recognition of equality and inclusiveness.
While many people do understand “mankind” to mean all humans, the term’s roots in a male-centric view of the world can perpetuate outdated notions. By consciously choosing language that explicitly includes everyone, we make a small but significant step towards a more inclusive society. It’s about acknowledging and respecting all members of humanity equally, without relying on language that has historically excluded or marginalised women.
I can not be more clear and “on target” to the point than this.
Your point is very clear, and you need to get off the internet for a bit and interact with real people, nobody is offended by the terminology.
i don’t disagree with that person but it’s a weird hill to die on, and their behavior is an atrocious embarassment to all feminists and queer people. nobody is going to change their mind after reading that stuck-up, insulting, pendantic rant.
To assert that ‘nobody is offended by the terminology’ is to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, erroneously believing that majority opinion dictates truth. It’s a convenient but very lazy dismissal that ignores the voices of those who do feel excluded by such language.
The suggestion that discussing these issues requires more ‘real’ interaction is a classic straw man argument. It sidesteps the substance of the debate in favour of a cheap ad hominem attack. It’s a spinlessly weak attempt to undermine a valid discussion about how language evolves and impacts inclusivity.
I think itçs very important to bring up how we currently think and perceive words, after you said language shapes how we think.
The word “mankind” isn’t male-centric because no one perceives it that way. It cannot possibly be “male-centric” when it was never meant that way and when no one perceives it that way.
However, I’d like to argue that by making this new “Humankind” distinction, you’re adding the male-centric view to the term “Mankind”, when there wasn’t one associated to it in the first place.
I cannot be more clear than this, and I think you are the one arguing in bad faith here perhaps
To assert that ‘mankind’ isn’t male-centric because ‘no one perceives it that way’ is to ignore the very evidence that proves otherwise—many people do perceive it as male centric, (spend three seconds googling it ffs) this claim rests on a deeply unfounded generalisation. Furthermore, the suggestion that the introduction of ‘humankind’ retroactively imposes a male-centric view on ‘mankind’ is a form of historical revisionism. It assumes that our understanding and language cannot evolve without distorting past usage, which is plainly absurd. Language, much like our society, is in constant flux, and to deny this is to remain willfully ignorant of the dynamics that shape our communication and thought.
ill say good day to you now, as you are clearly either a misogynist or an idiot (likely a combination of the two).
<insert crying baby gif>
The phrase men used to primarily mean all humans in English. This is just nitpicking and using a historical phrase in this way doesn’t exclude anybody or detract from anything, unless you intentionally ignore contemporary use of language.
The terms “man” and “mankind” have historically been used to refer to humanity as a whole, but their continued use is a subtle reinforcement of a male-centric view of the world. To suggest that “mankind” encapsulates all human beings is not just an oversight; it perpetuates a narrative where men are the default and women are an afterthought. This linguistic practice not only erases the presence of women but also reinforces patriarchal structures that have long excluded them from full participation and recognition.
Language shapes our reality. When we default to male-oriented terms to describe humanity, we implicitly suggest that men are the standard against which all others are measured. This isn’t merely about semantics; it’s about recognising the inherent dignity and equality of all people. Using “humankind” or “humanity” acknowledges the full spectrum of our species, respecting the contributions and existence of everyone, not just half of the population.
The argument that such terms are convenient or traditional falls apart when we consider the power of language to shape thought. Just as we have evolved from archaic practices and beliefs, our language must evolve to reflect a more inclusive and respectful understanding of our shared human experience. In summary, clinging to “mankind” is not a mere linguistic preference; it’s a refusal to fully acknowledge and respect the equal humanity of women.
Sure, but this kind of advocacy doesn’t belong in conversations about respect for the dead.
Go after corporate and government uses of words used that way.
I saw groups of highschool kids laughing and joking around at Dachau and lots of amateur insta models doing their little photoshoots. On a tour of Auschwitz, we got to the oven room and some older dudes immediately started snapping pictures of the ovens and were told to stop. Cameras on phones and constant access to social media have broken people’s brains
TBF I saw the same sort of thing at Terezin twenty five years ago. There was a big group of Czech high schoolers there on a field trip, laughing and joking and being teenagers and paying no attention to the exhibits at all. A lot of brains were broken even before social media.
Why were they told to stop?
Because it’s a pretty solemn place… the guide was explaining how men, women, kids were burned - some alive - in these ovens because the Nazis didn’t want to waste bullets or spend extra time on corpse disposal, and these middle aged dudes bust out their phones while the guy is talking and start taking pictures of the inside of the ovens with flash.
Maybe you have to have been there. The atmosphere at Auschwitz is incredibly heavy given all the terrible things that happened there. Everyone seemed pretty appalled at these guys’ behavior. I was just a teenager, but I was pretty shocked.
Damn. I thought the ovens were to burn corpses only. Shit. That changes everything. And yes, I would treat such place with utmost respect.
Was there earlier this year. Often those alive were barely so due to starvation and being overworked as slaves for the surrounding industrial complexes.
And to add to the horror, it was fellow prisoners who were forced to run said ovens.
Yeah go watch the boy with the striped pajamas.
Kind of confused about taking pictures, what’s wrong with that? Isn’t it the point of keeping that place open as a museum that it’s a record of what happened? Doesn’t seem too bad to take pictures of it?
Who doesn’t like a good Genocide selfie
“‘Ey yo! I’m killin’ it in these jeans, just like they was doin’ it in the Auschwiggy!”
And here I sit watching Schindler’s List. Trying to explain to my Filipino wife that some people don’t believe it happened and those same people would do it again.
She’s quite familiar with the Japanese horrors of WWII (mom was Japanese.) She’s learning about Nazis now.
She’s learning about Nazis now?
Where do you two live?
(Better late than never, I suppose. Kudos to your wife for showing interest.)
She’s Filipino. In most parts of Asia, the holocaust is just another minor part of history. As far as horrific and evil events go, it’s up there but hardly unique. There’s a lot more focus on what the Japanese did during WW2, since that’s the action that had a lot more impact on Asians.
I’m going to let one sliver of hope in humanity in and choose to believe that she’s a descendant of Auswitz survivors and that this is her way of affirming that her family survived, thrived and looks good doing it, as a final fuck you to the Nazis. Like the smirk and the pose is her saying “this is how hard you failed fuckos”.
That’s what I’d like to believe. Or part of a group they were trying to eradicate. “You’re gone, we’re still here.”
That’s a nice headcanon
I… don’t know, man. That reeks of “Baby survives plane crash - everyone celebrates. (but FUCK the other 299 who died a horrible death, amirite?)”
You’re right that baby should feel endless guilt and never celebrate surviving that plane crash. They should lie awake every night, thinking of how “it should have been me”. They should spend their days with the weight of 299 destroyed families forever on their head because they survived.
Focus only on death and tragedy, never on life and miraculous survival. Interesting take.
More appropriately
Baby survives terrorist bombing of a plane, everyone should celebrate. Its survival is not only the victory against great odds but also a victory against human indecency and atrocity.
It is IMO victory of the rest 299 too who couldnt survive.
There was even a website compiling selfies at Holocaust memorials.
While covering your face with a self satisfied smirk. Puke
Absolute idiocy.
She’s brain dead
Technically it was a single million, but that’s a lot.
Nice ass though, I like seeing it, by far, more than millions getting railed to their deaths
You’re saying that you like seeing millions getting railed to their deaths. Fucking Nazi scum.
(I’m joking, in case it’s not apparent.)
I’ve probably killed more Nazis in Wolfenstein 3D than there were actual Nazis fighting in WW2 so I think I know a little something about socking ole Adolf right on the kisser
You’re welcome for my service, by the way
well look they say helen of troy’s face launched a thousand ships
