Sure, but can you at least recognize that conflating what's happening here to men (an internet campaign that has no signs of manifesting in the real world in any significant way) vs. what Jews have experienced is not a useful thing to do? It is a huge false equivalence. You can believe that both are bad, while also saying that one of the two is much, much worse to the point that the comparison is unjust.

> an internet campaign that has no signs of manifesting in the real world in any significant way

Then you're not paying attention. See my other links.

> You can believe that both are bad, while also saying that one of the two is much, much worse to the point that the comparison is unjust.

Your argument comes across that advocating genocide isn't really that bad, because they don't really intend to do it, and anyways, the Holocaust was worse.

I find that entirely unconvincing. Morally bankrupt may be a better description.

Your idea that men and Jews are equivalently oppressed, to the point where you seem to believe it is invalid to point out that these situations are different and require different responses, is psychotic and incredibly toxic, and I will not humor it. The evidence you provide is an overtly anti-Semitic subreddit that makes its "point" by minimizing the Holocaust via a word game, and yet you question my morals. I see a world where the "oppression" of men takes the form of a handful of anecdotes of people saying mean things (that I concede they should not say), compared the oppression of Jews that takes the form of systemic violence (https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2012/topic-pages/victims/vict... "62.4 percent [of anti-religious hate crime victims] were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias."). The willful non-recognition that these are different types of issues that require different responses is naked bigotry.

> Your idea that men and Jews are equivalently oppressed

Which is not, in fact, what I said. Or what I believe. But why let facts interfere with a good flamewar?

> you seem to believe it is invalid to point out that these situations are different and require different responses

You're missing my point. Which is explained in simple English FFS.

> The evidence you provide is an overtly anti-Semitic subreddit

Uh... no. You don't seem to be able to understand rhetoric or analogy.

No one in that subreddit advocates anti-semitism. Instead, they re-write hateful articles to show that they have the same tone and style as anti-semitic articles. And that both are wrong.

Your interpretation of these analogies is that the people are actually advocating the opinions they're mocking.

Which (again) entirely misses the point. Depressingly so.

> I see a world where the "oppression" of men takes the form of a handful of anecdotes of people saying mean things

Like advocating for the genocide of men? Which isn't entirely saying "mean things".

> The willful non-recognition that these are different types of issues that require different responses is naked bigotry.

I think your hostility comes from a point of view which prevents you from understanding what I've written.

I've tried to make it as clear as I can. Genocide is bad. Advocating for genocide is bad.

Anyone should be able to understand that.

Your point is that advocating for the genocide of some people isn't really that bad... because jewish people had it worse.

If you can't understand the immorality of such a statement, I have little more to say. If the only way you can defend such actions is to label me an anti-semite, well, that's your delusion. You're welcome to it.