44 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
15 points

It’s just me mixing up languages. “Tihi” is Danish for “Teehee”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

What’s “teehee”?

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

A giggle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
3 points

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…

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
16 points
*

En masse, but I can understand how you arrived at your spelling.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

That’s not at all what you seemed to be implying

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

Yeah, but boomers are the problem! /s

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Wtf

permalink
report
parent
reply
-30 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
  1. “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”.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?)

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

<insert crying baby gif>

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points
*

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

permalink
report
reply
6 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Why were they told to stop?

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Damn. I thought the ovens were to burn corpses only. Shit. That changes everything. And yes, I would treat such place with utmost respect.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Who doesn’t like a good Genocide selfie

permalink
report
reply

Facepalm

!facepalm@lemmy.wtf

Create post

Anything that makes you apply your hand to your face.

Community stats

  • 216

    Monthly active users

  • 81

    Posts

  • 3.1K

    Comments

Community moderators