Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2089 of them)
It's very tricky. Nearly 18% said Judaism was “intolerant” -- even that isn't necessarily anti-semitic; I would saw that Islam, or any faith, really, is "intolerant" too. The Holocaust point is probably more worrying -- this was a cross-Europe poll, so held in countries considerably more culpable in this respect than the UK. Many quasi-Leftists fall on this position when attacking Israel, which is a vile position to hold, lacking in sympathy -- and I'm speaking as someone who is critical of Israel.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:39 (10 years ago) Permalink

I've often thought the biggest problem with the often nebulous and knee-jerk accusations of anti-semitism is that there is an extri special word for it (ie it ain't called Anti-Judaism). Islamophobic is incleasingly being brought in to mean a similar kind of thing for Islam - though certainly not as loaded. But there is no real offical word for hating Christians.

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:46 (10 years ago) Permalink

It's not vile to be desperately upset with Israel's treatment of Palestinians is it, given the circumstances of the founding of Israel from a political standpoint? Admittedly, the founding of Israel on the ground kinda started to whole treatment of Palestinaians thing thing, but...

Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:48 (10 years ago) Permalink

Hmm, the Holocaust one I'm not entirely convinced about, Enrique. Some Jewish people argue, not that it is time to forget, but time to get out of a victim-casting obsession with past persecution. Not because they are self-haters, but because they think it helps Jewish culture move on, and because in certain hands, the Holocaust issue is almost used as a trump card in all arguments, which is obviously irritating.

I accept that “Jews should stop playing the victim for the Holocaust and the persecutions of 50 years ago” is anastily-worded statement and I'm not saying I would agree with it. And yeah, maybe it's not for gentiles to say any of these things anyway.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:50 (10 years ago) Permalink

It's a bit vile to say that Israel only exists because the Jews 'used' the Holocaust as leverage, which is what a lot of revisionist leftists do in their attempt to undermine Israel's legitimacy as a nation. In its less nuanced uses, this is what the Finkelstein book does. Obviousy it shouldn't be used to justify current hostilities against the Palestinians, but I can understand why it was used back in the 1940s, when the area was a British mandate-colony.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:52 (10 years ago) Permalink

What we learned from the Holocaust is that it is a very wrong idea to separate people out according to religion/sexuality (remember Catholics and homosexuals also suffered there), place them in internment camps and then kill them. What we learned from apartheid is that it is wrong to separate people out by skin colour and deny them access to cities and areas and basic civil rights as if on a whim. I would suggest to Israelis of a 'pioneer' bent to learn from the Holocaust and apartheid the lesson about onetime victims relishing their turn on bully duty, and to find a way to resist.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:00 (10 years ago) Permalink

i thought it said 'jews should stop "playing the violin" for the holocaust'... i wish they had worded it that way because i don't think nearly as many people would be in favour of stopping violins!

jeremy jordan (cruisy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:01 (10 years ago) Permalink

Is it racist to say that a religion is intolerant? It would certianly be racist to say that Jews were intolerant.

It is not true that Judaism is intolerant, but saying it is might have all manner of motives, not necessarily racist ones. Although not excluding racist ones, either. For instance, someone might believe that Judaism is intolerant because its rituals can comes across as dogmatic and strict, such as not allowing you to use the car on a Friday. But this is not actually intolerance. To say that Judaism is intolerant implies that the religion or the culture has no sympathy for outsiders or other cultures. This is not true. Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy.

Of course, I'm not talking about any particular state or government here, just the teachings of the religions.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:02 (10 years ago) Permalink

Um, the Balfour Declaration dates back to long before the Holocaust.

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:03 (10 years ago) Permalink

How much of the fear and mistrust of Judaism comes from it being a non-evangelical religion (menkos Jews 4 Jebus notwithstanding).

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

Um, the Balfour Declaration dates back to long before the Holocaust.

Sure it does, but the Holocaust was a major part of the ideological constellation that led to Israel being set up. As you know, the Balfour declaration was no road-map, and of course had its Nazi counterparts (ie setting up of Jewish homeland far away from Europe).

Judaism, like Islam, is a religion of love and charity, which is not confined to the community but extends as far as loving the enemy. But neither are interpreted like that, or at least they aren't so often. The problem is the conflation of race and religion -- I think Ed made me think on this. I don't think it's racist to take issue with faith -- no-one will call me racist for having a problem with Christianity's views on homosexuality, for example.


Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

You're right, Enrique, about no-one calling you racist for taking issue with Christianity's dogma on sexuality. But what about the statement that Judaism might be about love and charity in principle but is is not interpreted like that? Do you mean actual Jews don't act out of love and charity? Or do you mean gentiles don't regard Judaism as about love and charity?

If you think that Judaism is about love and charity but Jews don't act as if it is, then that's already sounding like an attack on the race not the religion to me...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

Pete, that's not at the heart of it at all. The Romans/Greeks didn't really 'get' monotheism, but it's the crapness of Christianity and its prostletysing that created a great deal of anti-Semitic sentiment, what with chasing the money-lenders out of the temple yada yada and people judging ALL Jews as usurers/cash-obsessed/cleverer than. I'm pretty bloody thankful I went to school with thousands of Jews, because they had in their favour a belief in the power of learning and education being a pathway to aspirations. Their parents were the best agitators for getting stuff done for everyone in my town that I've ever experienced.

Again: all bigotry is a manifestation of the bigot's insecurity, usually unsubstantiated.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

So, has anybody got any idea why someone would say that Judaism is intolerant? (I'm not asking if any of you are racist, I'm just wondering if anyone has any examples or good guesses about purported Judaic intolerance... And I mean the religion, not the state or Isreal or somesuch)

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:21 (10 years ago) Permalink

Hmm, interesting. I suppose I was thinking that the idea of not wanting to spread "the good news", being a closed community pretty much marks you out as The Other, but certainly the other factors you point out seem a fair bit more convincing.

How has Christianity dealt with the Jesus as king of Jews thing?

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

Dave, you've already said it's intolerant of several things (like allowing you to use the car on a Friday). You also explained why this doesn't mean the same as 'intolerant' to you. I understand that, but 'intolerant' means different things to different people.

Perhaps the main point of this thread was that I hate ambiguously worded questionnaires, esp. if they're deliberately so.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:26 (10 years ago) Permalink

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:30 (10 years ago) Permalink

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:33 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't mean that it doesn't mean intolerant to me, I mean it is not what intolerant means. Intolerance is an unwillingness to endure differing opinions. Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law. Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.

If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:34 (10 years ago) Permalink

good point, what about forcible removal of non-jews and 'pioneer' settling though?

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:35 (10 years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (10 years ago) Permalink

Is a state intolerant for forbidding someone to open his business, or restricting his hours of busines by law on the Sabbath no matter what his religion?

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:37 (10 years ago) Permalink

in·tol·er·ant    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-tlr-nt)
adj.

Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.


I'd say a) is pretty different to b)

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:38 (10 years ago) Permalink

That's Isreal, not Judaism
-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004 1:37 PM.


because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?
-- Stringent Stepper (stringen...), January 27th, 2004 1:30 PM.

there you go mate

Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:39 (10 years ago) Permalink

the State may well be intolerant if it restricted business hours for citizens who don't share the law of the Sabbath, but the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:40 (10 years ago) Permalink

So, if the problem is the conflation of the state and the religion, does that mean it is racist to say that Judaism is intolerant instead of saying that Isreal is intolerant?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

Huzzah, The UK is intolerant (no shock there....)

Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (10 years ago) Permalink

Well, a lot of places in London settled by Jews had Sunday trading by dint of being closed on Saturday for Sabbath: see Brick Lane/Whitechapel, Golders Green/Hampstead.

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:44 (10 years ago) Permalink

the religion isn't intolerant because the state does this

I don't know enough about the tenets of Judaism to go into it, but by analogy -- it *is* intolerant if it sanctions the law, surely?

Judaism != Jews, maybe, run it off? It's clumsy, but race and religion are not the same. So it isn't racist to criticize a faith? I doin't know.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:46 (10 years ago) Permalink

Religious Law is not intolerant of those who break religious law.

Surely religious las IS intolerant of people who break it. I'm guessing there must be punishments for transgression, even if it's just an evil look during church - and that kind of emotional punishment can be extremely effective/painful, especially in close-knit communities and ones where the people have a God's good will yo lose.



Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.
If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004.

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

Also, not being allowed to drive on a Sunday (or Saturday) IS intolerant: intolerant toward Jews. I think most religions are least tolerant of their own.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:52 (10 years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:55 (10 years ago) Permalink

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (10 years ago) Permalink

how could a religion as old as the hills sanction a state as young as Isreal? Still less the acts of the leaders of such a state.

The ideological screen idea is itself an ideological screen.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:34 (10 years ago) Permalink

Ideologies don't screen. They are productive not obstructive. Eagleton at one point uses the example of the phrase "the Prince of Wales is a nice chap". This is ideological because it produces a certain effect (support for the Royals as people) not because it hides the real social relations (Royals are social leeches, or etc). The fact that it makes no mention of politics, economics, and so on does not mean that it is a screen any more than a black and white photo can be said to be a screen against colour.

As such, juridprudence is not an ideological screen; it is ideological. That doesn't mean it is no different from other ideas or opinions. Opinions that are ratified and authorised are not opinions in the same way as opinions that are not.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.

Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:46 (10 years ago) Permalink

yes, I agree.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (10 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

Enough with the kvetching!

suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

kvetching - one of my favourites. A friend calls her young baby a kvetch box

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:47 (10 years ago) Permalink

Every time you moan you have to put a coin in the kvetch box.

Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:55 (10 years ago) Permalink

[all babies are young, aren't they... doh!]

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (10 years ago) Permalink

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.
That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

-- Ricardo (boyofbadger...), January 27th, 2004.

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law isn't it? Isn't what I've said what that all boils down too?

Where _is_ the depth?
It's simple isn't it?

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:00 (10 years ago) Permalink

Can you explain how it all boils down to opinion?

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (10 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we Jews are barely tolerant of each other, let alone the rest of you.
-- Chuck Tatum (sappy_papp...), January 27th, 2004.

See! Told you!

And more kvetchup please!

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (10 years ago) Permalink

Laws (attempt to) make people behave in the ways other people _think_ they should behave.

How humans should behave is a matter of opinion. Different religions, for example, havie differing opinions.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:02 (10 years ago) Permalink

Sorry -- it was just my little joke. Nonetheless, I think it's interestingly provocative to call laws 'opinions'.
-- Enrique (miltonpinsk...), January 27th, 2004.

To clarify, laws themselves aren't exactly opinions, but what they attempt to enshrine as 'right' and 'wrong' ARE opinions.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

I might break the law even though I agree with it generally, but I may also break the law because I have a different opinion as to what is 'rihgt' and what is 'wrong'.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

who are these other people? Don't the laws apply to the people who write them? (Seriously)

If laws are backed by the state (and, after all, that's what makes them laws, rather than guidelines or codes or something else) then they are not just opinions, they are sanctified, ordered, institutionalied, backed up by the criminal justice system etc. I'm not saying power and hierarchy and stuff aren't involved -- of course they are -- but laws don't get to be laws without going through a socially sanctioned process.

The case of breaking the law because you have a different opinion (civil disobedience etc) does not mean that the law is treated as opinion it means that laws are seen as arbitrary and changeble, so that collective action can bring about social changes that force laws to change.

run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:07 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yes they do apply to those that write them (or they're supposed to).

Yes, they are socially sanctioned, they are the combined opinions of a lot of people.

mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:09 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yes, I should have paid more attention to the wording, sorry.

xxp

pick it up for ripple laser (onimo), Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:06 (2 months ago) Permalink

just check the elders-of-zion magic 8 ball™.

Daniel, Esq 2, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:07 (2 months ago) Permalink

I still never quite get the point of these surveys and feel like the results get hyped up a bit. What is the significance of people in a country with few or no Jews thinking that Jews have "too much power in business"? Isn't the question itself kind of planting or fostering the idea, for that matter? We're talking largely about people for whom Jews are an abstract concept.

Doritos Loco Parentis (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:08 (2 months ago) Permalink

I know you probably mean Tanzania more than Poland but the reason some of these countries have few or no Jews is not for innocuous reasons.

Mordy, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:12 (2 months ago) Permalink

I would go out on a limb and suggest that as far as places Jews actually live, the world has rarely been safer for Jews.

Doritos Loco Parentis (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:15 (2 months ago) Permalink

I agree, but that's because half of world jewry is in Israel and the other half is (with some exceptions) in English-speaking countries.

Mordy, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:15 (2 months ago) Permalink

Like let's not get too excited that the Jews finally figured out that it wasn't safe to live in 99% of the world. That's hardly something for humanity to congratulate themselves on.

Mordy, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:17 (2 months ago) Permalink

Foxman described finding “incredibly low levels of anti-Semitic beliefs” in European Protestant-majority countries such as Denmark, the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Sweden.

We win the competition

A frenzied geologist (Tom D.), Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:21 (2 months ago) Permalink

the other half is (with some exceptions) in English-speaking countries

I assume you mean the US, there's more Jews in France and in the UK (not checked the figures but pretty sure that's the case)

A frenzied geologist (Tom D.), Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:22 (2 months ago) Permalink

in France THAN the UK!!!!!

A frenzied geologist (Tom D.), Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:23 (2 months ago) Permalink

France is the big exception. The vast majority of diaspora Jews are in anglo countries (US, Canada, UK, Australia, South Africa).

Mordy, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:23 (2 months ago) Permalink

But yeah, you're right, the US is the biggest piece there.

Mordy, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 16:26 (2 months ago) Permalink

I would go out on a limb and suggest that as far as places Jews actually live, the world has rarely been safer for Jews.

― Doritos Loco Parentis (Hurting 2), Tuesday, May 13, 2014

like others have said, generally speaking, this is probably true. but these are scary times for the (relatively small) jewish populations of eastern european countries, like ukraine.

Daniel, Esq 2, Tuesday, 13 May 2014 17:24 (2 months ago) Permalink

as usual the ADL's notion of what constitutes anti-semitism is really fucked up. i wouldn't have trusted this study had they not outsourced it to a reputable 3rd party.

display name changed. (amateurist), Friday, 16 May 2014 00:05 (2 months ago) Permalink

i think in general it speaks more to poor education than anti-semitism--though that's not as true in mideast to be sure.

also, i wonder how many americans know about the violence that accompanied the partition of india? (that cost possibly a million lives) 1%? .001%?

display name changed. (amateurist), Friday, 16 May 2014 00:06 (2 months ago) Permalink

considering the findings of the study maybe the ADL (and Foxman) have legitimate reasons to be so on guard about anti-semitism.

Mordy, Friday, 16 May 2014 00:06 (2 months ago) Permalink

only 57% of eastern europe believes the holocaust has been accurately described by history

lol, ok eastern europe

Mordy, Friday, 16 May 2014 00:08 (2 months ago) Permalink

there is much reason to be on guard about anti-semitism, unfortunately the ADL are horrible people who appear to believe that any criticism of whatever regime is in power in israel constitutes unquestioned anti-seminism and get a lot of rhetorical mileage out of blurring these distinctions.

foxman is a complete asshole.

display name changed. (amateurist), Friday, 16 May 2014 00:32 (2 months ago) Permalink

last three posts otm

Daniel, Esq 2, Friday, 16 May 2014 00:49 (2 months ago) Permalink

only 57℅ of eastern europe believes the holocaust has been accurately described by history

Accepting the results at face value, it would be interesting to see this figure compared to the number of people in the region who think the number of Jewish deaths is greatly exaggerated, which seems to have been a separate question.

Yuri Bashment (ShariVari), Friday, 16 May 2014 05:20 (2 months ago) Permalink

I also just wonder about some of these survey questions if they don't lead people who have barely given the issue a second thought in their lives to state a conclusion

Doritos Loco Parentis (Hurting 2), Friday, 16 May 2014 06:03 (2 months ago) Permalink

this is such a bummer. my brother was just in brussels last week visiting his in-laws and i planned to go in the next year for a beer tour :/ oh belgium.

Mordy, Sunday, 25 May 2014 23:53 (1 month ago) Permalink

think we can fairly safely say 'yes' in this case tbh

English cunt read Guardian (imago), Sunday, 25 May 2014 23:55 (1 month ago) Permalink

have we talking about FN + ms le pen winning today anywhere? apparently 2 jews were attacked in paris today. bet both of these things speed along the french-jewish emigration

Mordy, Monday, 26 May 2014 00:00 (1 month ago) Permalink

oh god le pen is still fucken at it

English cunt read Guardian (imago), Monday, 26 May 2014 00:01 (1 month ago) Permalink

more popular than ever it seems

display name changed. (amateurist), Monday, 26 May 2014 09:03 (1 month ago) Permalink

Lately in europe it seems like ww2 never happened

Οὖτις, Monday, 26 May 2014 14:05 (1 month ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

Oldman continued. "I don’t blame him. So they persecute. Mel Gibson is in a town that’s run by Jews and he said the wrong thing because he’s actually bitten the hand that I guess has fed him—and doesn’t need to feed him anymore because he’s got enough dough. He’s like an outcast, a leper, you know? But some Jewish guy in his office somewhere hasn’t turned and said, 'That f--king kraut' or 'F--k those Germans,' whatever it is?

yes because a Jew disparaging Germans is totally analogous to a Catholic disparaging Jews, yup, totally the same thing.

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 15:59 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

Man, remember when the Jews murdered all those Germans and Catholics, that was just awful.

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 16:00 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

I have never in my entire life heard a Jewish guy say "that fucking kraut" fwiw.

Hier Komme Die Warum Jetzt (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 24 June 2014 16:06 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

"imagine all the people racist like me"

bnw, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 16:10 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

I'm pretty sure I have made some disparaging remarks about Germans while watching something on TV about Nazis

"kraut" is something only WWII vets say ime

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 16:18 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

PLAYBOY: Who speaks the truth in this culture, in your opinion?

OLDMAN: There are a number of people. A voice I particularly like is Charles Kraut-hammer

Gary loves his krauts though!

how's life, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 16:21 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

ugh I can let some clueless racism slide now and then but being into the Childcatcher is beyond the pale

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 16:23 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

the 'that's not analogous!' line, idk. not that it seems to apply here tbh.

leave the web boys alone (darraghmac), Tuesday, 24 June 2014 16:31 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

do tell

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 16:46 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

the worst anti-german sentiments i've heard (and tbh, expressed) in the jewish community use metonymy to link all germans to nazism. so when someone (like my brother) buys a VW, someone might teasingly say, "i can't believe you drive a Nazi car." tbf, VW worked w/ the Nazis and thus such a joke might not be mocking all germans but the specific company. still, i don't know any jews who ever hate germans vis-a-vis the german ppl themselves, only regarding the holocaust. esp since in 2014 jews actually have a fairly close relationship w/ germany bc of things like a) huge jewish immigration from former soviet states to berlin, b) reparations and close relationship between israel + germany today, c) very severe laws against anti-semitism in modern germany.

Mordy, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 16:51 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

someone might teasingly say, "i can't believe you drive a Nazi car."

lol yes. full confession I did makes this exact joke recently when a Jewish buddy bought a Mercedes

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 16:54 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

I know Jews who will not travel to/through Germany, not out of fear, but as a kind of pointless statement.

maybe/whatever/so what/boring (admrl), Tuesday, 24 June 2014 17:20 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

iirc our own mordy has said he would never travel in eastern europe

seems v different from uttering slurs though

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 17:23 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

and tbf there's a lot of emerging antisemitism in Eastern Europe these days.

building a desert (art), Tuesday, 24 June 2014 17:34 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

yes, i've said i would not travel in eastern europe - partially bc of anger and partially bc i think it's an unnecessary risk (and i'm not sure i'd feel comfortable not wearing a yarmulke just to avoid pissing off anti-semites). ironically tho re this conversation germany is much more likely that i'd visit bc of all the progress they've made (and also bc i'd like to drink berliner weisses), and i'd be much more likely in 2014 to visit berlin than paris.

Mordy, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 17:35 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

Man, remember when the Jews murdered all those Germans and Catholics, that was just awful.

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, June 24, 2014 11:00 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

karlmarx.jpg

goole, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 17:36 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

kidding! kidding, totally kidding

goole, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 17:36 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

it's probably safer to be a jew in berlin than in many parts of america

iatee, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 17:37 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

marx was pretty much the definition of a self-hating jew

Mordy, Tuesday, 24 June 2014 17:37 (4 weeks ago) Permalink

4 weeks pass...

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.