Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3569 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve 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 (twelve years ago) Permalink

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

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

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

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

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

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

That's Isreal, not Judaism

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

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

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

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

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

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

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

yes, I agree.

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

Enough with the kvetching!

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

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

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

Smear the queer was banned in my school, but there was a brief period where my friends and I played it after school. I was always the queer! I didn't even know it was supposed to be offensive until one day I went home and told my mom what we had been playing. We came from a good progressive neighborhood, so it was obvious we'd have to change it. From there on out, we played Stymie the Hymie.

how's life, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 09:55 (three months ago) Permalink

I didn't learn that name for the game until I moved to Georgia as a teen, by which time I knew that it was a slur. in FLA it was Kill the Carrier.

droit au butt (Euler), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 15:24 (three months ago) Permalink

Does anyone remember how the game worked, i.e. how the "queer" was chosen? My memories of the game are very vague, except feeling like there was something menacing about it and not really wanting to play.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 15:42 (three months ago) Permalink

i remember it very clearly and enjoyed it heartily as a rambunctious 7 year old. the teacher had all the kids mob up and they threw the ball in the middle and whoever got it took off running in one direction.

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 15:57 (three months ago) Permalink

^ that's how i remember the rules, such as they were. a nerf football is thrown or kicked & whoever catches it gets mobbed by everyone else. you could throw the ball away to avoid getting pigpiled, but having it was both goal & curse, so everyone was trying to grab it. fun, brutal game. and, yeah, we always called it smear the queer. this in the DC suburbs, mid-to-late 70s.

oculus lump (contenderizer), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:14 (three months ago) Permalink

v familiar with this game, def played it, also known as Kill the Pill etc.

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:22 (three months ago) Permalink

We called it Smear the Queer too but we were elementary students in a glorified farm town before the invention of the internet. This guy I overheard was a 50-something lifetime New Yorker.

If authoritarianism is Romania's ironing board, then (in orbit), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:24 (three months ago) Permalink

really thought this was a "just me" thing

http://ask.metafilter.com/284756/Do-kids-still-play-a-game-they-call-smear-the-queer
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40545754?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://ittakesateam.blogspot.com/2010/12/smear-queer-when-tradition-needs-to-be.html

in even more pernicious childhood memories, i also recall a grammar school varietal of freeze tag in our recently segregated school called "run nigger run" where whoever was 'it' had to keep running until they tagged someone else or couldn't run any more and if they stopped they were out. then the teacher (or was it the oldest or strongest boy? i only remember it was someone in a position of primacy) would tag another kid, yell "run nigger run" and then that kid is it and we all kept playing until no one could run anymore, last man standing wins. i liked to run a lot and i was pretty good at it. Came home one day after i won to proudly tell my parents and that's when i found out that was a word we weren't supposed to say. after that i didn't play that game anymore. at some point our school followed suit; i don't remember when it stopped but it was after fourth grade.

i'd check to see if this was a 'just me' thing as well, but damned if i'm gonna google that. i have a sad roster of grammar school bigotry stashed in my memory; i imagine that's common for all gen-xers and peripheral 80's babies.

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:28 (three months ago) Permalink

this is maybe a different thread

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:29 (three months ago) Permalink

it's super obvious in retrospect but "smear the queer" was essentially a tool to teach gut response mob reactions to seven year olds

De La Soul is no Major Lazer (ulysses), Wednesday, 15 June 2016 16:34 (three months ago) Permalink

i've told myself i won't watch holocaust movies any more but this one looks interesting:

Mordy, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 23:08 (three months ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

when i first saw the trump jewish star thing my impression was that i could easily see why ppl would be offended but the six-sided star icon itself is generic enough that i assumed it was much ado about nothing. obviously that changed when i learned its provenience (and when david duke praised it), but it does make me wonder about the right-wing and jew baiting in general. like overt hate (pictures of jewish journalists superimposed over gas chambers, or the obnoxious "oy annudah shoah" meme) is easy to recognize. when it comes to israel it's a whole other thing (trying to determine to what extent israel or zionism is acting as a stand-in for jews, and what kinds of criticisms are designed to exploit that ambiguity), but then there's this thing where it's like "is it a dog whistle or isn't it" - even the covering up of the star with a circle that doesn't cover all the points - it seems like duke is reading that as a comment itself "revealing the hidden hand" that i guess is hiding behind the circle. surely they could've just covered the whole thing up? idk this probably sounds weird coming from me but i feel like maybe i haven't been sensitive enough to this kind of thing? maybe bc of the recent star of david apparel thing i felt more conflicted? but that one was clearly a sheriff star bc of the rounded points whereas this one doesn't even have that (and that one actually looked like concentration camp clothing whereas this one was just red -- i joked that maybe red bc "communism" and jews but who the fuck really even knows - i know i don't want to spend my life trying to figure it out tho). anyway, i know this long paragraph doesn't have much of a point - just thinking out loud.

Mordy, Thursday, 7 July 2016 00:12 (two months ago) Permalink

fwiw, as an outsider who occasionally thinks fear of anti-semitism is (understandably) paranoid this seemed like an obvious dog whistle to me

ogmor, Thursday, 7 July 2016 09:02 (two months ago) Permalink

I feel some conflict about situations like these because there's always this feeling for me that, if it really is a dog whistle for the right wing fringe that already believes what it believes, but doesn't convey any particular message to anyone else, does blowing it up into a huge media event actually benefit anyone? I guess to the extent it hurts Trump, it does, but I'm not sure whether it actually hurts Trump.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Thursday, 7 July 2016 14:04 (two months ago) Permalink

I think it's complicated with Trump because he's both a) clearly a bigot and b) clearly a hapless moron who just reposts things he agrees with without considering the source or any subtext and then doubles down on the pathetic excuses because he is congenitally incapable of apologizing or admitting that he made a mistake. But because a) is a thing, I feel like it's totally acceptable to assume a) even if it's actually b).

There must be some magic clue inside these gentle walls (Old Lunch), Thursday, 7 July 2016 14:26 (two months ago) Permalink

Sometimes the line between heartfelt bigot and opportunistic bigot is very blurry. I think he's more the latter, but that's been true of many dangerous demagogues.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Thursday, 7 July 2016 14:36 (two months ago) Permalink

As has been discussed elsewhere, the heartfelt vs opportunistic bigot distinction is one without a difference.

Sean, let me be clear (silby), Thursday, 7 July 2016 15:43 (two months ago) Permalink

Jacob Schulder, another cousin, went even further in a comment on Marc Kushner’s post, writing: “When an out of touch with reality nominee hires an out of touch with reality campaign manager, who is also a son­-in-­law, you get the BS Jared wrote. I don't think Trump is an anti­Semite; I think he's a lying idiot (among other things) with little to no experiences outside his teetering fiefdom of failed development projects, divorces, bankrupted sports leagues, fraudulent "Universities" and golf courses (and the list keeps going). The very first thing a responsible campaign manager should do, I'd think, and I mean the very first thing, would be to take away his father-­in­-law's Twitter account. Even Joseph Kushner would've had the street smarts to figure that one out while living on boiled potatoes in the forest.”

O_O

Mordy, Thursday, 7 July 2016 16:12 (two months ago) Permalink

this is pretty o_0, from old Vanity Fair article from the 1990

Οὖτις, Thursday, 7 July 2016 16:40 (two months ago) Permalink

I would never read them just channel them

They could have been Stackridge. (Tom D.), Thursday, 7 July 2016 16:49 (two months ago) Permalink

"I am his friend, but I'm not Jewish." !!!

Mordy, Thursday, 7 July 2016 16:50 (two months ago) Permalink

well he does work at Paramount, which is staffed entirely by Jews, dontchaknow. Honest mistake!

Οὖτις, Thursday, 7 July 2016 16:57 (two months ago) Permalink

i wonder if right-wing jews who keep defending trump would also vote for david duke if he were the R nominee.

Mordy, Thursday, 7 July 2016 17:07 (two months ago) Permalink

Certainly the neocons would all be voting HRC I'd have to think

Sean, let me be clear (silby), Thursday, 7 July 2016 17:10 (two months ago) Permalink

i think so - but the neocons were dems originally anyway so the movement historically isn't dogmatically partisan

Mordy, Thursday, 7 July 2016 17:15 (two months ago) Permalink

i'm thinking more about the jewish republicans posting on every forward / tablet / haaretz / jpost article about trump + antisemitism defending him

Mordy, Thursday, 7 July 2016 17:16 (two months ago) Permalink

ugh is that really a thing

Οὖτις, Thursday, 7 July 2016 17:18 (two months ago) Permalink

does this mean I finally have an opportunity to throw the "self-hating Jew" accusation back at right-wing Jews

Οὖτις, Thursday, 7 July 2016 17:19 (two months ago) Permalink

the big deflection today is that hillary is apparently best friends w/ max blumenthal so obviously trump is the better choice for jews (nevermind that her campaign denounced his wiesel comments yesterday)

Mordy, Thursday, 7 July 2016 17:20 (two months ago) Permalink

Man, that Jacob Schulder quote is hall of fame.

Dan is a ‪#‎VegetablePuppet‬, he is NOT REAL. ‪#‎flatearth (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 7 July 2016 17:30 (two months ago) Permalink

yeah p blazing

Οὖτις, Thursday, 7 July 2016 17:41 (two months ago) Permalink

the thing this, i absolutely believe that trump kept a copy of hitler’s speeches but didn’t read them. do you think he reads anything longer than a page or two?

wizzz! (amateurist), Thursday, 7 July 2016 18:13 (two months ago) Permalink

Just skips to the good bits.

They could have been Stackridge. (Tom D.), Thursday, 7 July 2016 18:15 (two months ago) Permalink

imo he believes in the power of totems -- gold-plated everything means you're rich, marrying models means you're attractive, lots of yelling while standing near Hitler books means you're consolidating power like a fascist dictator

mh, Thursday, 7 July 2016 18:20 (two months ago) Permalink

taking lots of diet pills for energy means you are young and vigorous

mh, Thursday, 7 July 2016 18:21 (two months ago) Permalink

best thing about that story is the guy named Marty who works in Hollywood turning out not to be Jewish.

socka flocka-jones (man alive), Thursday, 7 July 2016 18:31 (two months ago) Permalink

he really doesn't wanna let this go, huh

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Thursday, 7 July 2016 18:55 (two months ago) Permalink

by my theory, he will have an event in a bank or in hollywood to show he is a friend of the jewish people

mh, Thursday, 7 July 2016 18:56 (two months ago) Permalink

gold-plated everything means you're rich

tbf

ejemplo (crüt), Thursday, 7 July 2016 19:00 (two months ago) Permalink

Or, like the cubic zirconium cuff links he hands out, the color of gold alone denotes wealth.

some anal dread (Old Lunch), Thursday, 7 July 2016 19:02 (two months ago) Permalink

don't think he understands the diff between "gaudy" and "rich"

mh, Thursday, 7 July 2016 19:07 (two months ago) Permalink

a 47-year-old chainsaw artist from South Carolina (Phil D.), Thursday, 7 July 2016 19:30 (two months ago) Permalink

a 47-year-old chainsaw artist from South Carolina (Phil D.), Thursday, 7 July 2016 19:31 (two months ago) Permalink

"you know how much of a fan of the jewish people i am...
*pulls strange orange penis out, brandishes it to camera*
... i'm circumcised! you can't BEAT THAT for jewish."

thrusted pelvis-first back (ulysses), Thursday, 7 July 2016 21:07 (two months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

Polish soccer fans torch 'Jewish' effigies, fly banner calling for burning of Jews

this is nuts. & this article says that this happens in the UK also, with Tottenham Hotspur ? "just a bit of fun"? awful.

droit au butt (Euler), Wednesday, 31 August 2016 14:48 (three weeks ago) Permalink

This is Polish 4th division football, iirc, so not massively high-profile but there's a similar issue with Cracovia and Wisla Krakow - first division clubs. Wisla fans spray swastikas on the walls of Cracovia areas or the other way round.

Tottenham (and Ajax Amsterdam) are both clubs with traditional Jewish support but there's no burning of effigies. Chelsea fans have famously always hissed at Spurs supporters (to replicate the sound of gas chambers) but this has been stamped out to some degree (Chelsea now have a nominally Jewish owner).

On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Wednesday, 31 August 2016 14:57 (three weeks ago) Permalink

wow, I had no idea about any of this. well, I saw the story about the racist Chelsea fans on the Paris metro last year, but I figured that was just "common folks" racism, not that it was intertwined with fandom of that team.

droit au butt (Euler), Wednesday, 31 August 2016 15:05 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Chelsea have always had a lot of plain, regular racists following them as well - most clubs do tbf but they, along with West Ham and Millwall, tend to be the most high-profile offenders from the London clubs.

The line between 'genuine' antisemitism and grotesque pantomime antisemitism from supporters trying to get a rise out of Spurs / Ajax fans is difficult to gauge though. Antisemitic songs become part of the lore of some clubs in a way that's at least partially divorced from the idea of actual Jewish fans in the opposing stands.

On a Raqqa tip (ShariVari), Wednesday, 31 August 2016 15:12 (three weeks ago) Permalink


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