Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3739 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 (thirteen 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 (thirteen 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 (thirteen 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 (thirteen 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 (thirteen 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 (thirteen 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 (thirteen 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 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

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

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

because people conflate judaism with the state of isreal?

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

Or with 'all Jewish people'.

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

That's Isreal, not Judaism

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

not racist, I mean anti-semitic...

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

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

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

jurisprudence = ideological screen for repressive state apparatus

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

yes, I agree.

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

Enough with the kvetching!

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

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

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

Now That's What I Call anti-semitism.

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 27 December 2016 23:40 (one month ago) Permalink

the irony of jews running out of whitefish

A big shout out goes to the lamb chops, thos lamb chops (ulysses), Wednesday, 28 December 2016 04:13 (one month ago) Permalink

sorry sorry

A big shout out goes to the lamb chops, thos lamb chops (ulysses), Wednesday, 28 December 2016 04:13 (one month ago) Permalink

Sad lol

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 December 2016 05:13 (one month ago) Permalink

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/08/israeli-diplomat-shai-masot-plotted-against-mps-set-up-political-groups-labour

there's a legitimate story here, but is it wrong to think that some of these responses seem a little dubious?

One former minister in David Cameron’s government said the embassy’s efforts to exert improper influence on British public life went far further than any plot to “take down” unhelpful members of parliament.

Writing anonymously in the Mail on Sunday, the former minister said: “British foreign policy is in hock to Israeli influence at the heart of our politics, and those in authority have ignored what is going on.

“For years the CFI and LFI have worked with – even for – the Israeli embassy to promote Israeli policy and thwart UK government policy and the actions of ministers who try to defend Palestinian rights.”

A senior Conservative said: “No MP who has taken an active interest in the affairs of the Middle East, not least the central issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, will be unaware of the strength of the Israeli lobby. Like Israel itself they are powerful and effective and sail pretty close to the line of what is normally acceptable.”

soref, Monday, 9 January 2017 12:12 (one month ago) Permalink

How would *you* push back against neoconservative lobbyist groups? Personally, I wouldn't choose to bang on about "Israel" via an anon opinion piece in the Mail.

jane burkini (suzy), Monday, 9 January 2017 12:30 (one month ago) Permalink

seems like a tempest in an o'keefain teapot to me but i just read about Citizen Genet last night so my scale for terrible politics done by official foreign ambassadors is quite high atm.

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 15:01 (one month ago) Permalink

ton of bomb threats in US & UK today apparently - luckily not my kid's school but ppl i know's kids :/

The threats were reported against Jewish institutions in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Tennesee, South Carolina and two metropolitan areas in Florida – Miami and Jacksonville, according to local news reports. In the Miami area, institutions in Miami Beach and Kendall were affected.

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.763994

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/school-bomb-threat-1.430294

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 21:33 (one month ago) Permalink

16 JCC's apparently in all: http://www.jta.org/2017/01/09/news-opinion/united-states/across-the-us-16-jccs-get-bomb-threats-in-a-single-day

this is why there's an elaborate security system set up at my kids school w/ passes that only give access to certain wings, a front door that requires manual confirmation for entry, an extensive video camera system, and a full-time security guard

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 22:22 (one month ago) Permalink

on a not so depressing note tho this has been making the rounds and even tho i'm pretty sure i saw something like this before (maybe contrasting the first photo w/ a menorah in front of the gate) it's still something: https://twitter.com/amit_segal/status/818516201517281282

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 22:28 (one month ago) Permalink

fucking hell.

difficult listening hour, Monday, 9 January 2017 22:38 (one month ago) Permalink

(at the threats, obviously.)

difficult listening hour, Monday, 9 January 2017 22:39 (one month ago) Permalink

obv somewhat problematic that my reaction was not horror but 'thank god it was just empty threats'

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:22 (one month ago) Permalink

problem not rly with you

difficult listening hour, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:28 (one month ago) Permalink

aren't bomb threats always empty

Οὖτις, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:29 (one month ago) Permalink

not always!

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:31 (one month ago) Permalink

okay modern bomb threats

Οὖτις, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:32 (one month ago) Permalink

seems like a very rare phenomenon - some google research turned up IRA bomb threats that were real and some Vietnam-era bomb threats. presumably if you want to kill jews you don't warn them first (whereas if you're protesting Britain, or a war in vietnam, you might want to make a statement w/out casualties)

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:35 (one month ago) Permalink

I work (for a Jewish social services agency) in a building next to a JCC; building was evacuated this afternoon. We were instructed to leave and assemble next door at the--wait for it--HEBREW HOME.

Anyway I wasn't in the building at the time but it was o_O

mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Monday, 9 January 2017 23:46 (one month ago) Permalink

Meanwhile, I'm having to get a duplicate passport so I can go to Lebanon in March; apparently Israeli passport stamps are a no-go. My mom, who didn't make a peep when I went to North Korea a couple or years ago, has decided to worry excessively about me going to Beirut.

mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Monday, 9 January 2017 23:48 (one month ago) Permalink

north korea does somehow seem more stable what w/ not sharing a border w/ syria or having a militant pseudo-government / syria civil war belligerent controlling parts of the country, or suicide bombings in the capital within the last 2 years, but tbh i'm a little jealous both of yr courage, world travel + ability to even go to beirut.

Mordy, Monday, 9 January 2017 23:57 (one month ago) Permalink

It is true that I have probably never been safer than when I was in NK. But the fact is that I'm more likely to be injured/killed in a car accident ANYWHERE than by a Beirut bombing. I think people my parents' age just hear the word "Beirut" and it is 1983 all over again.

mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Tuesday, 10 January 2017 00:15 (one month ago) Permalink

I was going to try to work in an Israel visit but the logistics of doing both are just too cumbersome for a two-week trip :(

Will do Jordan+Israel at some point in the next couple of years I guess.

mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Tuesday, 10 January 2017 00:17 (one month ago) Permalink

German court rules that firebombing a synagogue is not anti-Semitic

well i guess the germans would know

Mordy, Monday, 16 January 2017 23:39 (one month ago) Permalink

was it a jewish synagogue

trilby mouth (darraghmac), Tuesday, 17 January 2017 00:02 (one month ago) Permalink

As opposed to what? Wtf?

Tuomas, Tuesday, 17 January 2017 14:00 (one month ago) Permalink

just trying to establish the facts maam

trilby mouth (darraghmac), Tuesday, 17 January 2017 17:26 (one month ago) Permalink

...

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 17 January 2017 17:27 (one month ago) Permalink

Ugh, so terrible. At the Jewish institution I work at in SF we got a walkthrough of bomb threat evac procedures after we found out the Marin JCC had received a threat today.

Fetchboy, Thursday, 19 January 2017 07:11 (one month ago) Permalink

Gross

slathered in cream and covered with stickers (silby), Thursday, 19 January 2017 22:28 (one month ago) Permalink

Wow, was about to ask how someone with such bad critical thinking skills could be elected mayor but... well... tomorrow is happening.

Fetchboy, Friday, 20 January 2017 02:21 (one month ago) Permalink

another wave of bomb threats against jewish community centers?

the late great, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 17:50 (three weeks ago) Permalink

what do you guys think about the holocaust statement? a lot of ppl think that they omitted specifically referencing jews to... i guess signal to white supremacists? i'm willing to buy that but what i'm wondering about is to what end are they signaling WS's? are they hoping to rev them up into counter-protests, or use them for some purpose down the line? like once the election is over and trump won he doesn't need their votes. (and then even if he did, surely all the anti-immigrant stuff is pleasing enough to them that he doesn't need to throw antisemitism in there too.) in general i've found his dalliances w/ antisemitism to seem to mostly be thoughtless and not intentional (or at least w/ plausible deniability that his other bigotry doesn't have). i guess i'm just confused in general about politics atm.

Mordy, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:04 (three weeks ago) Permalink

like a. don't include jews in holocaust statement, b. white supremacists get excited he is signaling to them, c. white supremacists call jewish community centers with bomb threats, d. ???, e. profit

Mordy, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:05 (three weeks ago) Permalink

more like mentioning jews sounds too much like namby pamby "identity politics"

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:09 (three weeks ago) Permalink

better just to say it was "sad" than admit that racism exists and that power relationships built on racism exist

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:11 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I think they don't want to be on the record articulating that discriminating against minority groups is a bad thing

lettered and hapful (symsymsym), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:11 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Re the Holocaust statement in particular. No way to know whether original omission was oversight because these clowns don't work on anything for more than 15 mins, or deliberate jew-trolling. The doubling down after the fact, though ("we were just trying to show how much we care about ROMANI!") definitely intended as "look at the jews trying to tell us what we can and can't say, well those days are over." I don't think it's mainly aimed at movement white supremacists as the much larger group who doesn't draw a clear distinction between jews / "the media" / "elites" / "political correctness"

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:13 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Could be they are just really really really stupid and don't know wtf they are doing.

Eats like Elvis, shits like De Niro (Tom D.), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:14 (three weeks ago) Permalink

i'm reluctant to believe in nefarious conspiracy, or some kind of expert message calibration to thrill the nazis out there. i think it's better to focus on a habit of mind. trump and his people are historically and politically illiterate. the statement was terrible in a bunch of other ways beyond its non-specificity about the event it commemorated. trump's mind cannot look at victimization honestly. stating simple facts like who did what to whom and why is not something his character can allow.

i mean the first sentence is "It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust." heroes... of the holocaust? someone wrote that?

the last paragraph (of 3) is "In the name of the perished, I pledge to do everything in my power throughout my Presidency, and my life, to ensure that" blah blah i mean, what the fuck is this?

it's all vague storybook generalities that lead to self-aggrandizement. some stuff happened, i'm the hero here

goole, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:15 (three weeks ago) Permalink

And of course the movement white supremacists are over the moon about it, since their Holocaust denial has long since moved on from "there's no such thing as Auschwitz" to "the Nazis killed lots of people, war is terrible, look how the Poles and Russians suffered, somehow the sneaky Jews in the media managed to make it all about them like they always do, trying to drum up sympathy from gullible whites"

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:16 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Hard to believe that Tom, this shameful speech has Bannon written all over it. He's dangerous, not stupid.

Le Bateau Ivre, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:17 (three weeks ago) Permalink

the point is, i'm pretty sure there's nobody in the white house whose attitude is "the jews are a cancer and need to be exterminated," but most of the history of anti-semitism is just not like that (one reason the jews of europe were taken by surprise) and yet is still pretty fucking terrible

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:19 (three weeks ago) Permalink

goole otm

marcos, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:37 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah. And also what symsymsym said. Trump is far down the line that admitting the persecution of non-Christisn minorities exists would be a "gotcha" moment for the press

Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:43 (three weeks ago) Permalink

yup goole otm

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 31 January 2017 18:50 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I'm sorry pretty certain Steve Bannon has read a history of Germany in the 1930s, he's been meaning to check out the other volumes, but this is just such a page-turner.

Andrew Farrell, Wednesday, 1 February 2017 08:22 (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.