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 (9 years ago) Permalink
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 (9 years ago) Permalink
― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:40 (9 years ago) Permalink
― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:41 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:42 (9 years ago) Permalink
― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:44 (9 years ago) Permalink
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 (9 years ago) Permalink
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 (9 years ago) Permalink
That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.
― Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:55 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:00 (9 years ago) Permalink
The ideological screen idea is itself an ideological screen.
― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:34 (9 years ago) Permalink
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 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:46 (9 years ago) Permalink
― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:02 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:12 (9 years ago) Permalink
― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:41 (9 years ago) Permalink
― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:47 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:55 (9 years ago) Permalink
― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (9 years ago) Permalink
-- 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 (9 years ago) Permalink
― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (9 years ago) Permalink
See! Told you!
And more kvetchup please!
― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:01 (9 years ago) Permalink
How humans should behave is a matter of opinion. Different religions, for example, havie differing opinions.
― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:02 (9 years ago) Permalink
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 (9 years ago) Permalink
― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:06 (9 years ago) Permalink
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 (9 years ago) Permalink
Yes, they are socially sanctioned, they are the combined opinions of a lot of people.
― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:09 (9 years ago) Permalink
Also, I'm not saying the law is _treated as_ an opinion, I'm saying it _is_ an opinion.
― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:11 (9 years ago) Permalink
o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)n.
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).
A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
The prevailing view: public opinion.
Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.
― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:12 (9 years ago) Permalink
And "Killing is wrong" is "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof".
(The last clause of that definition is a coincidence, and not what I was aiming at really, 'opinion' seems to be fairly slight homonym.)
― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:15 (9 years ago) Permalink
― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:16 (9 years ago) Permalink
That's all I'm saying.
― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:16 (9 years ago) Permalink
― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:18 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:24 (9 years ago) Permalink
So what if a culture is associated with professions like banking and so on? My Parsee ancestors held a similar position in India. Big deal.
That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.
Also "playing the victim" in regards to the Holocaust has that vomit-inducing ring of Holocaust denial.
― bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:25 (9 years ago) Permalink
― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:26 (9 years ago) Permalink
I think N made his point well, actually, in that within the matrix of (especially central and eastern) European culture, the link between Jews and banking/trade was made into an ideological justification for anti-semitism, and was therefore more harmful than in other contexts. Stereotyping according to race/culture is a touchy area, but the association, or the making of associations, is/are not in themselves bad.
― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:30 (9 years ago) Permalink
bnw - I know that about the money thing. But the question didn't ask 'are Jews intrinsically obsessed with money?'. I know that a good number of the people who answered yes to the question are probably horribly anti-semitic, but I resent the implication that they all have to be. 'Vomit inducing rings' are what all these questions work with, but I prefer my anti-racism to be less 'you must mean that really', in character.
― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:31 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Douglas (Douglas), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:32 (9 years ago) Permalink
My problem with it is how reasonable and academic it makes anti-semitism sound. It allows people to hold onto their suspicions about Jews, and not have to consider themselves anti-semites.
Really, what's the point of the association between jews and money if not anti-semitism? Have you heard this made in a positive light?
― bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:45 (9 years ago) Permalink
― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:46 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:52 (9 years ago) Permalink
― bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:52 (9 years ago) Permalink
Stuart - oops! I pasted all the text anyway but the link is here
― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:55 (9 years ago) Permalink
― Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:56 (9 years ago) Permalink
It also makes note of this, which I hadn't heard about: One in seven Britons says Holocaust is exaggerated.
― Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 19:09 (9 years ago) Permalink
― paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:31 (9 years ago) Permalink
― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:51 (9 years ago) Permalink
― paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:59 (9 years ago) Permalink
wow, what a bizarre story. almost nihilistic.
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:58 (2 days ago) Permalink
The real villain seems to be the rich man who decides not to pay his servant just because he can get away with it. If anything, it's the master who behaves like the stereotype of the "Jew." Yet the master isn't mentioned again in the story. Meanwhile we don't even know if the Jew really stole the money or is merely confessing to end the torture -- after all, he falsely states that the servant "honestly earned it."
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 02:03 (2 days ago) Permalink
Mordy, perhaps you've looked into this -- depending on if this was early or late middle ages a heller was either worth quite a bit or nearly worthless. Are we supposed to think that all this was over a small fortune, or mere pocket change? I'm not sure if it matters much since TBH this tale makes no fuckin' sense to me at all, but it would be some interesting context.
― This Is My Design, and I Used Helvetica (Viceroy), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 03:58 (2 days ago) Permalink
It's implied that a heller is very little:
With this he put his hand into his pocket, then counted out three hellers one at a time, saying, "There, you have a heller for each year. That is a large and generous reward. Only a few masters would pay you this much."
The good servant, who understood little about money, put his wealth into his pocket, and thought, "Ah, now that I have a full purse, why should I worry and continue to plague myself with hard work?"
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 04:00 (2 days ago) Permalink
Also interesting is the footnote that said the original story featured a Christian monk instead of a Jew.
― nickn, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 05:56 (2 days ago) Permalink
Oh, and:
― nickn, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 05:58 (2 days ago) Permalink
Reading Child's Ballads it disquieting how many of the songs are anti-semitic, or have anti-semitic variations. It's not like Scotland was famed for it's huge Jewish population - so strange that all these fishermen chose to sing about such things.
― the so-called socialista (dowd), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 06:30 (2 days ago) Permalink
some of the most anti-semitic places in the world have very few or no jews
people back in earlier centuries wouldn't even have thought of them as "anti-semitic" -- they're just like anything else, commonly accepted generalizations.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 06:39 (2 days ago) Permalink
Anti-semitic Child's Ballads? Never heard of that before.
― Bees Against Racism (Tom D.), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 13:51 (2 days ago) Permalink
I think in some cultures "Jew" was something in between an archetype and a mythic creature, rather than a person you met on the street.
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 15:07 (2 days ago) Permalink
hurting i sent u webmail btw
― Mordy , Tuesday, 18 June 2013 15:07 (2 days ago) Permalink
thx, don't check that address that much, will check
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 15:15 (2 days ago) Permalink
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/child/ch155.htm
― the so-called socialista (dowd), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 15:40 (2 days ago) Permalink
Interesting, well that's a new one on me!
― Bees Against Racism (Tom D.), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 15:44 (2 days ago) Permalink
- but spinoza didn't believe in the holy trinity.
- spinoza was a jew.
- what's a jew?
- you never saw a jew before? here. i have some sketches.
- no kidding! do they all have these horns?
- no. this is the russian jew. the german jew has these stripes.
― the white queen and her caustic judgments (difficult listening hour), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 15:49 (2 days ago) Permalink
x-post
Yeah, it's odd because of the universal 'lose a ball in someone's garden' idea - that house on your street you run past as a kid. Only this time it's used as blood libel.
― the so-called socialista (dowd), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 15:49 (2 days ago) Permalink
lol dfl
― temporarily embarassed millionaire (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 16:04 (2 days ago) Permalink
er dlh
I like how the protagonist in these stories often unfairly provokes/tortures/maligns the Jew, only to have the Jew try to redress grievances, overplay his hand, and meet his "deserved" doom.
― temporarily embarassed millionaire (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, June 17, 2013 7:35 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark
isnt this kind of the merchant of venice
― we're up all night to get (s1ocki), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 19:21 (2 days ago) Permalink
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Tuesday, June 18, 2013 11:07 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark
such as the suburbs of toronto ime
That stuff about pinkwashing upthread is interesting.
Jayson Littman, a New York-based organizer of social events for gay Jewish men who has led gay-themed Birthright trips to Israel. Last spring, Littman sent a proposal titled “The Myth of Pinkwashing,” which, along the line of Jonathan Miller’s, explained that the Israeli government’s advertising its gay life is primarily about tourism dollars, not propaganda.
I've been looking for Littman's article mentioned here and can't find it. However, is there really that secure a boundary between a country doing something for 'tourism dollars' vs for 'propaganda'? I mean it's not like, for Israel or for any country, money from tourists only goes into special, benign parts of the economy, is it? Large (economically significant) groups of people coming to spend money in a country, contribute that money to whatever that country is currently doing, including e.g. paying for someone's hotel or museum to stay open but also e.g. paying for that country's war effort.
This is also, of course, v. relevant to Saudi Arabia and indeed the US and the UK and their tourist industries.
― cardamon, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 21:28 (2 days ago) Permalink
Yeah but starting from that premise anything does for tourism or exports would be ____washing. Is promoting christian holy sites "christwashing"? Is selling jaffa oranges abroad "fruitwashing"? I mean if you believe in complete boycott/divestiture, fine. But I don't get what is particularly sinister about Israel promoting openness to gay and lesbian culture.
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 18 June 2013 21:33 (2 days ago) Permalink
But I don't get what is particularly sinister about Israel promoting openness to gay and lesbian culture.
I don't know if there actually is anything sinister about it. At last when you put it in those terms.
But if pressed to 'find something sinister about it' ... a nasty part of me envisions a certain kind of stupid, materialistic person - who could be straight or gay, male or female - who likes traveling and partying and having fun. And this demographic doesn't give a fuck about, like, some oppression or like some war or something over in (wherever it is) because (wherever it is) has these great beaches, and cool nightclubs where you can drink alcohol, and take drugs, and have sex with attractive people!
Which seems pretty sinister. If these people exist. Sometimes I think they do, sometimes I think I'm being weird and hung up (cough and/or a massive hypocrite).
But Israel being 'open to gay and lesbian people', obvs only a good thing. When you put it like that, in idealistic terms.
It's more the party party fun fun we don't give a fuck culture I find sinister, really, and the way Israel (or, as should be made clear, literally any other country you care to name) can tap into that as source for money and a good image as a party party sort of place. Such that when that country bombs a few schools or whatever, people in the US and the UK think 'Oh, they're the party party place, they must have a good reason for bombing those schools or whatever'.
And the way that that party party let's all party culture is now absorbing something called 'being gay', at least in the UK, or well, at least in cardamon's nasty little box he possibly shouldn't have climbed out of today.
― cardamon, Tuesday, 18 June 2013 21:55 (2 days ago) Permalink
You might find it interesting to know that I had a conversation with someone in Israel who actually works for the government sort of doing international PR as it were, and she had similar reservations but from the other side -- she didn't have any problem with gay rights, gay culture, etc., but she felt like it was kind of frivolous and inappropriate to be focusing on promoting gay party life.
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 19 June 2013 01:11 (Yesterday) Permalink
i don't really know enough about the state of lgbtq politics in israel to comment specifically on israel's potential pinkwashing, and lol this is probably totally the wrong thread for this, but i feel like saying that pinkwashing per se isn't such a bad thing because at least it's promoting openness or tolerance or w/e is kind of problematic. for me, "pinkwashing" connotes gay-friendliness that is only superficial. say, for instance, you have a large corporation that, like many fortune 500 companies, has policies that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, that provides benefits to domestic partners, etc. maybe they advertise in the lgbt community or actively recruit in it. they present a gay-friendly image to the public; perhaps they even donate money to an organization like the HRC or GLAAD. but what if they have investments in or otherwise profit from private prisons and the prison-industrial complex? you could say that this is a case of pinkwashing where they use their good works in the gay community to cover up or distract from their bad (or at least controversial) works in a different area. i think it goes deeper than that, though: lgbtq people are disproportionately affected by and subject to the criminal justice system; they're more likely to experience police harassment, more likely to be imprisoned, and more likely to be abused and raped (by both authorities and other prisoners) while in prison. they're also more likely to have special medical needs that may not be met while they're imprisoned. so in this (hypothetical but not unlikely) case, pinkwashing is being used to hide policies that disproportionately negatively effect lgbtq people beneath a veneer of lgbtq-friendliness. imo that's not a net gain for lgbtq pplalso what cardamon said
― 1staethyr, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 04:08 (Yesterday) Permalink
it seems like a major moral failure to condemn positive developments in one area bc of lack of them in another, and an epic strategic failure for Schulman to keep reminding ppl that Israel is a democratic country that protects gay rights.
― Mordy , Wednesday, 19 June 2013 04:26 (Yesterday) Permalink
it seems like a major moral failure to condemn positive developments in one area bc of lack of them in another
This. Unless there's a very, very clear causal link between the one and the other - cases where some good thing is only happening at the expense of some other, not only bad but worse thing. But such cases are rare, and I certainly don't think this is one of them.
― cardamon, Wednesday, 19 June 2013 20:06 (Yesterday) Permalink