Is this anti-semitism?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1475 of them)

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

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:55 (9 years ago) Permalink

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

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 15:59 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 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 (9 years ago) Permalink

By 'opinion' here I mean 'what some people' think is right.

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

From dictionary.com

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

So for example, the law that says "kill someone, go to jail", implies that killing is wrong.

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

I believe killing is wrong, but I'll admit that it's just a belief.

― mei (mei), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

law is not an opinion except in an abstract sense. Even if an opinion is converted into law through the established procedure it is not an opinion. At least it's not an opinion anymore.

That's all I'm saying.

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

How can 'killing is wrong' be just a belief? Do you mean it's only wrong for you and people who agree with you? What about people who don't agree with you, such as, let me think, ah yes, murderers?

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:18 (9 years ago) Permalink

Our rabbi would curtail his sermon whenever Spurs played home, which was a great act of altruism and tolerance.

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:24 (9 years ago) Permalink

About 40.5% said Jews in their country had “a particular relationship with money”

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

Why did people stop writing books of the bible, anyway? There should totally be one tracing the decline of Spurs that culminates in them being cast of the garden of 'big clubs'.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:26 (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.

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

Sorry for crossposting with a serious post.

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

"mentality and lifestyle" different from, and this is the important part, "OTHER CITIZENS." Reminds me of that Bojeffries Saga story where the cops burst in to see a slavering werewolf standing on the table in a restaurant, say "well, it's obvious what our job is here," grab the one black guy in the restaurant, beat him up and drag him away, as one of the other patrons says to his companion "I'm not racism, but they ent the same as us, are they?"

― Douglas (Douglas), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:32 (9 years ago) Permalink

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.

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

No, but I've heard it said in a neutral light, by Enrique four posts up.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:46 (9 years ago) Permalink

This thread made it past 60 posts without anyone mentioning the link to the article doesn't work?

― Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:52 (9 years ago) Permalink

Another thing is Jews are what.. like 3% of the population? That makes an 18% anti-semitism rate scary enough.

― bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:52 (9 years ago) Permalink

bnw - I completely agree with that (though I don't understand what the 3% has to do with it)

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

I found it too just now. I didn't realize you'd posted the whole piece. I'm looking for the original survey but not having much luck so far.

― Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 18:56 (9 years ago) Permalink

More at good ol' Al Jazeera - including the delightful headline: Jews urged to stop playing Holocaust victim

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

This stuff scares me a lot. Because, unless I just had my eyes closed as a young man, it seems that anti-Semitism has really grown just in the last five years. Since 9/11, really.

― paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:31 (9 years ago) Permalink

anti-semitism hasn't had a day off since before WWII. It's not even had a significant surge since 9/11. Holocaust denial has been going on since the 1970s, particularly with the publication of "Did Six Million Die?" in 1974. There has been no significant lull in anti-semitism since.

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:51 (9 years ago) Permalink

i disagree. there's been a great deal written since 9/11 about the prospect of a Palestinian state that co-joins "American-Judeo" as if it's some kind of world takeover conspiracy. Sure, it's not new, but it's become more pressing again.

― paulhw (paulhw), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 20:59 (9 years ago) Permalink

How can 'killing is wrong' be just a belief? Do you mean it's only wrong for you and people who agree with you? What about people who don't agree with you, such as, let me think, ah yes, murderers?

Lots of murderers believe killing is wrong, too.

I think calling these ethical viewpoints "opinions" trivializes the amount of importance we place on them. "Opinion" also implies some sort of choice in the matter, whereas we often perceive the truth of ethical standpoints so deeply that we cannot imagine thinking they are wrong, or relative, or whatever.

― Clarke B., Tuesday, 27 January 2004 21:30 (9 years ago) Permalink

Also, "kill someone, go to jail" as a code of law does not necessarily imply that killing is wrong, just that it should be punished. Of course these notions of wrongdoing and punishment are related in many contexts, but equating them will only cloud the discourse.

― Clarke B., Tuesday, 27 January 2004 21:34 (9 years ago) Permalink

Tottenham Hotspur are a big club.

― the pinefox, Tuesday, 27 January 2004 21:35 (9 years ago) Permalink

that's your opinion!

― run it off (run it off), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 22:05 (9 years ago) Permalink

"Jews should stop playing the victim for the Holocaust
and the persecutions of 50 years ago”

1) 50 years is not such a long time, after all, is it
2) It wasn't the first time
3) Of course Europe doesn't understand Jews - they killed 'em all

and here's the official chain of events for the start of this
conflict:

1) Jews move into Palestine
2) Jews declare nation of Israel
3) Arab neighbors invade with no other provocation beside step 2
4) ALL OTHER SHIT GOES DOWN (repeat step 3 in the 60s and 70s)

I get the feeling that too many people look at step 1 as the beginning of all this crap, not step 3.

― squirl plise, Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:12 (9 years ago) Permalink

Yes, that's a very fairminded analysis. But lets not turn this into another Israel-Palestine thread.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 00:20 (9 years ago) Permalink

How can 'killing is wrong' be just a belief? Do you mean it's only wrong for you and people who agree with you? What about people who don't agree with you, such as, let me think, ah yes, murderers?
-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004.

I don't understand what you're saying, can you put it another way?

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:43 (9 years ago) Permalink

I don't think it's okay to kill people if they agree with me or not! That makes no difference.

I reckon a lot of murderers think killing is wrong, but they do it anyway.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 07:44 (9 years ago) Permalink

1) Jews move into Palestine
2) Jews declare nation of Israel
3) Arab neighbors invade with no other provocation beside step 2
4) ALL OTHER SHIT GOES DOWN (repeat step 3 in the 60s and 70s)

I get the feeling that too many people look at step 1 as the beginning of all this crap, not step 3

Mmmm! If only all those Palestinians who were displaced/denied the right to a homeland by step 2 could see things so lucidly, eh?

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 09:49 (9 years ago) Permalink

I know nothing about palestine etc etc, but just looking at those numbered points, step 3 can't be the start, because it was caused by step 2

(I'm saying nothing about the validity of the points, but just using maths style logic)

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:00 (9 years ago) Permalink

Step 0: Jews promised this land in Genesis.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:04 (9 years ago) Permalink

So how do you plan on numbering the many historical steps between Palestine/Israel/the land of Canaan/the south western Levant/whatever you want to call it becoming the sacred homeland of the Jews and the twentieth century move of Jewish people to Palestine?

― Amarga (Amarga), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:22 (9 years ago) Permalink

With a fiddle and a diddle and a song in his heart.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:28 (9 years ago) Permalink

Step -infinity: God made the Earth and the heavens. Fucker!

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:34 (9 years ago) Permalink

Step 0: Jews promised this land in Genesis

er, isn't that Step 0: Jews promise themselves this land??

― run it off (run it off), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand what you're saying, can you put it another way?

Relativism has it that all beliefs are, well, relative. Against this is the idea that beliefs are either right or wrong, warranted or unwarranted, universalisable or merely partisan, and so on and so forth. I was suggesting that the 'belief' that murder is wrong is not a belief in the relativist sense of the word. On my side is the argument that killing must be wrong for everyone (not just those who believe killing is wrong - the relativist's error) or else you are left with the (relativist) situation that killing is only wrong for those who have that opinion, in which case the people actually committing murders get off ethically scot-free, so to speak. Something like that.

― run it off (run it off), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:22 (9 years ago) Permalink

killing is only wrong for those who have that opinion, in which case the people actually committing murders get off ethically scot-free, so to speak. Something like that.

That's a bit clearer. Ta.

I think that killing is 'wrong'. Another person may disagree and think killing is 'not-wrong'. We would both be correct.

I think I'm right, but so does the other person. Whose to say which of us is correct? And who is to say that the person who decides which of us is correct is correct. And so on.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 15:14 (9 years ago) Permalink

I will say again though, I'm sure many killers would think killing was wrong, but still do it anyway.

― mei (mei), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 15:15 (9 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 1375 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

While it isn't as organised and popular as Golden Dawn, this brand of fascism is rampant in Eastern Europe.

― Van Horn Street, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:00 (4 days ago) Permalink

though his relationship to antisemitism is not quite as ahem direct iirc

― goole, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:01 (4 days ago) Permalink

andersbreivik.jpg

― goole, dinsdag 21 mei 2013 17:59 (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Huh? A lone wolf psychopath isn't exactly a good example of anti-semitism. His primary motive was anti-islam.

― Le Bateau Ivre, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:06 (4 days ago) Permalink

i think calling him "lone" (or even psychopathic) is a stretch, given the bridged online-irl community he came out of. but you're right about islam, in his/their case

― goole, Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:10 (4 days ago) Permalink

I think I have an Ikea product called Malmo

― 0808ɹƃ (silby), Wednesday, 22 May 2013 00:52 (3 days ago) Permalink

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/biden-praises-jews-goes-too-far.html

― Mordy , Wednesday, 22 May 2013 18:12 (3 days ago) Permalink

Biden’s intentions here are obviously as friendly as can be, but the execution is awkward.

oh, no shit?

― goole, Wednesday, 22 May 2013 18:17 (3 days ago) Permalink

That will be the first line on his obit.

― Van Horn Street, Wednesday, 22 May 2013 18:23 (3 days ago) Permalink

The main problem here is that gay rights, unlike black civil rights, are politically controversial at the moment. Biden may find it “all to the good” that Jews have used their influence over popular culture to change societal attitudes toward homosexuality, but lots of people don’t find it good at all.

chait making sure to cover all his bases as usual

― you are not a better writer than f. scott fitzgerald. you are not a b (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 22 May 2013 19:24 (3 days ago) Permalink

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