Is this anti-semitism?

-- 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?

See! Told you!

And more kvetchup please!

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

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

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.

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

Also, I'm not saying the law is _treated as_ an opinion, I'm saying it _is_ an opinion.

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.

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.)

That's all I'm saying.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Stuart - oops! I pasted all the text anyway but the link is here

It also makes note of this, which I hadn't heard about: One in seven Britons says Holocaust is exaggerated.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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.

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.

As for the hypothetical person who disagrees, thinking that killing is right, we need to ask them to defend their position. It's not enought just to speculate that someone might disagree with us in order for us to 'relativise' our beliefs (although this is exactly what relativists do all the time.) In the absence of an argument - good reasons - in favour of killing, I think we can safely say that killing is wrong.

I couldn't honestly argue that killing is wrong or that killing is right.

I don't think the person who believes killing is right need defend their position. It's just a belief, no more or less valid than my belief that killing is wrong.

my wife's uncle (recently retired) was a Northwestern professor who survived the holocaust and i'm glad he probably never had her as a student.

that's an interesting article, thanks for sharing it.

Johnson, who is Palestinian, said that while at NU, she was reported to the University for bias and hate after she posted tweets criticizing Zionism.

lol come on now

The article happens to go into detail about the effects of the doxxing site:

Several students who are critical of Israel also consistently identified Canary Mission as making it more difficult for them to speak out. Canary Mission is an anonymous online blacklist that compiles public dossiers of student activists and organizations it deems to be anti-Israel or antisemitic.

According to reports from media outlets The Forward and The Times of Israel, the Israeli government has used Canary Mission’s blacklist to deny visitors entry at its borders.

“Canary Mission is literally the thing that stops me the most when speaking up,” Ava said.

Ava is stateless — her family grew up in Palestinian refugee camps — and she hopes to someday attain U.S. citizenship. She said she worries being blacklisted on Canary Mission would make it more difficult for her to get a job and, eventually, U.S. citizenship.

As a result of this fear, Ava said she never joined SJP during her time at NU. George said many Palestinian students he knows have avoided becoming involved with SJP for this same reason.

Charles*, a Palestinian American student, said he’s been having conversations with his family for at least 10 years about precautions to avoid being blacklisted on Canary Mission.

“If it’s out there and attached to my name that I’m critical of the Israeli government,” he said, “that can be preventative to me being able to go back to where my people are from, and where I have family and connecting (with) what I consider my homeland.”

I really hate this persecution taking place in the name of fighting anti-semitism

xps!

Yes antisemitism and other hate amd microaggressions wrapped up in the First Amendment is a blurry line that many lawyers spent their whole careers trying to delineate. Usually it's passive aggressive subtle dogwhistling but these overt examples are on the rise.

More consequences:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/business/law-firms-antisemitism-universities/index.html

The law firms' letter's definition of antisemitism includes

Over the last several weeks, we have been alarmed at reports of anti-Semitic harassment, vandalism and assaults on college campuses, including rallies calling for the death of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel.

I saw the video of the two people eating bagels in Montclair NJ that had just removed one of the posters from a wall, and were being asked why they had taken it down. Its unfortunate that the person asking them is basically harassing them so its not a surprise they don't want to answer.

I feel like this kind of thing would be better approached in the way the 1420 guy does in Russia when asking about the SMO and related topics.

I did feel these two maybe weren't really able to explain their rationale, but I think there's something else going on underneath that isn't anti-semitism, but it could become so. I think sometimes we think of these things as inherent, when often its something that can develop

At the same time, as with the above two it may also be a form of group dynamics and not necessarily something thought out or explainable, and that these dynamics can continue even when not in the group situation

New thread:

Anti-semitism thread: onwards from 2023