... Vox has a decent piece — yes, that’s right, the NYT coverage is so bad it’s being debunked by Vox –which contains this jewel-like line given the Hitler comparisons: “The draft executive order largely restates the Obama administration’s position.” The main thing Trump is doing is turning it from nonbinding “guidance” into an Executive Order.From the Vox piece:
... [O]nly an idiot would start with [the axiom that Trump is Hitler], but idiots abound. “The refusal to apply Occam’s razor was astonishing. What was more likely: That someone without legal training was misunderstanding an executive order they hadn’t seen, or that a bipartisan coalition of Jewish policymakers persuaded Jared Kushner to convince Trump to issue the preliminary groundwork for a 21st century version of the Nuremberg Laws in America? You can guess which tack got the most retweets and likes. With real anti-Semitism on the march and on a day when gunmen targeted a Jersey City Kosher Supermarket, murdering four people (three of whom were Jewish), a chorus instead rose up against Jewish allies engaging in a largely symbolic legal exercise.”
When the New York Times reported Tuesday afternoon that Trump was about to issue an executive order designed to crack down on anti-Semitic hate speech on college campuses, it sparked an immediate and understandable panic among liberals online.So the serious issue is freedom of speech:
The executive order instructs federal officials to “consider” a definition of anti-Semitism that, if taken literally, could still be used to punish universities for playing host to pro-Palestinian speakers, even though the order, according to the draft text, also contains explicit guidance to avoid violating First Amendment rights.We shall see what happens in practice. Like the First Amendment itself, the text alone will not save us from the suppression of the freedom of speech. That freedom must live in our heart, even when we hate what is said.
“The text of the EO is really a nothingburger that doesn’t change the law in any way,” writes Sam Bagenstos, a University of Michigan Law professor who worked on these issues in President Obama’s Justice Department. “The key question will be how it is applied in practice.”...
And here's more detail on the text of the order and what it means:
“A school also has responsibilities under Title VI,” the Obama era guidance explains, “when its students are harassed based on their actual or perceived citizenship or residency in a country whose residents share a dominant religion or a distinct religious identity.”
Suppose that a group of bullies falsely believe that all Jews are also Israeli. If those bullies harass a group of Jewish students because the bullies are bigoted against people from Israel, that is a form of national origin discrimination — even if the targets of this bullying are not Israeli citizens.
The draft executive order largely restates the Obama administration’s position.
It provides that “while Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices.” “Discrimination against Jews,” it continues, “may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin.”...
It’s quite common for anti-Semites to use the term “Zionist” as a derogatory term for Jews at a whole or to allege that Jewish Americans are Israeli plants who are fundamentally disloyal to the United States. The Obama-Trump interpretation of Title VI helps protect Jews from discrimination phrased in this language, and in that sense actually has something to offer our understanding of federal civil rights law.
पोस्ट्स
११७ टिप्पण्या:
I remember when the left was pro cracking down on hate speech.
Post election I had many people tell me about Trumps plan to build "the camps". Folks you would rightly never expect to hear it from. The leftist media are past the point of "alien abduction" credibility.
What ever happened to the Free Speech Movement? America's Tienanmen Square moment. The left only destroys, never builds.
I still don't know what it says, but it sounds unconstitutional. What about making observations about women.
Women would like it restricted and men wouldn't.
Anyway the government can't restrict it.
Rhardin: It sounds like if you use something as a proxy for national identity, you are still discriminating. So on a broad scale, if you commit a crime against a person because you think they're a given thing, that still counts as if they were.
If you make fun of someone from schveeden, it’s a hate crime?
The Left simply loves to make everything a crisis.
That is how they motivate their mindless robots.
"I remember when the left was pro cracking down on hate speech."
I don't remember the Left doing anything like that but I do remember the Left as always protecting its own 'hate speech'.
Btw, I hate these 'special laws'. They are begging to be misused and be turned on their head. The first 'thought crime' law in my country was an holocaust denial law (the kind of law the Left loves). It netted one idiot but no honest-to-allah jew hater was ever bothered with it (the kind of outcome the Left loves too).
And, for example, a girl murdered during the first Soviet occupation of the Baltic Republics (when the USSR and Germany were buddies) for being the wrong 'class' is just as dead as an Ann Frank.
If you make an animal endangered, nobody protects it to make money and it dies out. What you want if farming Jews for profit, to get them to thrive.
Just checking the analogy.
If we just talked about Jews like they were polar bears, the left would get on board.
Put a picture of a Hasidic Jew on a piece of floating ice.
Something like that.
So the serious issue is freedom of speech:
No, the serious issue is, "What can we do to make Trump (and all Republicans) look bad?"
I think the dynamics are quite different for Jews. They have a very high verbal intelligence on the one hand, and a tendency to whine on the other. When the hands join up, you have a problem.
Once again confirming my long-held observation that conservatives start talking like SJWs on the topic of Jews and Israel, and liberals stop talking like SJWs on the topic of Jews and Israel. My preference: stop talking like SJWS, period.
Why should we treat Jewish people with any less respect than we do endangered animals?
Heidegger got in trouble for the sentiment.
"Agriculture is now a mechanized food industry. As for its essence, it is the same thing as the manufacture of corpses in the gas chambers and the death camps, the same thing as the blockades and the reduction of countries to famine, the same thing as the manufacture of hydrogen bombs."
What ever happened to the Free Speech Movement? America's Tienanmen Square moment.
Like Tiananmen Square, the left decided free speech should just be in a zone, and then they squashed the zone.
Jew Hatred is a virulent mental illness. It spreads like a communicable disease, and when it erupts and it ruins many quite ordinary people who never again think straight. Any identification and quarantine method that fights it is reasonable to take.
traditionalguy:
Jew Hatred is a virulent mental illness. It spreads like a communicable disease, and when it erupts and it ruins many quite ordinary people who never again think straight. Any identification and quarantine method that fights it is reasonable to take.
Any?
When I see the usual reaction that instead of fighting Anti-Semitism we should deny it is a real problem, continue to sit on the fence, and hope that a few of the good Jews do survive , then I understand why Jews trust no one to stand with them when they are attacked.
It's not really hard to be a Jew lover in public.
Trump is the worst Hitler, EVAH!
You really have to be stupid to read the New York Times aka The Slimes
Hitler was a brave war hero and a actual genius. Trump is too cowardly, stupid and lazy to be compared to Hitler. They were both impotent, so they share that.
Hitler hated Jews because he'd argue with Jews and win and the next day come back and they'd act as if he hadn't won, according to Mein Kampf.
What they cannot be allowed to do is attack and riot against other students and speakers in the name of exterminating Israel.
If by attack you mean assault, that’s already against the law. The entire point of free speech is to protect views that are abhorred, not ones that are liked. And it’s long been a hobby horse of the ADL to define anti-Semitism so broadly that it basically includes criticisms of Zionism or Israel.
The NYT indulged in some anti-white hate speech when they used David N. Anderson as an example of "Threats from far-right and neo-Nazi organizations, including groups like The Proud Boys, will be investigated" without bothering to mention that he's a Black Hebrew Israelite.
Well, if there's one thing we know about modern liberals, it's their ferocious love of free speech.
I don’t desire to be evil, but also don’t understand hate crimes. If something is illegal, it does not help to make it super super illegal. All this would indicate is that we don’t enforce the law properly, which means we need to change prosecution policy, not add new laws. Regarding hate speech laws, when we have one passed, there is no longer free speech, which I thought was a thing in the US. Harassment of a sufficient degree is just assault.
It is a bit late, I suppose, to start suing academics for vilifying Spaniards, which it seems one may be able to do, technically.
It is no longer much of a thing though.
One still cannot sue people for vilifying Catholics, unfortunately.
And many of your MSM personnel are idiotic, bureaucratic seat-warmers.
@Fernandistein:
A similar dynamic occurred in early 2017 over threats to Jewish centers, which were supposed to symbolize the “normalization of hate” under Trump and a resurgence of the “far-right.” Then it turned out the threats were made by an Israeli teenager and a black liberal former reporter for The Intercept, Juan Thompson.
Howard thinks Trump is lazy?
Bwaaaaaaa
tradguy: But when the EDU guys are now being intimidated into silence and tacit approval of Anti-Zionism...
The EDU guys shouldn't be in the business of approving or disapproving of Zionism or anti-Zionism.
...then how do people get educated on the subject?
It's not the job of the EDU guys to "educate" anybody on any subject via restrictions on free speech.
Jew Hatred is a virulent mental illness. It spreads like a communicable disease...Any identification and quarantine method that fights it is reasonable to take.
Gutting the First Amendment isn't reasonable. And doesn't work to accomplish your ends, anyway.
Trump should be excoriated for promoting this crap, regardless of precedent, and even if the usual gang of hysterics got it all hysterically wrong.
Imagine a world in which Trump, with a single act, gets every Leftist Collectivist to reverse course on an article of faith: "hate" speech - which is a distinction that does not exist under the law.
At least J Farmer stays consistent in his views.
He neither supports "hate" speech laws nor Jews.
But High Noon comes when we either stand up and fight for Jews rights or find an excuse that it's not our fight.
What rights are you referring to? What rights are American Jews being denied that required standing up for?
then the Colleges can fight publicly the Jew haters.
How do you identify the “Jew haters” and what should be the appropriate punishment for committing thoughtcrimes?
J Farmer asks a legitimate question.
It surely seems impossible from Xis perspective to find a Jew hater.
He neither supports "hate" speech laws nor Jews.
What exactly would it mean to “support Jews?” Does it mean the same to “support Christians” or to “support Hindus” or to “support Muslims?”
It surely seems impossible from Xis perspective to find a Jew hater.
Well let’s take a simple case. Imagine someone on a college campus states forthrightly, “I hate Jews.” What should be the appropriate sanction for such a statement? Expulsion? Imprisonment? A punch to the face?
No enemies to the Left works.
No enemies to the religious persuasion doesn't.
We can not determine hatred, says Xim.
Take the broad view: free expression by free people made from within free markets is a God-given right recognized by the US Constitution.
Trump's skill in this is showing the shallowness with which the Jew-hating Leftists Collectivists betray their true beliefs.
We can not determine hatred, says Xim
Do you believe people are ever falsely accused of racism? If so, why? If identifying racists is so mind-numbingly simple, why are people so often arguing over what’s racist or not?
Leave aside the freak out. Isn’t this expansion of title VI like the disastrous expansion on title IX? How can those (like me) who objected to the reinterpretation of title IX not object here too?
J Farmer,
Do you realize you aren't arguing with me?
You are no fan of at least one religious group, based on your statements on these comments pages. It's your right and I'm not asking the state to use its monopoly of force to stop you're hatred. I can separate the two issues. I question whether you can, naturally.
Ken B,
There was no expansion. This went from a Ed Dept rule to an EO. It reiterated the previous policy.
Can't we just agree to dissolve the Ed Dept because establishing it in the first place (in the 1970s, FFS!) was outside the proper authority of the federal government?
Are we agreeing here Farmer? I think so.
LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS
Both Donald Trump, AND Adolph Hitler disliked Rare steaks
THIS MEANS THEY ARE THE SAME PERSON
{except for one eating steaks well done, and the other not eating any meat: BUT STILL!}
You think this is new? You should have seen the tantrum a marketing manager of my acquaintance threw every time some idiot thing she did backfired.
Birkel 9:27
That interpretation represents an expansion over the statute. Parse title VI and identify where it protects religious groups.
Birkel
If your point is, the expansion is not Trump's doing, I probably agree but don’t care. I question the policy no matter where or when it originated.
I think that perhaps you and I and Farmer actually agree on the nub of the issue.
@Birkel:
Do you realize you aren't arguing with me?
Arguing? How about two people with different points of view discussing an issue like adults. Is that so difficult?
You are no fan of at least one religious group, based on your statements on these comments pages. It's your right and I'm not asking the state to use its monopoly of force to stop you're hatred.
Find a single statement I have made anywhere to substantiate that claim, and I'll write you a check for a thousand dollars. I have no "hatred" for any group. The idea is completely nonsensical. As I have said over and over and over here, you don't judge people by their group affiliation but on their individual character. No group has a monopoly on good or bad people. If there was an Executive Order meant to crack down on anti-gay hate speech or anti-immigrant hate speech or anti-trans hate speech, or anti-Muslim hate speech, I'd have the exact same opinion. And I'd venture to guess that most people here would agree with that opinion. So why should I have any different of an opinion on efforts to crack down on anti-Semitic hate speech?
I don't need to parse because the Article III courts already have.
Your argument would be with them.
If you're not on board with dissolving the Ed Dept, then we cannot agree.
It's ok, J Farmer.
You tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night.
Your mental health is important.
@Birkel:
It's ok, J Farmer.
You tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night.
Your mental health is important
I guess "discussing an issue like adults" was simply asking too much. Of course, if I were to accuse someone of having "hatred" towards Jews, I'd like to think that I could actually identify a single thing anti-Jewish thing they ever said.
Farmer
You have cogently stated what is known in quantum psychology as the Birkel Uncertainty Principle. The more certain some people are of a claim the more difficult it becomes to demonstrate. In the Birkel Limit, the psychological equivalent of the Planck Distance, absolute certainty is paired with absolute unprovability.
The Left might like Trump if he were MORE like Hitler. Historically they've always had a soft spot for murderous tyrants, and always willing to make allowances for them. A few years ago National Review did a long article on the Left 's long standing coziness with tyrants; early on, some even had kind words for Hitler and Mussolini.
I remember before the war in Iraq began, a reporter asking a "dove" protester if it bothered her at all that Saddam was a The protester said that when it came to judging regimes "all I ask is, 'Do they provide their citizens with free medical care?'" There's the Left in a nutshell. Maybe if Trump killed and tortured a bunch of people they'd like him better, the way they've liked, at various times, Stalin, Khrushchev, "Uncle Ho," Castro and his hitman Che, etc. All he'd have to do is distract the Left with some social justice gobbledygook.
While the sentiments behind this action are admirable, any kind of ban against hate 'speech' is unconstitutional. Same with hate 'crimes'. Crimes are crimes. Leave the motivation out of it.
J Farmer,
I concede that I have neither documentary nor testimonial evidence as to your motivations.
Therefore, like IG Horowitz I must conclude that Occam's Razor is false.
I am limited to what you will admit.
So the explanation that is simplest and needs the fewest assumptions on my part must be ignored.
I cannot know your closely held thoughts.
Therefore I must ignore pattern recognition.
Ken B is a liar.
Ken B has yet to admit his lies.
Ken B remains an inveterate Liar.
Zionists vs. Freedom of Speech.
Zionists win. Shocking.
Maybe we can get freedom from discrimination based on Political views. It seems every other group is protected. race, sex, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc.
Normally, this kind of post always ends is a food fight in the comment sections, because it draws Kooks.
Title VI does not ban speech, it bans discrimination. So people who argue Title VI shouldn't apply to Jews are arguing discrimination against them should be legal.
And it’s long been a hobby horse of the ADL to define anti-Semitism so broadly that it basically includes criticisms of Zionism or Israel.
It's also long been the tactic of anti-semites to hide behind anti-Zionism.
@Birkel:
So the explanation that is simplest and needs the fewest assumptions on my part must be ignored.
The "simplest" explanation with "the fewest assumptions" for why someone would oppose efforts to stop anti-Semitic hate speech is that they hate Jews? Is the "simplest" explanation with "the fewest assumptions" for why someone would oppose affirmative action is that they hate blacks? Is the "simplest" explanation with "the fewest assumptions" for why someone would oppose mass immigration is that they hate foreigners? This is tomfoolery.
I cannot know your closely held thoughts.
Here's the thing about people that have problems with Jews as a group, they have no problem saying it. Go spend about three seconds at Daily Stormer or even Unz.com, and you will have no problem identifying them. I don't have a problem saying what I think or advocating unpopular positions. The "explanation that is simplest and needs the fewest assumptions" for why you "have neither documentary nor testimonial evidence" is because that isn't what I believe.
@rcocean:
Zionists vs. Freedom of Speech.
Zionists win. Shocking.
Anti-semite!
Well, the Enlightenment had a pretty good run. Too bad its ideas are incompatible with human nature.
Evidently people need blasphemy laws.
All we are doing now is arguing over which ones we should adopt.
Fuck it.
They were both impotent, so they share that.
Trump sure has a lot of kids for someone who is impotent.
"Maybe we can get freedom from discrimination based on Political views"
I would fight this tooth and nail. We damn well better be able to fire communists. If we lock in all the communists that infiltrated their way into all the institutions up to this point, there'll be no way to ever get them out. Nothing less than a purge explicitly based on ideology can help matters now. Unfortunately there's still way too many people too squeamish to admit it. Better dead than rude.
Well let’s take a simple case. Imagine someone on a college campus states forthrightly, “I hate Jews.” What should be the appropriate sanction for such a statement? Expulsion? Imprisonment? A punch to the face?
I'd settle for shunning.
"Hitler hated Jews because he'd argue with Jews and win and the next day come back and they'd act as if he hadn't won, according to Mein Kampf."
I do know many people like that, and they are indeed contemptible and vile, but they fit much more accurately under the label "leftists" than "Jews". The fact that Hitler was a leftist himself, just a slightly different flavor from that of those he was arguing with, is probably what led to his category error.
J Farmer,
I admit I know nothing of Daily Stormer or Unz, but I take it those are places at which anti-Semitism is accepted.
Wonderful that I have your expertise on these pages to inform me about such matters.
Birkel:
Wonderful that I have your expertise on these pages to inform me about such matters.
Yep, and I even know that Reason, Cato, and Von Mises Institute publish libertarian stuff. I know that The Nation and Mother Jones publish progressive liberal content. I know that Jacobin and Z Mag publish democratic socialist material. I know The Root publishes black empowerment content.
Reading things you don't always agree with...what a novel concept!
Behold: The modern democrat party
Rashida Tlaib on black suspects’ murder of Jews in Jersey City: “White supremacy kills”
Sure, J Farmer.
Sure.
I won't believe you.
But do tell.
Behold: The modern democrat party
Rashida Tlaib on black suspects’ murder of Jews in Jersey City: “White supremacy kills”
Media outlets are going out of their way to avoid mentioning the fact that it was a black man and woman who did the killings. If it had been white Trump voters, there'd be 24/7 wall-to-wall media coverage.
@Birkel:
Sure, J Farmer.
Sure.
I won't believe you.
But do tell.
Absolutely right, Birkel. As the philosopher David Lewis observed: "I don't know how to refute an incredulous stare."
Of course its just a drop down the memory hole just like the particular views of the pensacola shooter,
J Farmer,
I have told you I am suspending my observational skills and pattern recognition.
Now I'll pretend to believe you.
Happy?
Now I'll pretend to believe you.
Happy?
I don’t actually care what you believe. You’re a non-factor in my life. But pushing back against SJW logic, such as it is, is always a worthwhile endeavor.
If that were your purpose, you might have tried to show where I had exercised such.
Good luck.
I will need documentary or testimonial evidence.
Media outlets are going out of their way to avoid mentioning the fact that it was a black man and woman who did the killings. If it had been white Trump voters, there'd be 24/7 wall-to-wall media coverage.
Maybe that is why Rep. Tlaib was confused and tweeted that the killings were due to White Supremacy.
Blogger stlcdr said...
If you make fun of someone from schveeden, it’s a hate crime?
--
No, but is in poor taste you dumb fucking Norwegian.
If that were your purpose, you might have tried to show where I had exercised such.
Good luck.
Accusing people of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. with zero evidence that they are actually any of those things is pretty much SJW 101.
Trump was about to issue an executive order designed to crack down on anti-Semitic hate speech on college campuses
Is that an accurate characterization of the EO? If so, how does that get past the First Amendment?
No, J Farmer, acknowledging your inclinations as revealed thru your comments here is just being aware.
Your attempt to have it both ways is noted.
Lance said...
Trump was about to issue an executive order designed to crack down on anti-Semitic hate speech on college campuses
Is that an accurate characterization of the EO? If so, how does that get past the First Amendment?
From my understanding, the "remedy" for violating the EO is stripping federal funding from the institution in question.
Is it unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold funding for this reason? I don't know. Is this comparable to state and local governments refusing to spend tax dollars in other states over disagreements in policy? That was done in response to transgender laws and abortion laws in Georgia and South Carolina, I believe.
I suppose this will need to be litigated. Yay.
This is not about Zionists versus Free Speech. And it's not about Jews whining. This is about acts of harrassment by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) towards Jewish students and Jewish student organizations being blocked from bringing speakers to campuses. One example, there was an incident at NYU where Jewish students in several dorms were served with eviction notices by SJP students. There are hundreds of other similar type of acts. Check with the organization Amcha Initiative for descriptions of other incidents. The problem is that the colleges look the other way, because that is politically correct, they even have been giving awards to SJP students. Maybe if the schools are afraid of losing funding they might be more motivated to defend the rights of Jewish students?
Let me say further that the point is for genuine anti-semites, particularly those in the Middle East, there is no separation between Jews and Israelis. The same logic applies when those people move to the US to attend college.
No, J Farmer, acknowledging your inclinations as revealed thru your comments here is just being aware.
And yet you can’t reference a single comment that reveals these so called “inclinations.” Interesting. Now I have written numerous times about black criminality here, yet I can’t recall you ever accusing me of “hatred” towards blacks.
Me: A review of your record leads me to believe the likeliest answer is this thing, which you deny.
J Farmer: Same but your doing it to me is wrong.
Me: Smug makes you stupid.
J Farmer: You're an SJW because you think my opinions are most consistent with something I deny.
Me: Did you hear it that time?
A review of your record leads me to believe the likeliest answer is this thing, which you deny.
This would be more convincing if you could actually reference something from my record, which I’ve repeatedly asked you to do. Still waiting...
"This would be more convincing if you could actually reference something from my record, which I’ve repeatedly asked you to do. Still waiting..."
Said I, waiting for evidence that I have SJW beliefs.
Me: Smug makes you stupid.
One of your problems is an inability to sense a rake.
I have a whole tailgate full of rakes.
Mia culpa. I interacted with the forbidden one. My sincerest apologies.
Said I, waiting for evidence that I have SJW beliefs.
As I said: “ Accusing people of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. with zero evidence that they are actually any of those things is pretty much SJW 101.”
You accuse me of anti-Semitism. I ask you for evidence of this and hitherto you’ve produced bupkis. So my evidence for your SJW beliefs is this entire exchange.
well your propensity to consider voting for sanders or warren, tell me would you vote for Corbyn in the uk?
@narciso:
well your propensity to consider voting for sanders or warren, tell me would you vote for Corbyn in the uk?
Who is this question directed to?
Rosalyn C: This is not about Zionists versus Free Speech. And it's not about Jews whining. This is about acts of harrassment by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) towards Jewish students and Jewish student organizations being blocked from bringing speakers to campuses.
So it is about free speech - SJP preventing Jewish groups from exercising their free speech rights. That sort of thing happens to anybody whom the local Red Guards want to shut down, not just Jews. It's already illegal to do that; the problem is lack of enforcement and double standards. Dealing with that in no way requires making Jews a protected group. *Nobody* should have to belong to a protected group to have their rights protected.
J Farmer,
Please point to where I have accused you of that thing.
Again, Smug makes you stupid.
@Birkel:
Please point to where I have accused you of that thing.
Birkel at 9:25am: "You are no fan of at least one religious group, based on your statements on these comments pages. It's your right and I'm not asking the state to use its monopoly of force to stop you're hatred."
What "religious group" and "hatred" were you referring to?
J Farmer: And it’s long been a hobby horse of the ADL to define anti-Semitism so broadly that it basically includes criticisms of Zionism or Israel.
This generalization is about as accurate as the generalization that all criticism of Israel is “basically” antisemitic. Which is to say, not very accurate at all.
I can’t speak for anyone (Jewish or otherwise), besides myself, but my read of this whole thing is that Trump meant well, but it’s a terrible idea to use governmental force to restrict the expression of odious ideas.
"It's also long been the tactic of anti-semites to hide behind anti-Zionism."
If anti-semtitism = Anti-zionsim, then zionism = Semites = all Jews.
We should just strike Zionism from the dictionary.
Americans, especially Conservatives, decided to walk into the Liberal/Left trap of "Hate Speech". Once you accepted that concept, you were done for. All the liberal/Left/SJW/pressure groups have to do is keep expanding the definition of antisemitism. racism, homophobia, "Hate", etc. and you're screwed, as is "free speech".
J Farmer,
You have no documentary or testimonial evidence.
Smug makes people dumb.
We should just strike Zionism from the dictionary.
Why?
Some people dishonestly pretend that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Some people dishonestly pretend that none of it is. As the Talmud notes, there’s a lot of dishonesty out there.
The fact your mind leaps to one and only one religious group - the name of which I cannot know - sure does give you all the hallmarks of a SJW.
Smug, it's what's for dinner.
IF white people are harassed that's Ok
If Jews are harassed that Not Ok
OK?
Why?
Yes, why indeed. Here's my why. Why is it that everyone gets complain about being discriminated against, EXCEPT White men - who are NOT Jews.
Why?
I even allowed, magnanimous as I am, that you're hatred of religious groups could extend to all such groups.
My but you sure do act like a man with a guilty conscience, you Smug SJW.
@Birkel:
The fact your mind leaps to one and only one religious group - the name of which I cannot know - sure does give you all the hallmarks of a SJW.
Smug, it's what's for dinner.
You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. That's why it is utterly pointless in attempting to engage you in constructive conversation. A lesson I habitually forget. I'll try harder in the future.
In the meantime, let's bring this non-interchange to a close. Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah.
"the problem is lack of enforcement and double standards. Dealing with that in no way requires making Jews a protected group. *Nobody* should have to belong to a protected group to have their rights protected." I agree but unfortunately it seems that in order to have their rights/safety protected they have to be designated as protected. That's the way the law works. I don't know how all that got started.
This way people who are harmed can sue the schools. I have seen numerous videos showing campus police standing by doing nothing while Jewish students are being physically threatened and intimidated. I'm looking at the Amcha website and seeing many incidents of swatikas on campuses all across the country. Apparently the white nationalists are also getting into the fray.
@Pookie Number 2:
This generalization is about as accurate as the generalization that all criticism of Israel is “basically” antisemitic. Which is to say, not very accurate at all.
"One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism."
-Abba Eban
I can’t speak for anyone (Jewish or otherwise), besides myself, but my read of this whole thing is that Trump meant well, but it’s a terrible idea to use governmental force to restrict the expression of odious ideas.
I agree completely with this statement.
What a SJW this J Farmer is.
Yes, why indeed. Here's my why. Why is it that everyone gets complain about being discriminated against, EXCEPT White men - who are NOT Jews.
Why?
Discrimination against non-Jewish white men is no less despicable than any other form of discrimination. (Still not the gummint’s purview in either case.)
"One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism."
-Abba Eban
“When people say Zionists, they mean Jews.”
-Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
So what?
Lots of people say lots of things. It’s still inaccurate to attribute such sentiments more broadly than to those that express them.
As far as Zionism is concerned and whether anti-Zionism is anti-semitism, that comes down to whether you believe Jews had the right to return to their ancestral homeland and create a Jewish state.
I can see there are some people say I don't hate the Jews but they don't have any right to that land, regardless of the historical events which led up to it or their religious traditions and the Bible. They aren't friends.
I can see there are other people who say "I don't hate the Jews" and the state of Israel is occupying the land of the Palestinians and I support the resistance of Hamas. They aren't anti-semites, so they claim, but they ignore the reality of Hamas:
THE CHARTER OF THE HAMAS
THE CHARTER OF ALLAH:
THE PLATFORM OF THE ISLAMIC RESISTANCE MOVEMENT (HAMAS)
In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate
You are the best community that has been raised up for mankind.
Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed, it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-doers.
They will not harm you save a trifling hurt, and if they fight against you they will turn and flee. And afterward they will not be helped.
Ignominy shall be their portion wheresoever they are found save [where they grasp] a rope from Allah and a rope from man. They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them. That is because they used to disbelieve the revelations of Allah, and slew the Prophets wrongfully. That is because they were rebellious and used to transgress. Surat Al-Imran (III), verses 109-111
Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors..." etc.
Hamas is 100% Jew hatred with the intention of completely destroying the Jewish state. Too bad the students who are defending Hamas with the claim they are just anti-Zionist are so ignorant.
Here’s the deal - I grew up in and around the Hasidic world, which includes a number of sub-groups that are vehemently anti-Zionistic (largely out of the belief that the Jews’ return to Israel can only be done legitimately under the leader of the Messiah) but (perhaps less surprisingly) very philo-Semitic. So the glib equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism always seemed at least uninformed to me.
Like many countries, Israel has the misfortune of being led by politicians, who are almost axiomatically terrible, power-seeking people, and are also almost always deserving of legitimate criticism, which is (and should be) frequently expressed by fervent Zionists. So the assertion that all (almost all? most?) criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic also seems demonstrably untrue.
On the other hand, it requires a certain level of naïveté to pretend that no-one uses anti-Zionism as a mask for Jew-hatred, and - while even explicit Jew-hatred is and should be protected under the First Amendment - calling that overlap out often seems appropriate.
@Pookie Number 2 The problem is that Jew haters are hiding under the banner of anti-Zionism or legitimate critics of Israel policy. Pro tip: You know they are anti-semites when they only engage of criticism of Israel, ignore the mistreatment of Palestinians in other Arab countries, never admit the virulent Jew hatred contained in the Koran which forms the basis of hatred toward Israel by Israel's enemies, never call to account the corruption of Palestinian leadership.
@Pookie Number 2:
A few things...
1) As an ethno-nationalist, I have zero problem with Jews having a national homeland. Their activities in the occupied territories are a different matter, but that's a discussion for another day. I have no problem with Zionism as an ideology.
2) Also as an ethno-nationalist, you tend to run into a lot of kooky people. I called them the Protocols crowd, because they basically parrot a version of Jewish world control and conspiracy. Jared Taylor, for example, one of the most eloquent and prominent white nationalists in the country is frequently attacked from his right by people who feel he is insufficiently concerned with the so called "Jewish question." I used to argue with these people in the past but came to realize that, like 9/11 truthers, intelligent design advocates, or flat earthers, there is simply no point. Their minds are practically impervious to reason or logic. They start with a foregone conclusion and reverse engineer their entire thought process to substantiate that conclusion.
3) It is true that "it requires a certain level of naïveté to pretend that no-one uses anti-Zionism as a mask for Jew-hatred." But my response is that there is an equal movement in the opposite direction that uses accusations of anti-Semitism to silence criticisms of Israel or of Zionism generally. Noam Chomsky and Daniel Finklestein are anti-Zionists and have been called "self-hating Jews" for decades.
4) Is the validity of any argument for or against Zionism made any better or more valid based on whether the person making the argument is a Jew lover or a Jew hater? Some things are true even if the person who says them hate Jews.
5) I also agree with you that "the glib equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism always seemed at least uninformed to me." But where does that conflation come from? Who is advancing it? You don't believe that the ADL has played any role in conflating the two? What is meant when people refer to the "new anti-Semitism?" How precisely does it differ from the "old anti-Semitism?"
p.s. I have always appreciated you and your perspective as an interlocutor on this topic
3) It is true that "it requires a certain level of naïveté to pretend that no-one uses anti-Zionism as a mask for Jew-hatred." But my response is that there is an equal movement in the opposite direction that uses accusations of anti-Semitism to silence criticisms of Israel or of Zionism generally. Noam Chomsky and Daniel Finklestein are anti-Zionists and have been called "self-hating Jews" for decades.
I don’t disagree, although I have to note that, pace Newton, there are also people that treat every defense of Israel as an accusation of anti-Semitism. Our species isn’t much for honesty.
4) Is the validity of any argument for or against Zionism made any better or more valid based on whether the person making the argument is a Jew lover or a Jew hater? Some things are true even if the person who says them hate Jews.
The answer to your question is (of course) no, but it’s still probably useful to know whether people (especially those seeking political power) are antisemitic (or otherwise bigoted). It doesn’t make their accusations inherently false, but it can be useful information.
5) I also agree with you that "the glib equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism always seemed at least uninformed to me." But where does that conflation come from? Who is advancing it? You don't believe that the ADL has played any role in conflating the two? What is meant when people refer to the "new anti-Semitism?" How precisely does it differ from the "old anti-Semitism?"
Apparently it comes from Abba Evan and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Seriously, it’s a fair question, and I think it emerges both from sincere people that are troubled by phenomena like the UN’s ridiculously disproportionate condemnation of Israel (frequently by far worse actors), and also by less-sincere people that are looking to avoid all criticism.
I don’t know the precise intended meanings of “new” and “old” antisemitism. My uninformed belief is that the distinction assumes that antisemites that are currently culturally discouraged from bashing Jews as hook-nosed money-grubbing parasites now use superficially-respectable criticisms to communicate the same animosity. That’s certainly not always true, and it’s certainly not never true.
I appreciate and reciprocate your kind thoughts.
Rosalyn C-
I completely agree. I also think that when criticism of Israel is expressed using traditional antisemitic imagery, it’s more than just political opposition.
Everyone's an antisemite, unless proven otherwise.
Some of these comments, remind me of Althouse's comment at a Libertarian conference:
"How do I know you're not a racist?"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा