Antisemitism

[Oscar_Kipling]

You seem very focused on the idea of simplicity when dealing with what I have to say, yet you've spent post after post talking about antisemitism and how it makes you feel and what you think others should feel or do or say, and about the consequences of antisemitism and so on and so forth....can we just dispense with this irrelevant & vacuous non-rebuttal about simplicity and complication...clearly there is alot to talk about here, you know it , I know it, everyone in the thread knows it. It is beginning to feel like a lazy dismissal, and it's boring,when this topic is anything but.

if you actually want to engage, would you like to talk about why the rousing and heartfelt elocutions of those that consider themselves to be possessing goodwill, historical knowledge and moral clarity might find themselves falling flat with young people? Do those things matter when trying to convey the error of antisemitism? If they do matter why isn't it working? are young people just broken? if so how did they get broken? were their parents broken? if so how did their parents get broken? and so on and so forth. If you don't feel like engaging with any of that I understand, but please refrain from telling me how simple something is again, it is literally a waste of your time because it contains no meaning for me.

I don't understand this typing diarrhea. No, there isn't a lot to talk about here. Hating Jews because they are Jews is bad. Go out and say it.

diarrhea, idk that fails to truly capture the intentionality of my rambling doesn't it? It's more like vomit, like I have an eating disorder and I cannot help myself but to vomit up these words. Anyway I really wish you'd stop insulting me, If I lose my temper i'm going to get in trouble, not you.

Anyway yeah, I agree, hating Jews because they are Jews is bad, same with any people and nearly all features and attributes that people have no control over.  It is simple enough to say 'don't hate jews' in whatever language is familiar to you. This is so simple in fact that I find that it is hardly worth talking about. What I do think is worth talking about it why wouldn't people listen? I think it's interesting to talk about why people say they hate the Jews, heck I think it's really interesting to talk about what constitutes hating the jews in your opinion. I mean Killing Jews it's obvious, but I'd bet money that there are some less obvious ones in there too.

[Oscar_Kipling]

people of goodwill, who understand history and who possess moral clarity, must speak up and speak out—to our families, our communities and in public.

Not to poo poo or abstract your entire heartfelt and rousing speech to a single idea, but I do think that this is where a major sticking point lies. In order to have the leadership impact that your suggesting, your good will must be trusted, your understanding and interpretation of history needs to be believed valid, your moral clarity thought of as worthy of deferring to and your voice as one that should be valued. I think it is easier to believe any of those things about oneself than it is to actually be worthy of it and harder still to be worthy of it and convince others of that fact.

I am curious, When someone is attempting to lead you in the way that you have described, What are some of the major things that turn you off or turn you away these days, what would you say are the most commonplace failures/ shortcomings? Additionally, let's pretend that you were going to attempt to lead me (let's pretend that you didn't know that I was an incorrigible gelastic weirdo) after I had read your post, what do you think might be the most conspicuous points of skepticism that I might have from just reading your words as you wrote them?

I see the the author encouraging right-minded people to speak up with regard to those harboring an irrational and dangerous hatred for Jews. People are free to agree or disagree, as he makes clear. You, on the other hand, seem to think that the escalating antisemitism in the world will just vanish if we don't acknowledge it and call it what it is. Ignore it, and maybe it'll go away, right? Millions of indifferent Gentiles ignored Adolf Hitler's antisemitism for several years as he systematically murdered 6 million people.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”.

Well, I actually don't think that antisemitism will disappear if people just ignore it, I was wondering what other people thought of that idea. I do not know that i'd describe the west's reaction to Hitler as overall indifferent in the sense that folks in allied countries were fine with Jews but didn't really care if Hitler hated them. Instead, I think that the allied countries were chock full of racists too and they didn't do anything about the Nazis because they didn't exactly disagree with many of the fundaments of Nazi ideology. Apparently my reading of WW2 where the Japanese were monsters that the west helped create through their insatiable  thirst for colonial wealth, is the view of an ignorant person. As you can imagine, I have no hope that my reading of the Nazis being born and nurtured by the racist warmongering ideas and policies of the west will be any better received. Having said that, taking the idea that allied powers were racially progressive good guys that were standing up against the backward racial intolerance of the Nazis is a downright dangerous distortion of the character of these nations who were IMO all very racist and to this day are some matter of degrees off from a full 180.

EDIT: BTW, do you have any interests in answering my initial questions, I really am curious about what you would have to say?

[Oscar_Kipling]

Because most young people are idiots

Because parents have allowed their children to be indoctrinated by idiots

Because most people get the sum of their information from idiots

Because the church has abandoned traditional concepts of truth and evil has filled the vacuum because Satan is not an idiot

You've used the word idiot quite a bit, what do you mean by this word? Do you mean that they lack intellectual ability or that they are immature or myopic or something like that?

Why would parents allow their children to be indoctrinated by idiots? Where did the indoctrinating idiots come from?

I know that this question really gets folk's goats, but I have to ask... When do you think the church abandoned traditional concepts of truth and evil causing this Satan filled vacuum? Please be as precise as you canby specifying  a year , a decade, a century or a millennia ?

[tango]

people of goodwill, who understand history and who possess moral clarity, must speak up and speak out—to our families, our communities and in public.

Not to poo poo or abstract your entire heartfelt and rousing speech to a single idea, but I do think that this is where a major sticking point lies. In order to have the leadership impact that your suggesting, your good will must be trusted, your understanding and interpretation of history needs to be believed valid, your moral clarity thought of as worthy of deferring to and your voice as one that should be valued. I think it is easier to believe any of those things about oneself than it is to actually be worthy of it and harder still to be worthy of it and convince others of that fact.

I am curious, When someone is attempting to lead you in the way that you have described, What are some of the major things that turn you off or turn you away these days, what would you say are the most commonplace failures/ shortcomings? Additionally, let's pretend that you were going to attempt to lead me (let's pretend that you didn't know that I was an incorrigible gelastic weirdo) after I had read your post, what do you think might be the most conspicuous points of skepticism that I might have from just reading your words as you wrote them?

I'd have thought the simple questions to be asking were whether the attacks are accurately described. If they are not, we can ignore the reports and get on with our lives.

From the descriptions I've seen I'd say that if 75% of it is totally fabricated the remaining 25% is still enough to be horrified. Yes, videos can be selectively edited and cut but when there's talk of piles of bodies presumably they relate to people who were once living. If you want to claim that they were the bodies of people who died for some other reason and were stacked in one place to make a point that reality doesn't actually support then go ahead, but once you get past a certain number of accounts you have to start to wonder whether they are all so fabricated. Or you can accept that a group that openly hates Jews might have attacked Jews and killed Jews, just for being Jews.

As Fenris said, hating Jews just for being Jews is evil. It's just as evil as hating blacks for being black.

[RabbiKnife]

Because most young people are idiots

Because parents have allowed their children to be indoctrinated by idiots

Because most people get the sum of their information from idiots

Because the church has abandoned traditional concepts of truth and evil has filled the vacuum because Satan is not an idiot

You've used the word idiot quite a bit, what do you mean by this word? Do you mean that they lack intellectual ability or that they are immature or myopic or something like that?

Why would parents allow their children to be indoctrinated by idiots? Where did the indoctrinating idiots come from?

I know that this question really gets folk's goats, but I have to ask... When do you think the church abandoned traditional concepts of truth and evil causing this Satan filled vacuum? Please be as precise as you canby specifying  a year , a decade, a century or a millennia ?

As to your definitional questions, yes.

Parents allow idiots to indoctrinate their children because the parents are idiots

The idiots indoctrinating the idiot parents’ idiot children are the product of the idiotic public indoctrination system and its evil duocephalous twin the public and private university.

The church in the USA lost its moral ground when it traded God and faith in God for political power with the rise of the Moral Majorityin the late 70s.  That and the rise of end times rapture escapism create a generation of theological and spiritual idiotic Christian’s that don’t know the Bible and wouldn’t know Jesus if he walked up and spit in their faces.  The church traded piety for political power, holiness for hedonism, and morality for money.  Claiming a faith and godliness but denying its power. 

[Oscar_Kipling]

people of goodwill, who understand history and who possess moral clarity, must speak up and speak out—to our families, our communities and in public.

Not to poo poo or abstract your entire heartfelt and rousing speech to a single idea, but I do think that this is where a major sticking point lies. In order to have the leadership impact that your suggesting, your good will must be trusted, your understanding and interpretation of history needs to be believed valid, your moral clarity thought of as worthy of deferring to and your voice as one that should be valued. I think it is easier to believe any of those things about oneself than it is to actually be worthy of it and harder still to be worthy of it and convince others of that fact.

I am curious, When someone is attempting to lead you in the way that you have described, What are some of the major things that turn you off or turn you away these days, what would you say are the most commonplace failures/ shortcomings? Additionally, let's pretend that you were going to attempt to lead me (let's pretend that you didn't know that I was an incorrigible gelastic weirdo) after I had read your post, what do you think might be the most conspicuous points of skepticism that I might have from just reading your words as you wrote them?

I'd have thought the simple questions to be asking were whether the attacks are accurately described. If they are not, we can ignore the reports and get on with our lives.

From the descriptions I've seen I'd say that if 75% of it is totally fabricated the remaining 25% is still enough to be horrified. Yes, videos can be selectively edited and cut but when there's talk of piles of bodies presumably they relate to people who were once living. If you want to claim that they were the bodies of people who died for some other reason and were stacked in one place to make a point that reality doesn't actually support then go ahead, but once you get past a certain number of accounts you have to start to wonder whether they are all so fabricated. Or you can accept that a group that openly hates Jews might have attacked Jews and killed Jews, just for being Jews.

As Fenris said, hating Jews just for being Jews is evil. It's just as evil as hating blacks for being black.
[/quote]

Hmm, I guess i'm not sure what answers you thought I was seeking with my post. What is it that you think i'm asking after?

Let me try and put it this way, In Sojourners post the author wrote that people of goodwill, who understand history and who possess moral clarity, must speak up and speak out. I saw that and immediately thought about how many people appear to believe themselves to be persons of superlative goodwill having deep encyclopedic historical knowledge and unshakable moral clarity, all topped off with just the right mix of eloquence, pithiness and charm to communicate it to anyone who will listen. Then I thought about how I would characterize the actual accounting those folks gave of themselves when given an opportunity, or when pressed or when observed talking about some other topic. I think that it is an exceedingly rare skillset that it is much easier to overestimate in oneself or to pretend to possess than it is to actually be the kind of person that plants and cultivates ideas within others. I thought the whole piece contained the seeds of its own failure to achieve the sort of thing that it presumably sought to do, or at least motivate others to do. Do you want to talk about that?

[Oscar_Kipling]

As to your definitional questions, yes.


Parents allow idiots to indoctrinate their children because the parents are idiots

So, is it idiots all the way down then? When it comes to evaluating and understanding the the morality of most situations that people are likely to encounter what degree of intelligence do you think is required (low? medium? high? just looking for a general sense).


On a somewhat related note, do you think that perhaps you've interpreted some of my posts in the past as gasconading my intellectual superiority and belittling your intellect because you maintain a disparaging demeanor of superiority regarding the intelligence of large swaths of the population?

The idiots indoctrinating the idiot parents’ idiot children are the product of the idiotic public indoctrination system and its evil duocephalous twin the public and private university.

While I understand that you value word economy, the implications of your statement are so broad that your laconic style is at odds with actually being able to get anything but a very basic and superficial sense of what you believe is happening, how it happens or even what exactly you think happens at institutions of higher learning. Do you care to flesh out your idea with more detail?

The church in the USA lost its moral ground when it traded God and faith in God for political power with the rise of the Moral Majorityin the late 70s.  That and the rise of end times rapture escapism create a generation of theological and spiritual idiotic Christian’s that don’t know the Bible  and wouldn’t know Jesus if he walked up and spit in their faces.  The church traded piety for political power, holiness for hedonism, and morality for money.  Claiming a faith and godliness but denying its power.

I suspect this will go over like a fart at church, but I'd be remiss if I did not ask how you reconcile the churches' complicity in things like the racist attitudes, deeds and policies of the American south with the idea that the church had previously stood on moral ground? There are of course many areas where the Church demonstrated something less than Godly piety and holiness, but we gotta start somewhere right?

[tango]

people of goodwill, who understand history and who possess moral clarity, must speak up and speak out—to our families, our communities and in public.

Not to poo poo or abstract your entire heartfelt and rousing speech to a single idea, but I do think that this is where a major sticking point lies. In order to have the leadership impact that your suggesting, your good will must be trusted, your understanding and interpretation of history needs to be believed valid, your moral clarity thought of as worthy of deferring to and your voice as one that should be valued. I think it is easier to believe any of those things about oneself than it is to actually be worthy of it and harder still to be worthy of it and convince others of that fact.

I am curious, When someone is attempting to lead you in the way that you have described, What are some of the major things that turn you off or turn you away these days, what would you say are the most commonplace failures/ shortcomings? Additionally, let's pretend that you were going to attempt to lead me (let's pretend that you didn't know that I was an incorrigible gelastic weirdo) after I had read your post, what do you think might be the most conspicuous points of skepticism that I might have from just reading your words as you wrote them?

I'd have thought the simple questions to be asking were whether the attacks are accurately described. If they are not, we can ignore the reports and get on with our lives.

From the descriptions I've seen I'd say that if 75% of it is totally fabricated the remaining 25% is still enough to be horrified. Yes, videos can be selectively edited and cut but when there's talk of piles of bodies presumably they relate to people who were once living. If you want to claim that they were the bodies of people who died for some other reason and were stacked in one place to make a point that reality doesn't actually support then go ahead, but once you get past a certain number of accounts you have to start to wonder whether they are all so fabricated. Or you can accept that a group that openly hates Jews might have attacked Jews and killed Jews, just for being Jews.

As Fenris said, hating Jews just for being Jews is evil. It's just as evil as hating blacks for being black.

Hmm, I guess i'm not sure what answers you thought I was seeking with my post. What is it that you think i'm asking after?

Let me try and put it this way, In Sojourners post the author wrote that people of goodwill, who understand history and who possess moral clarity, must speak up and speak out. I saw that and immediately thought about how many people appear to believe themselves to be persons of superlative goodwill having deep encyclopedic historical knowledge and unshakable moral clarity, all topped off with just the right mix of eloquence, pithiness and charm to communicate it to anyone who will listen. Then I thought about how I would characterize the actual accounting those folks gave of themselves when given an opportunity, or when pressed or when observed talking about some other topic. I think that it is an exceedingly rare skillset that it is much easier to overestimate in oneself or to pretend to possess than it is to actually be the kind of person that plants and cultivates ideas within others. I thought the whole piece contained the seeds of its own failure to achieve the sort of thing that it presumably sought to do, or at least motivate others to do. Do you want to talk about that?
[/quote]

All this seems like yet another distraction from the topic of antisemitism.

[Sojourner]

Not to poo poo or abstract your entire heartfelt and rousing speech to a single idea, but I do think that this is where a major sticking point lies. In order to have the leadership impact that your suggesting, your good will must be trusted, your understanding and interpretation of history needs to be believed valid, your moral clarity thought of as worthy of deferring to and your voice as one that should be valued. I think it is easier to believe any of those things about oneself than it is to actually be worthy of it and harder still to be worthy of it and convince others of that fact.

"People of goodwill" refers to amiable, kind-hearted folks. Understanding history means having a factual perspective of history. Having moral clarity simply refers to the ability to properly discern the right and wrong of a given matter. These attributes are generally self-evident in one possessing wisdom, sound judgment, good character and reputation. So, if you want assess the value of a person's leadership, I would say these qualities are a measure of the veracity of one's word and reliability of his guidance. That said, if someone hates Jews simply because they're Jews, said guidance is a moot point.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Not to poo poo or abstract your entire heartfelt and rousing speech to a single idea, but I do think that this is where a major sticking point lies. In order to have the leadership impact that your suggesting, your good will must be trusted, your understanding and interpretation of history needs to be believed valid, your moral clarity thought of as worthy of deferring to and your voice as one that should be valued. I think it is easier to believe any of those things about oneself than it is to actually be worthy of it and harder still to be worthy of it and convince others of that fact.

"People of goodwill" refers to amiable, kind-hearted folks. Understanding history means having a factual perspective of history. Having moral clarity simply refers to the ability to properly discern the right and wrong of a given matter. These attributes are generally self-evident in one possessing wisdom, sound judgment, good character and reputation. So, if you want assess the value of a person's leadership, I would say these qualities are a measure of the veracity of one's word and reliability of his guidance. That said, if someone hates Jews simply because their Jews, said guidance is a moot point.

Would you say that using your paradigm places a lot of trust in one's own ability to discern between self evident characteristics that are actually reflective of the reality of a leader's character and  practiced simulation of the behaviors and trappings of such a leader? Is there something that distinguishes what you are saying here from an assertion that "I can just tell".

Regarding the mootness of attempting to guide antisemites, Do you believe that being anti-Semitic, engaging in anti-Semitic behaviors and or holding anti semitic beliefs renders a person impervious to change , growth or development?

[Fenris]

I think that it is an exceedingly rare skillset that it is much easier to overestimate in oneself or to pretend to possess than it is to actually be the kind of person that plants and cultivates ideas within others. I thought the whole piece contained the seeds of its own failure to achieve the sort of thing that it presumably sought to do, or at least motivate others to do. Do you want to talk about that?

This is a pitiful excuse for doing nothing in the face of incomprehensible evil. But you be you.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I think that it is an exceedingly rare skillset that it is much easier to overestimate in oneself or to pretend to possess than it is to actually be the kind of person that plants and cultivates ideas within others. I thought the whole piece contained the seeds of its own failure to achieve the sort of thing that it presumably sought to do, or at least motivate others to do. Do you want to talk about that?

This is a pitiful excuse for doing nothing in the face of incomprehensible evil. But you be you.

Is it incomprehensible? You seem to be constantly asserting that it is all very simple and easy to understand and any gesture toward the idea  that that there is anything beyond the most superficial and cursory interpretation of everything from the zeitgeist in Meiji restoration era Japan to the intrinsic value of kidnappers is met with contemptuous incredulity followed by some accusation of cowardice, inaction or cavalier disregard for human life or basic reason...I think you ran out of dramatic sounding descriptors that actually applied so you used "incomprehensible" because it is apparently much more important to you that you say something that feels hostile toward whatever imaginary version of me that you are clinging to than it is to actually say something cogent. Your decision to be so bafoonishly arch is turning your critique of my use of fictional characters into a pitiful self parody. I'm sorry that you are being reminded just how racist the world is, I'm sorry that you have to watch as the pain and torment of your people feeds the confidence of racists that not too long ago used to feel like they needed speak in dog whistles and subterfuge, I'm sorry that any genuine nuance surrounding any of this will most assuredly be used to obfuscate and muddy everything true about this situation in an attempt to justify and perpetuate more hate and more racism and more ways to attempt to assassinate your people as well as your people's character....having said all that though, i'm not doing this to you or your people by thinking and speaking on my thoughts, you can be basic if you like, but I wouldn't be even if I could.

[Sojourner]

Would you say that using your paradigm places a lot of trust in one's own ability to discern between self evident characteristics that are actually reflective of the reality of a leader's character and  practiced simulation of the behaviors and trappings of such a leader? Is there something that distinguishes what you are saying here from an assertion that "I can just tell".

Exchanges with you are frequently convoluted. Self-evident means self-evident. You either recognize authentic qualities that instill confidence in a person's ability to lead, or you don't. If what he's saying makes sense, heed his advice, and if it doesn't, ignore him. The author is simply encouraging moral, right-minded people to speak out against an escalating antisemitic mentality that can only be detrimental. It's not complicated.   

Regarding the mootness of attempting to guide antisemites, Do you believe that being anti-Semitic, engaging in anti-Semitic behaviors and or holding anti semitic beliefs renders a person impervious to change , growth or development?

Anyone can change for the better if they are amenable to such change. However, those investing time and energy in an emotion-driven campaign of hate and violence are generally not engaging in the soul-searching required to embrace such change. With that, I'm done here.

[Fenris]

Is it incomprehensible? You seem to be constantly asserting that it is all very simple and easy to understand and any gesture toward the idea  that that there is anything beyond the most superficial and cursory interpretation of everything from the zeitgeist in Meiji restoration era Japan...

Blah blah blah.

It isn't too much to ask that people stop treating Jews badly simply because they're Jews.

Typing a whole paragraph of pseudo intellectual nonsense to cover up moral cowardice. Shaking my head here.

[Oscar_Kipling]

Is it incomprehensible? You seem to be constantly asserting that it is all very simple and easy to understand and any gesture toward the idea  that that there is anything beyond the most superficial and cursory interpretation of everything from the zeitgeist in Meiji restoration era Japan...

Blah blah blah.

It isn't too much to ask that people stop treating Jews badly simply because they're Jews.

Typing a whole paragraph of pseudo intellectual nonsense to cover up moral cowardice. Shaking my head here.

The pseudo-intellectual nonsense is just my personality and not something that i'm doing in order to try to obfuscate my cowardice. It obviously wouldn't work anyway because you have every confidence that you can see right through everything that I say and can peer directly into my lilly liver.

Our exchanges are an example to me of why some folks find listening to folks like you extremely difficult. While I do not think that mere hypocrisy or a cartoonish adherence to a simplistic that's-that, just-so view of the world is a refutation of a valid point in and of itself, I think it does illustrate why it's not the least bit confusing that people see that attitude and convulse with rejection of the ideas presented by the person with it. I do not know if you agree with Rabbi that the world is full of idiots, but you do seem to not understand that your hostility toward whatever I say is the same kind of blind all encompassing unreasonable hostility that keeps folks from listening to anything you and others like you have to say. You are not completely wrong, but the only people that are going to listen are those that either agree with the ancillary guff that makes up your worldview, or people who can hear you out in spite of it.

You seem to want folks to listen in spite of any of your shortcomings and less than stellar views(if you even recognize that you have any shortcomings or less than stellar views).You seem to want folks to be the second type of person that doesn't have to agree with the whole of your deal so long as they can agree that Anti-semitism is wrong and needs to be eradicated. Unfortunately you do not want to be the kind of person yourself when it comes to other sets of topics. This thread seems to be full of folks wondering how something so obvious as rejecting anti-Semitism could fail to gain universal footing. Many have explained it away with supernatural this and that, with assertions that people are just too dumb to understand, That people are too cowardly to embrace justice.

No one seems to be willing to consider that maybe there are some false positives in there whereby criticism isn't the same as accepting anti semitism. If I don't believe that people that commit such and such terroristic crime or hold this or that horrible view is is now a worthless irredeemable person, then I get chucked into the antisemite or supporter of terrorism pile. The world of people that don't exactly agree with you and the world of people that want you dead at all costs are all mushed up into one in your mind.

You seem incapable of considering the possibility that the people you would hold up as those of good will, historical knowledge, and moral clarity might not be viewed as such because of their other views attitudes and approach. Wile I believe that a good idea is a good idea even if the messenger is a dirtbag, that isn't how you act and it isn't what you actually promote and because of that it is incomprehensible that you actually feel that you should expect it. People that cannot separate the idea that Israel has made choices that were not in the best interest of Palestinians from the idea that Israel deserves retributive acts from the Palestinians for those transgressions are people that think in the same shallow binary way that you do. People that cannot both hold that Israel deserves criticism for bad choices they made that hurt people and that Israel is not irredeemably evil aren't doing some alien form of thinking that only idiots do, they are doing the kind of thinking that you have consistently demonstrated.

You do not seem to think that there is any room to do anymore considering than you have already done. You do not seem to think that your thinking could be improved in any way on this issue, and you do not see any parallels between your own rigid reactionary judgemental overly simplistic way of thinking and that of the people that will never ever hear you because they are doing the exact same thing. I think that there actually is a solution and it doesn't require an exorcism, or magic or a decision to be a coward . I think that acting better is a good place to start...act better than you have to, act better than you want to, act better than the people around you deserve, act better than you actually are... I think that thinking better is a fine place to begin acting better....But who wants to listen to a coward.