“Sonny, never wrestle a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig likes it.”
A certain kind of idiot should just be ignored. Either suggest that a mod locks it, or resist the temptation to post. Let the thread die quickly.
I think it depends. If somebody wants to, in good faith, argue for white supremicism or anti-semitism, and they’re willing to have an honest debate, then let them. If they’re going to fling around insults and not debate their point of view, but just, as dseid said, fling around idiotic hate speech, then there’s a problem.
To see the difference, if you look at Brainglutton’s GD thread, you have Millen88, and Notpicard, who, while they are racists/raciallists/white supremicists/however they want to characterize themselves, do seem to be interested in debate and are willing, at least, to try to argue their point of view, and then you have the little lamented banned poster Franklin Philly, who was not.
There is no such thing as Hate Speech.
And Idiocy, as a principle, is a reflection on the owner of the word - his inasbility to comprehend something difficult to grasp.
Hate Speech is a misnomer. It means nothing. Hate is an intransigent verb and Speech is a verb. You, grammatically, cannot combine them into anything meaningful.
Yeah the phrase sounds catchy, but it’s worthless.
For example, define: Love Speech.
Open your mind. Implant the prefrontal cortex.
Like the Viet Cong, the Crow is everywhere.
It’s usually too late by the time the authorities realize the revolution of the mind is already under way and the communist/fascit cadre’s are already getting their pink slips.
Wishing they too had joined the revolution.
Could you restate this more pedantically so I can understand it?
What “Crow” are you talking about?
I know that I used the word, but I used it as a verb, so I don’t think that the two are related.
In other words, “WTF are you going on about?”
I do think people like the dear departed FP require rebuttal. With this recent Mel Gibson brouhaha, coupled with the changing face of Europe and the situation in the Middle East, Jews begin to see how easily antisemitism creeps back into popular thought.
Non Jews may not notice as readily, but Jews see the warning signs loud and clear – discussions of whether the Jews really do control the media and all the money, debate on whether all current Jews should be held accountable for the death of Jesus, etc. Therefore, when these things crop up, I feel the need to shout them down, to pound them into the ground. You won’t convince the person who brings up the debate, but you will convince those who may be at least partially receptive. DSeid doesn’t see these people as fence sitters; I say that you would be surprised how many people would be responsive to the myths that the Jews control all media and banks. And accepting this point of view – that there is some kind of unique power or unique evil concentrated in the Jewish people – is the first step down a very long and dark road.
OTOH lout sets up the usual strawman in these arguments – that Jews immediately equate all criticism of Israel to antisemitism. In fact, I have never ever seen this, from the most ardent Zionists and the most territorial Israelis. It is only when the old Judenhass is hidden in a cloak of “legitimate” criticism of Israel, often on ridiculous points, that Israelis and those who support them begin to take issue.
It can be a fine line, but the distinctions are obvious. For every criticism, ask yourself a) Is Israel truly the worst? and b) Is this a standard to which no other country is expected or has been expected to meet? For instance, arguments which deny the right of existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East. No other country has to justify its existence. There is no other country on this planet for which people are calling for dissolution into hostile neighbors, or en masse ethnic relocation, like they do with the 5 million Jews of Israel. So to me, debates which question the legitimacy of the state of Israel are antisemitic at the core. Most people who do this say that they are only against the philosophy of Zionism. Defining Zionism is easy – it is a belief that there should be a Jewish state in the Middle East. MLK, Jr. noted it more than 40 years ago – “Don’t talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism.”
There are some other points like this, and they rightly get called antisemitism. Israel has been widely criticized as a center of white slavery, when in fact it is no worse than any European country. Israel has been criticized as an expansionist, imperial power, when in fact it has only shrank in the last 25 years, and the majority of its territory gains come from defensive actions. Israel gets criticized as perpetuating genocide, when it hasn’t been systematically killing its Arab population. Note that there are perhaps dozens of other countries who have treated ethnic majorities far, far worse than Israel, but yet an overwhelming amount of attention is directed towards Israel.
Most other criticisms – negotiation philosophy, military tactics to suppress the uprising in the territories, land for peace, civil and human rights – are rightly criticized. There are legitimate differences in philosophy, and those who say that Israel should negotiate are not (at least around here) called antisemitic. I would challenge lout to point out when anybody has called anyone else antisemitic for arguing along these lines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid
So the debate: why engage with these fools at all? Why not exert some self-control and step away from the keyboard?
holmes:
Because ignoring them, gives them a stronger pull on the fence-sitters and lurkers. Allowing these guys to spew them vemon unchallenged, gives them a free pass and that’s something they get way with to often.
This is one of the few mediums, that allows the fence-sitters the ability to weigh the points made by both sides and with a search engine actually verify the facts.
Speaking, not as a fence sitter on this issue, but as an inveterate lurker of long-standing, holmes speaks for me: from my pont of view it’s more effective that a Hate Speech merchant shd be logically dismantled and sent packing, than simply frozen out. In terms of logical argument, count me firmly among the Epsilon Minus Semi-Morons, and I like to see the reasons for views spelt out by those who can do so.
posted by Edwino <snip:
I notice. It scares me. And I have no idea what to do about it. 
So…
What do you suppose causes “antisemitism”? 
ignorance?
Of what?
Xenologist, given that in another thread you self-identify as a modern National Socialist, I suspect that you are less than entirely interested in the 1000 page treatise on the origins of modern antisemitism. But so long as the conversation remains polite and above board I will listen to my other posters and try to engage some. Cliff notes version.
I could start with the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of Rome and how those who refused to see the light were held suspect. How the Christ-killer myth helped such along. How the Jewish tendency to have a seperate identity and customs even while existing as part of the fabric of other cultures fed into distrust and blame. How the role that Jews were allowed to have in various other cultures thrust into roles that resulted in resentment from others. How no one likes a visible “other” doing better than you, and the Jewish cultural emphasis on education led to a few very visible success stories in all times since the Enlightenment, with no one seeing all those who failed miserably.
But mostly that last one: ignorance in terms of lack of knowledge from lack of experience. If someones prime exposure of a group is through media and presented stereotypes (including live exanples of stereotypes) then it is easy to hold that image as your example of the whole. It is easy for a Jew-hater to think of Jews as being in control because the images of Jews that they see are of famous accomplished Jews. They don’t know my Uncle Julius, for example, who didn’t have enough power to swat a fly. Or my idiot cousin. Without the large normative experience of Joe Blow Jews to offset, the few select images distort the conception they have of the whole. Thus it is for many stereotypes of minorities, they occur because of the very seperation that the “Supremist” craves.
Thank you DSeid. If it’s okay with you, I’ll copy your post.
I don’t know enough about modern antisemitism. I just know it’s there. I’d appreciate it if you could help me reply to people like Xenologist, in a more educated way.
Please remember that English isn’t my first language, though. I don’t know if I can manage the 1000 page treatise. 
I’ll try to do my part and I acknowledge the points made by those who encourage a calm reply with factual information to correct any misinformation spewed out. I think that you understand why I prefer my racists and antisemites straight up. The stormtrooper brigades are marginalized wannabe baddies in today’s America anyway. (As Eva has pointed out, such may not be the case in some other countries sadly enough.) I know that they are there, they have and will continue to be there. I’ve been called a kike to my face and couldn’t help myself from getting into a brawl with one once in days distant past. But mostly I see them as powerless dregs who feel that if they dress up and prance around in Nazi ideologies they might get people to react to them as if they are something fearful. I’ll engage but they do not concern me much.
But insiduous hateful concepts are commonly held by many who would consider being called a Jew-hater to be fighting words. People who are not the powerless wannabes. People like Lout have no problem calling Jews a “race” in their invectives against Israel, so long as they couch it in the phrasology of defending those who they call “the oppressed.” Edwino’s guidance on how to spot them is aptly put. This sort of antisemitism, more likely of the left than of the far right, is becoming increasingly socially acceptable. And that does give me pause.
A few things in reply to points made so far:
Any criticism of Israel is frequently potrayed as antisemtism by hardliners in Israel and abroad (particularly by groups which themselves hold racist views, the first one that springs to mind is Masada2000),though Ariel Sharon recently gave a speech in which he appeared to suggest that any criticm of Israel was antisemitism. Again edwino even the slightest oppositon to the settlemnt policy has been called antismetic (just a couple of weeks ago for example posters appeared in Jerusalem comparing the IDF to the Nazis for evacuating settlement outposts). I’m not saying that you were aware or should of been aware of this as most of this accustaions come from the (more often than not, ultra-orthodox) fringes.
Now I have seen criticism of Israel used for antismetic purposes many times, but still the vast majority of criticism against Israel is not motivated by antisemtism. Trying to define something like ‘unreasonable criticism’ is a dead-end as something that can be unreasonable to you can reasonable to someone else and vice versa. Criticism of Israel is antismetism when it is motivated by antisemitism and can therefore still be antisemitic even if it is ‘reasonable’ and not antisemtic even if it is ‘unreasonable’. O the flipside though there is also alot of racism on the otherside, some of the most hatefilled and racist things I have ever read have been on pro-Israeli websites, neither side has a monopoly on racism and hatred is endemic on both.
There are a couple of points I do take issue with, firtsly the suggestion that bi-nationalism is antisemtic. You can certainly take issues with the practicalities of bi-nationalism, but suggetsing it’s antisemitic is absurd. The second issue is with that describing the Palestinians as oppressed is antisemtic which again I feel is absurd.
Let me also just add that I believe that criticism of Israel along the lines I stated above is antisemitic. That doesn’t mean that those who spout it are necessarily antisemites. I do believe that there is a pretty big push by a united Arab media front in the European media and in several NGOs and international organizations to demonize Israel (and the Jews), and many people, like perhaps lout, just echo what they read there, without awareness of the root issues.
To the who speak hate, I would just implore them to really, honestly examine their arguments with some perspective to root out the contradictions. With antisemitism, so much of it is based on absurd contradictions – Jews are subhuman, yet they form a secret cabal that rules the world. Jews are both money hungry bastards and the force behind world Communism. Jews dominate the foreign policy of the US but Israel still is undergoing a wave of terrorism. So many of the negative characteristics they map onto the Jewish people are nothing but consequences of two millenia of persecution – money lending, insular communities, bookish intellectuals, seemingly bizarre religious rituals. Do they not realize that they are only perpetuating this cycle with their hatred?
MC
Your points are well-taken, but I still maintain that a lot of what gets filtered down into left wing and European media comes from propoganda directly churned out by Arab Ministries of Information. Yes, there is xenophobia and outright racism from the Israeli side. No, I am not excusing it. But it doesn’t approach the magnitude of antisemitism coming from the other side – textbooks denying the presence of Israel, suicide bombers glorified throughout popular culture and the government-endorsed media, the blood libel running on television and in government-approved editorials in the paper. We are talking about institutionalized hate here, not the marginalized hate of the xenophobic ultranationalists that seem to be found in every country on the planet. One cannot honestly equate the two.
I have not freed Israel from criticism. I don’t like Sharon and his policies, I think he has set the whole region back at least a decade. But equating fringe groups in Israel to official government policies of Saudi Arabia and Syria is very similar to my standards of antisemitism. I can find plenty of American groups who spew that kind of hate every day. How about those French and German anti-immigrant groups? Israel is not the best in this respect, but it isn’t even close to the worst. It is a consequence of having a country with a free press and free speech. Do you understand how it is not fair to compare Moledet or Masada 2000 or whatever Meir Kahane Israel kook to the governments of Egypt, Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or the Palestinian Administration? It would be like equating France and the Taliban because France has an anti-immigrant political party.
Sharon’s statements were stupid and wrong IMHO, but they are still not a government sanction of hate. You still have to go a long way to show that Israel maintains a policy of hate and of oppression which comes close to those of the Arab world.
This doesn’t really have to do with the substance of DSeid’s OP (with which I agree) - but please document with cites your claim that “Any criticism of Israel is frequently potrayed as antisemtism by hardliners in Israel and abroad…” Thanks.
The last time someone parroted this line here and was challenged for examples, the best they could come up with was criticism of a grotesque cartoon which portrayed Ariel Sharon biting the heads off Palestinian babies.
Huh? Translation, please.
I’m not sure what you mean by “binationalism”. Your second “issue” is a baseless strawman.
Let me just clarify one thing: The groups like Moledet and Masada 2000 or whoever are rightwing xenophobic nuts. They exist in every country in the world. We ignore them in every country in the world. They should be ignored in Israel as well. The fact that so much time is given to them is interesting, especially when they are used in comparison with the government-sponsored institutionalized hate coming from the Arab World.