(It would be cool to of you warn when you link to a pdf link) a study about antisemitism done by the ADL? What’s next? A study about racism done by the Black Panthers?
The funy thing though is that in all the compared polls with what the ADL regards as antisemitism markers, France has the lowest figures. So, we’re massively antisemitic but the other compared countries are even worse. I dont know if it’s very informative about antisemitism but is very informative about the ADL’s worldview.
:dubious: Literally the first suggestion I’ve ever seen that the ADL is not a reliable authority on antisemitism. The NAACP is a reliable authority on racism; so is the SPLC/Klanwatch. If you compare the ADL to the Panthers instead of to the NAACP or SPLC, then you must be confusing the ADL with the Jewish Defense League.
Really? The ADL doesnt have a good press over here. Back in the early and mid 2000s they were constantly saying there was a very alarming rise of antisemitism in France. What do you think happened? Suddenly there were a few notable cases of antisemitic acts all over the press. All those cases proved to be boguses, fueled by the “Peter and the Wolf” campaign of the ADL.
I dont believe in the impartiality of interest groups.
“Peter and the Wolf”?
So then you’re saying claiming that Fench Jews are more loyal to Israel then France and complaining about Jews dominating the business community isn’t antisemitic?
Would you care to explain your reasoning or provide evidence that the ADL forged it’s findings that 38% of all French citizens believe French Jews are more loyal to Israel then France and 33% declared that Jews have “too much” influence in the business community.
Well he was a practicing defense attorney…
Not necessarily. After all, an American does not need to be an antisemite to complain of American Jews’ loyalty to Israel; that’s a legitimate beef, even if we leave “more loyal” out of it. As for the business community . . . Hollywood only, that’s something Americans joke about in a funny-and-true way, but do you need to be an antisemite to bitch about it? Or just a frustrated gentile trying to make it in the biz? 
He has political opinions, but that doesn’t mean he has a political bias.
:dubious: Not funny.
I’m a bit surprised.
I didn’t realize that there were people who thought the “dual loyalty” canard was an actual fact rather than a myth.
Anyway, I didn’t realize that you believed that most American Jews were more loyal to Israel than to America.
What makes you have such an opinion of American Jews if you don’t mind my asking?
Your “other boards” claim rings hollow, appearing to be an attempt to imply another poster is an “RW idiot” while claiming plausible deniability.
Don’t do this again.
That said,
jumping to the expressed conclusion that another poster based his or her view on Wikipedia (as opposed to simply providing such citation as corroborating evidence) and then claiming such a poster would be “extremely foolish and extremely naive” to hold such views is rather more inflammatory than is needed in GD.
If there is an error in the Wikipedia article, expose it, (or correct it on Wikipedia). Don’t drag one more Wikipedia feud into a different thread.
You need to avoid getting personal, as well.
[ /Moderating ]
I wasn’t “getting personal” and I don’t see why it’s unfair to say that “it’s extremely foolish and extremely naive” to think wikipedia is a reliable source.
From the limited time I’ve been here people regularly make such claims about sources provided by other people.
Were I to hold to the standard you’re now forming, when someone links to the National Enquirer or Stormfront, we can’t say “it’s extremely foolish or extremely naive” to use those as sources.
Wikipedia is a grossly unreliable source for a variety of reasons(amongst others many of its articles are dominated by activists with axes to grind). There are reasons that many if not most college professors don’t allow students to use it as a citation.
That said, I am open-minded so please explain to me why it’s wrong to say, that “it’s extremely foolish or extremely naive” to use the National Enquirer, Stormfront, World Net Daily, Democratic Underground or comparable websites as a source.
He linked to a wikipedia article to justify his statement. That seemed like a reasonable conclusion. Had I expressed an opinion about the Armenian Holocaust and linked to an article by Peter Balakian wouldn’t it be reasonable for others to think I formed by opinions based on that article?
It is the whole truth.
I wasn’t trying to be funny.
Are you claiming that a bias is the same thing as an opinion?
Darn, total brainfart on my part, meant “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”.
At least if you provide a study, it would be good of you to check their methodology. They didnt go around French and asked them to rant on Israel or the Jews and then crunched that in readable numbers.
The ADL asked the very questions “Are French Jews more loyal to Israel then France” or" Do Jews have too much influence in the business community", and then the possible answers were either “probably true” or “probably false”. To translate that in 38% of all French citizens CLAIM that French Jews are more loyal to Israel than France or 33% of them COMPLAIN that Jews have too much influence in the business communiy is either disingenuous or means that you cant read your own cites.
BTW, in another thread you were saying that the French started to go on an “unreligious” crusade only when Muslims started to get uppity, but had no problems whatsoever with Jewish religious signs. Could you put on a coherent plot here? We’re massively antisemitic, but are even harsher Islamophobes? Wonder how we’ve ended with one of the biggest Jewish population on the planet and one of the biggest proportion of Muslim immigrants in the Western world.
Well, we’ve already had the ‘ZOMG, nobody can ever criticize Israel ever without being called an anti-semite, ever!’ bit trotted out, but that looks positively scintillating in comparison to this…
Largely because that would be retarded.
When you design a study, you don’t say “Hey, rant some, please.” You ask your informants a set of questions, and you then tabulate statistics based on their responses.
It’s almost as if they designed a study to check for the presence of anti-semitic opinions among a population group, and then asked their informants whether or not they agreed with those anti-semitic statements. Truly, horrible methodology. I bet there were hanging chads too, yes?
Or, neither. He obviously read the cite and you’re being more than a little disingenuous in trying to handwave it away. A large percentage of French informants responded in the affirmative when asked if they thought that anti-semitic statements were true. That means that they claim that they are true, that means if they say that someone has “too much influence”, they are saying that it’s a bad thing. That’s what “too much” means. That means they’re doing so.
Making some picayune distinction about how you can’t say that they “complain” because in general they possibly keep their anti-semitic resentment to themselves and don’t, necessarily, voice it? That’s uber weaksauce.
I have to wonder about the ideological axe your grinding here. If a polling firm asked 1000 Americans “Do you believe that blacks are genetically/mentally inferior?” “Do you believe that blacks are inherently prone towards watermelon thievery?” and “Do you believe that blacks are inherently likely to rape white women” with “Probably yes”, that it would be somehow disingenuous to claim that Americans are racist against blacks?
For serious?
“Coherent… you keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
It’s perfectly plausible that a nation is bigoted against one minority group, but happens to be even more so against another. It also makes no sense that you’re claiming that having a large population migration of a certain racial group means it’s nonsensical to point out that you can be bigoted against that group. Many European immigrants in America’s early days were hated, even when they were immigrating. There were also a huge number of Chinese immigrants and, yep, they were hated too.
Your argument about population density is even more absurd. And again I have to wonder about the standards you’re using and the political axe you’re grinding here. Would you argue that it’s absurd to claim that any Israelis are bigoted against Palestinians since, after all, they have one of the largest populations of Palestinian citizens on the planet?
Puh-leeze.
Actually, I really like that nonsense:
“How could the United States have been racist in 1950? It had one of the largest populations of blacks outside of Africa!”
Or “How could America of the 1930s possibly have been anti-Semitic?! Look at how many Jews were immigrating there!”
Or “How can anyone possibly insist that France and the UK of the 1920s were less anti-Semitic than Poland of that same timeframe!? Look at how many more Jews lived in Poland!”
I’m also confused as to why CZ was confused regarding my belief(which is I think unarguable) that anti-Arab racism is worse in France than anti-Semitism".
I said it in post 14 of this thread.
If the Muslim kids are immigrants, aren’t they now Europeans? So how can their actions have no reflection on Europeans?
Also the “Muslim kids” are probably not immigrants but the children of immigrants who were raised in Europe.
One of the unfortunate patterns in Europe has not been immigrants becoming radicalized, but the children of immigrants being radicalized by the rejection they face from the society at large.
They also often have romantic notions of their homeland and native culture not shared by their parents.
That’s why younger Muslims in Europe are often attracted to more extreme versions of Islsm than their parents.
For a dramatization of this I’d recommend “My Son the Fanatic.”