"Jews totally run Hollywood"

Great Debates
181

Yes. Bias against “Jews”, “blacks”, “Catholics”, “Muslims” etc. is by definition bigotry.

A dictionary definition of bias: "a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

Dictionary definition of bigotry: “Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion”.

As I mentioned before, there are instances where people pose questions in a calm and non-hostile manner which touch on stereotypes about an ethnic group, and which deserve calm and factual responses. When one’s biases become obvious over time with repeated entries into such discussions to find fault with said ethnic group* then one is not seeking a “frank discussion”, but to spread prejudice.

Yes. I am intolerant of intolerance. It is one of my failings.

*To be sure, few openly condemn the entire group, just the “bad” members of said group (and by extension, other members of the group who fail to rigorously condemn the “bad” members). A few “good” members of the group are held up as shining examples, often including the “best friend” of the person Who Is Not A Bigot. The “good” are given great weight as group members who are ignored or shouted down by the rest because they speak the Truth. Example: Clarence Thomas, well-recognized as a Good Negro.

182

I suspect that the tendency of some to assume bigotry on the part of anyone not being vigorous enough wrt being anti-anti-Semitic will cause a lot of people not to post to a thread like this, not because they have any intense fear of being labelled anti-semitic, but because they just don’t care that much about the topic, whatever their opinion is on it. Do the Jews control Hollywood? Who cares, really? And if you don’t care, why stick your tootsies in that water, even if you are pretty sure Jews DO control Hollywood?

There are only three groups who would post here:

  1. those who honestly don’t care if they are tagged as anti-Semites or not
  2. those who are anti-Semitic and want to seize the opportunity to stick it to the Jews
  3. those who honestly care about free and open debate and want to see the topic explored in a fair and logical manner.

Given the level of intensity some people here bring to debates relating to Jewishness (thinks about some very long and dull threads relating to Israel and Palestine) it is hard to see how members of group 3 are not gonna get wrongly tagged as anti-Semites by some. So, debate stifled. Not a good thing.

183

Here on the Dope, some people get pissy about almost every conceivable topic. I doubt there is any particular magic about being tagged a Jew-hater moreso than being tagged a racist, woman-hater, gay-hater, etc. etc.

Those shrinking violets who cannot stand the thought of someone on an anonymous board tagging them with an unflattering label, don’t post in debates, period.

184

:rolleyes: Y’know for someone who is constantly decrying innuendo, you sure seem to use it a lot.

Here’s the earlier thread that seems stuck in Jackmannii’s craw. Judge for yourselves whether I am the raving anti-Semite Jackmannii longs for me to be.

185

I have some experience in how one gets into show business in New York. Most kids who went to auditions took the subway. We came in from Princeton, which was about as far as you could live and do it once a week or so. (And my daughter’s manager was good about not sending her on crap auditions.) Add to this the fact that a ten year old with two full time working parents is unlikely to get involved, and you’ll get a preponderance of Jewish kids acting in NY. (Or more than our numbers, anyway.) This will carry over to older people also, some from New York and some from other urban areas.

IIRC, btw, (this is for general broadcast, not a response to you) the early producers were not tycoons, but people who set up in LA to be close to the Mexican border where they somehow had to flee to escape Edison’s lawyers. And the producers of the '30s and '40s worked really hard at making movies that wouldn’t seem the least bit Jewish. You’d think the cabal controlling the media wouldn’t have waited until after WW II to make Gentleman’s Agreement, wouldn’t you?

186

Raving anti-Semite? Nah. But yes, I can see how he sees a pattern consistent with the “just asking questions” tactic. You saw it fit to raise the possibility of conspiracies that just happen to involve Jewish individuals working against American interests in service of Israel’s then, as in: “Now does all of this add up to a ‘conspiracy’ or the presence of Israeli agents in the US government? Not necessarily.” And now see it fit to suggest that well maybe there is pervasive discrimination by Jews against non-Jews in Hollywood because lots of Jews means that such probably has been going on.

Yes, spoke, a pattern of someone suggesting the mere presence of a large number of Jews around centers of power - be it Hollywood or in the positions of influence in a conservative administration - is enough to raise suspicion, that such deserves investigation for discrimination, or “bears watching” and is “cause for concern”, is enough, more than enough, to get the spidey sense tingling, even if they doth protest that they never claimed there was a Jewish “conspiracy”, just that there could be one - just that these particular Jews near power and influence are looking out for their own and having more loyalty to Israel than to America.

You really can’t appreciate why that pattern raises eyebrows? Really?

I do not know if you are or are not a duck, have no interest in discussing whether or not you waddle, but I really do have to let you know that that pattern sounds very much like a quack.

You asked.

But I still maintain that little good is usually accomplished by making that accusation even when it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that one is, in fact, dealing with a duck.

187

I think it takes some extra-powerful spidey sense to see anti-Semitism there.

188

Again, I am not saying that there is any anti-Semitism there, not necessarily anyway. Just a pattern that is cause for concern, that bears watching …
:slight_smile:

189

spoke, I really do want to make it clear. I am not accusing you of being an anti-Semite. And I am nearly 100% sure that you would not consider yourself one. But without question the pattern that you have engaged in makes even the dullest spidey-sense tingle some. Me, I don’t have much confidence in that sense, and, again, usually see little value in sharing it when it does tingle. It’s driven below ground much of time. Once again, even if, hypothetically, I was dealing with someone who I knew well enough to know with confidence that their motivations were anti-Semitic, I would see that responding with reasoned discussion in a forum that had rules against overt hate speech would be the least poor option, as that would reach the greater number who are just, in the non-pejorative sense of the word, ignorant.

And again, remember that the White person who crosses the street without thinking about it when a Black youth is coming the other way, does not consider himself a racist. Juan Williams does consider himself to be prejudiced against Muslims, just because he gets suspicious and nervous when he sees one on his plane. You consistently see Jews aggregating in positions of power as cause for concern and suspicion, “not necessarily” as a sign of a conspiracy, but … just asking questions.

… Maybe in each case they’d do well to ask themselves why they do behave in the way they do?

190

No, I don’t. Please read the other thread more carefully. I don’t give a damn what religion or ethnicity is involved.

Thank you.

Ah, the “but.”

What pattern?

I think that is the best response when you are battling monsters that may be entirely imaginary. Otherwise you can come across looking like a nut.

191

Since you’ve fallen in love with the overpowering cleverness of your “spidey” meme, here’s a reminder from the current thread (leaving aside any of the others in which you’ve shared your ethnic insights) that ESP is not required to figure out where you’re coming from.

As DSeid noted…you asked. :slight_smile:

192

Interesting google hits for that phrase, “Jewish supremacism”.

193

He did immediately realize that was an out of bounds thing to say and apologized.

To return to the original discussion … spoke this was the means by which you suggested we should determine whether or not there was discrimination by Jews against non-Jews in the American media business:

The data was presented to you that Jews are similarly over-represented in the British media - and similarly over-represented among British Nobel Prize winners. Which by your suggested analysis before getting your answer was a result that would be very much against a discrimination case and more consistent with the cultural factor (or even other causes for aptitude and/or interest) explanation.

You still however persist in stating that Jewish discrimination against non-Jews in Hollywood as the cause of the large Jewish presence in the industry “is an open question” … would you care to comment about why that information did so little to alter your belief set after you had presented it as such a potentially meaningfully telling bit of data?

194

I suppose someone could say to a gay man “don’t be such a faggot” and then apologize for that, too.

It’s the problem with Just Asking Questions. An Argument By Insinuation stands on the suggestion (or what’s behind it). If we were going to analyze employment, we’d need data to start with: how many positions do we define as ‘leadership’, how are people distributed amongst them, how many people applied for which positions, who made hiring decisions, etc…
We’d perform that analysis first and then try to draw conclusions from the data.
It’s the difference between having a conclusion “Jews are Clannish” and then trying to find support for it “So let’s sue Hollywood to find out about their hiring practices in discovery” and trying to find out about how Hollywood’s upper management works and then drawing conclusions from it.

Just Asking Questions about Jewish Clannishness is designed to work simply by the insinuation, and it does its jobs. We don’t have to analyze anything, the question “Just how clannish are those Jews” serves the function it’s designed for even if it’s not answered. It may even work better if it’s not answered, only asked (ideally, repeatedly).
“Doctor Bob definitely overperscribed controlled substances for financial gain and there’s some specific facts we can analyze, and we can confirm or rebut this once and for all immediately.” is not as effective at attacking his character as “let’s continually probe Doctor Bob and make him a target of inquiry for potential drug sales.”

Britain could have been investigated first as a ‘control’ as used to refute his argument before he made it. Instead, without investigating, he used it as innuendo to support it… and then abandoned it without comment. Of course, maybe Jewish Clannishness has ruined the British film industry, too.

And as Spoke linked to his own Conspiracy Theory about Traitor Jews, I guess that’s subject for discussion too. It follows the same pattern: a claim is made with little or not evidence, it follows classical anti-Semitic slurs, it is based on innuendo, it suggests something inherent in being Jewish that makes some Jews “bad Jews” if they give in to some sort of inherent ethnic behavior/loyalty/proclivities/what-have-you. And Something Must Be Done to investigate the potential treachery/bad behavior of Jews.

There isn’t necessarily a conspiracy of Traitor Jews who are really Israeli agents in the US government, but there might be.
There isn’t necessarily a pack of Clannish Jews who only look out for other Jews and keep non-Jews out of positions of power, but there might be.

Bonus points, of course, for the whole “sure this trope is classical anti-semitism, but there are some Questions that Just have to be Asked… what, are you one of those Paranoid Jews?”

195

Because I didn’t see much real information there.

You gave us two cites.

The first appears to be an attempt to list every Jewish person ever involved in the British entertainment industry. It turns out to be a pretty thin list, probably not comprising more than the 0.5% of British entertainers that would be predicted by chance.

The second is an OMFG!!! JOOS CONTROLS THE MEDIAZZZ! -type site, comical in its desperation to prove its thesis, to the point that I don’t think we can trust the site to even be truthful about who is and is not a Jew. Example:

“Suspected Jew?” :rolleyes: (Murdoch is a Christian, ftr.)

So I don’t think we yet have good information on Jewish presence in British media. :shrug:

196

When posters start talking about the innate superiority of Jews which causes them naturally to rise to the top of every field, I don’t know what you could call that except Jewish supremacism. DSeid assured us that was not his meaning and I took him at his word and apologized for the crack.

197

And now FinnAgain has joined the party! FinnAgain, rather than descend into your traditional post-parsing tedium, I will first just note that you are grossly distorting the discussion in that older thread. I again invite readers to check out that thread for themselves and draw their own conclusions, rather than take your word for what was said (and more particularly, what was secretly meant).

Secondly, since I gather from your username that you are a lover of great literature, I direct you to this worthy passage, which seems especially fitting here:

And I wish you happy jousting.

(FTR, the passage is from an 1895 translation, out of copyright.)

198

And enjoy your windmills as well, spoke.

199

Oh, btw, spoke, you seem very dismissive of the quality of evidence of Jews in British media, but fail to realize that that it is pretty much the exact same quality of evidence that you have claimed represents Jews “overwhelmingly” being employed in US media, to such a degree that it is presumptive evidence of discrimination. Your basis for that conclusion? An article that points out that many of the current heads of the major American movie production houses are Jewish and an impression you have of the rest of the industry. With no other support for the claim, you have been acting as if there is an established factual basis that the whole industry is, not just represented significantly more than their share of the population, but is “overwhelmingly” Jewish, and then speculate “non-sinister” but still neferious reasons for that alleged “fact” from there (if there are Jews in large numbers there then it must be because they have been hiring each other to the exclusion of giving non-Jews a fair shake) … on evidence of the same sort as is used by those, how you call it? “JOMFG!!! JOOS CONTROLS THE MEDIAZZZ! -type sites”: a handful or so of names.

Again, I will respond politely to those just asking questions, whatever their motives may be. I will engage in debate on the subjects at hand. But if you are going to establish a record of trotting out what sound like slightly watered down versions of the standard anti-Semitic tropes and then ask us (which includes me) to judge whether or not they sound like slightly watered down versions of the standard anti-Semitic tropes … well if asked I will answer honestly. Yes, yes they do. Whatever your motives actually are, that is what they sound like. And I don’t even need my finely tuned paranoia to hear it that way.

200

A list of Jews in Hollywood (whether or not it’s accurate, comprehensive, or rigorous in its analysis) is a firm basis for looking at Jewish Clannishness in Hollywood where Jews aim at helping others Jews and hurting Gentiles in order to maintain Jewish power and control. In fact, we should probably sue Hollywood due to such a list. And if such a list existed for the British entertainment industry we could know that the Argument by Insinuation was aimed at the wrong targets and was just a smear and… what’s that? There is exactly such a list for the British entertainment industry?

Can’t see how that’s relevant…
(Is it any surprise?)

A reminder for folks reading along: this is the current context of the curiously styled claim that there is such a thing as “Jewish supremacism.”

Posters can also check for themselves as to just how accurate Spoke’s claims are about why he went and cried “Jewish supremacism!” Did anybody, at all, in fact talk about “innate superiority of Jews which causes them naturally to rise to the top of every field”?

[

](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13009963&postcount=112)

Why, that’s the exact opposite of what Spoke is claiming anybody said. Not innate superiority at all, but contextual and situational differences in culture. Not the top of every field at all, but “achievement in some very particular venues”.
What an odd sort of set of mistakes for a person to make. But I guess such errors are bound to happen as one is engaging in the noble cause of fighting Jewish supremacism.

Indeed. Tell us more about how your own quoted words, verbatim, about how Jews with differing politics than yours in Washington are quite possibly a Jewish conspiracy or actual Israeli agents distorts your words and unfairly alleges that you claimed that Jews with differing politics than yours in Washington are quite possibly a Jewish conspiracy or Israeli agents.

Perhaps your innuendo about how people like Wolfowitz have “close personal ties to Israel” (that you invented) and thus can’t really be trusted and that such people might just be so far gone that they can even be trusted to make policy decisions (if they disagree with your politics), since they may be unable to tell the difference between things that are in their own home’s interest and things that sacrifice their home country for the benefit of a foreign land. Tell us about how your own claims on that subject distort your own claims on that subject.

Perhaps you could explain how your own claims that “A Clean Break”, a paper that advises Israel to stop having US support and to act on its own was really the sinister nucleus for a plan put into action by Wolfowitz et al, who are (naturally) not-necessarily-traitors-but-Jews-Who-Must-Be-Watched distorts your claims about that group of potential traitor Jews who must be watched.

Do you find that your own words often grossly distort your own words and what you explicitly state is really something that’s “secretly meant”?
Or is this a special circumstance?
Not that there isn’t something charming about being called Quixotic by you, mind.

Of course, rather than pairing your words up against a work of fiction, one could look at your warnings of potential-Israeli-traitor-and/or-Jewish-Conspirator-Wolfowitz-et al against, say, Charles Lindbergh’s Des Moines speech.

Can you, perhaps, make your next bit about how we need to watch real close to make sure that blacks aren’t stealin’ watermelons and sharpening up some spears to chuck around (not that we have any proof but it’s something we really do have to watch out for), coupled with a preemptive bit about how only a Quixotic crusader or stone-cold paranoid might question why such an Argument by Insinuation just happens to be based around classical racist tropes. Those crazy paranoid blacks, eh, eh?
Now if only we can get some quality Watermelon Inspectors on the case…