If it amuses to nitpick minor points in my posts, have a blast. But without me.
I hadnt realized Operation Overlord had happened in the build up to WW2. Always had that funny notion it came later. Ha history, it keeps on changing.
German lobbies had a role in stalling a more direct involvement of the US prior to 41. That was the point of the post. On the other end why bother, the next answer is gonna be some failed microscopic examination of my finger, when I was pointing at the moon.
The same as between a whole population being surely guilty of something and a few individuals in a position of power where a question of conflict of interests might rise up.
Au contrare. It would appear to be you who is stuck on minutae, who is missing the woods for the trees.
What I am getting at is that if it makes sense to question the loyalty of person W in situation X because their ethnicity makes they loyalty doubtful, it must logically make equal sense to question the loyalty of person Y in situation Z.
So, for example, if it makes sense to question the loyalty of “German Americans” in “US foreign services” in the “build up prior to WW2”, it ought logically make equal sense to question the loyalty of “German Americans” who are “head of the armed forces” “during WW2” - indeed, it makes more sense, as the head of the armed forces in wartime is a position of greater responsibility!
I’ll leave it to others to judge whether your proposed distinction between “may possibly be disloyal” and “are of questionable loyalty” is a “nitpick” or not.
The amount of weasel wording.
Nitpicking 101: you can’t trust Germans in the buildup to war, but once the war hinges on the most important military operation ever performed by mankind, then it’s okay.
Nitpicking 102: Germans who were in groups that advocated against war with Germany are not cause for investigating those people, instead, they’re cause for investigating anybody whose ancestors were born in the same country theirs were.
“… because they belong to that population and we can’t trust members of that population due to their potential Dual Loy, er, Conflict of Interest.”
(As a side note, it’s interesting that the meme is now to talk about “conflict of interest” because “dual loyalty” has gotten such a bad rap, even when the semantic content of “conflict of interest” is exactly the same as “dual loyalty”)
Yes, your posts are indeed of cosmic significance.
Oh no offense taken. Just not sure if any was meant. I mean I can tell that “Commisar” is meant offensively and that you are trying to be sarcastic with your shitpile home, but that one I couldn’t quite make out. Odd name for a villian though.
And no dismissal from me intended - just repeating that I find my engaging in these discussions, of what is hateful or not, to be of little value. What things are becomes apparent enough to individual readers’ subjective standards without my getting into a back and forth.
My comment pertinent to the op stands and your contribution to the thread, and its aftermath, does help illustrate the point I attempted to make.
To be fair, if nobody challenged his support of a racist statement, the object lesson wouldn’t have been complete.
And again I maintain that if racist ideas are allowed to flourish without challenge, such as the idea that it’s okay to single out Jews and investigate them for potential treachery simply because they’re Jewish, that we are setting up a very, very dangerous situation. If not for us, than for generations to come.
Can I play Devil’s Advocate for a moment?
Let’s say it’s the 1960s and 1970s and we–from our enlightened, well-informed perches–are examining the FBI and its activities. Would we be racist for believing that the FBI is a racist organization, because it’s comprised of white racists who seem to have a hard-on for black activist groups and their leaders? Would it be racist to simply wonder if it’s a possibility?
We are indeed playing the race card by identifying an institution, its players, and its activities as racist. (The card just happens to be correct).
But would we, not knowing what we know now, be racist for simply wondering if a conspiracy against black people by the Feds is something to worry about?
The reason I ask is not because I believe in the “Jewish global conspiracy” madness (I don’t), but because I could see how your argument could keep people from pointing out the hard, scary truth. Let’s say our government WAS dominated by a group (ethnic or otherwise) and there was reasonable evidence out there that something fishy was going on behind the scenes by or on behalf of this group. Human nature being what it is, most people would trust that the government wasn’t into nefarious activities and disgard that evidence as rubbish. I’m wondering how that handful of people who know the truth would be able to convince anyone if asking certain questions is equated to “playing the race card”? If dialogue can be halted completely by that mere accusation, I find that scary.
It’s kind of like how people who see UFOs are immediately suspected of being lunatics. If I saw a UFO, with aliens peeking out of the windows and everything, I would be reluctant to come forward because I wouldn’t want to be brandished with the “crazy” label. But by the time I’d feel vindication, it would be too late. The Martians have already attacked. We’re already dead.
So I’m wrestling with the point you’re making. Yes, it’s anti-Semitic if you don’t believe the Jews are trying to control the government. But if some Jews (or blacks or Catholics or whatevers) WERE controlling the government for their own gain, the truth is not going to come to us on the CNN ticker. There will be an effort to squash the truth by using smear tactics. We won’t find out the truth until way after the fact. Just like how the masses were kept in the dark about COINTELPRO in the 60s and 70s, everyone who suspected it then were called paranoid, anti-government wackjobs, and it’s only been during the past two decades where sunshine has forced out the truth.
Not all conspiracies are lies. If there is a conspiracy and it happens to involve members of a racial or ethnic group doing bad things, how do we talk about it without being labeled as “racists?” Am I making any sense?
BTW, got your message. Thanks.
Or accusing someone of playing the race card when you call a sports team with black women a bunch of “nappy headed ho’s”.
Don Imus: “you buncha nappy headed ho’s!”
The world: “you racist asshole!”
Don Imus: “see! you’re playing the race card!”
:rolleyes:
monstro,
If I understand you correctly, it exactly the point I am making. To one who believes the belief, the belief is not racist. To one who believes the belief is an oft repeated canard, it is. Very few racists think they are. They believe that Blacks are less intelligent and therefore saying that is not racist, it is just saying “truth”… Pick your minority and your belief. Telling them they are racist will not induce an epiphany.
You are right, if someone says they saw a UFO, it may be true. But it is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. If they are “just asking” if maybe the UFO they saw is caused by the Indian family next door, and believe that maybe they should be held in custody just to be safe … that crosses a line. In WW2 many people honestly reported in Asian neighbors as spies because they were sure they saw those Japanese radioing in to Japan. Of course they were Chinese and had no radios. Sometimes what one honestly sees is not real and is the result of false beliefs and fears.
When you the subject of those reports you do get tired of them.
Finn’s point (and he and I have had this discussion before) is that they need to be called out to make it clear to other people. I understand his point even if my personal tactical preference is different. Afterall I am the same guy who slugged that guy 30 something years ago. Nevertheless I think ascribing motivations to those beliefs is a losing proposition, even as we point out how they may have origins in old canards, not in reality. If someone’s motivation is more neferious that usually becomes self-evident in that process. Let them do the work of demonstrating the idiocy of their beliefs. They usually will as you politely engage. If engaging at all is worth it in that case.
This harks back to past discussion you and I have had - it is my belief that much of how society functions to this day has racist effects on Black Americans, but that relatively few Americans would endorse explicitly racist beliefs. Telling these people they are racist will be counter-productive; showing how the systems in place produce racist results in an unfair manner may work less poorly.
I agree. But they would convince me if they had sufficient proof of black intellectual inferiority. It would pain me personally, but I would hope that I could be objective enough to look at the facts presented to me and distinguish “racist canard” from “truth.” As a scientist, even one with brown skin, that’s what I’m trained to do.
Likewise, if someone tells me that Jews are controlling the country for Israel’s benefit, I would believe this person to be anti-Semitic because their argument sounds like what an anti-Semitic person would say. However, if I was presented with sufficient evidence supporting their argument, I would hope that I would be open-minded enough to see it. Even though it would be hard for me to swallow emotionally.
I understand that an extraordinary claim requires overwhelming evidence…I’m not talking about people accepting things as true without proof. But “proof” can be spun by the powers that be if that proof hurts their credibility. That’s why people who believe in conspiracies are marginalized so easily. Their “proof” has already been debunked before they even have a chance to present it.
Some people (such as my mother) believe that crack cocaine was brought into the inner cities by the federal government to keep black people impoverished and criminalized. The mainstream line is that this bullcrap. But why? Why is it hard to believe the federal government would do this, when its various agencies have done other horrible things to black people (and other groups, for that matter) for centuries. I think if evidence was presented, people would be very quick to dismiss it. Especially if Jesse or Al make the mistake of commenting on it. Talk radio would be buzzing with accusations of blacks yet again “playing the race card” and “being the victim.” The accusations would block the discussion; anger from the believers would be mocked and pointed as proof of their insanity. I’m skeptical the issue would get a fair trial just because of that dreaded phrase “playing the race card.” Once you get accused of that, it’s like the other side has their hands over their ears.
As far as locking up the Indian family based on suspicion, yeah, that would be crazy. But if the Indian family is always the one reporting the UFO in the neighborhood, I don’t think it would be racist to wonder just what the hell is going on. No need to bring in race in the accusation. But there also should be no need to be afraid of being called a racist just for suspecting them.
I challenge when I feel it’s worth it. If someone’s simply calling me a racial slur as I walk out of their store, I’m just going to keep walking–and then warn everyone I know not to go there. But I don’t see the point of confronting that individual behind the counter. That’s just dangerous.
If there’s racial bias in an governmental institution and I’m in the position to do something about it, yes, I’ll be calling the appropriate people “racist” if the shoe fits. As long as I have proof. That’s when it’s worth it to be loud and outraged.
I’m more pessimistic than you, and my experiences on the Straight Dope is behind this feeling. I have spent many hours–sometimes in the middle of the night, when I should be asleep–coming up with cite after cite showing how racism still works in this society. I have never heard from a resistant Doper, “Gee, monstro. I didn’t realize that these incidents/policies/biases still exist. You’ve given me something to think about.” Usually what happens is that people just dig their heels in deeper, bending their backs trying to show why my proof is just not good enough. They usually call me racist. I leave the discussion feeling spent and frustrated. They leave probably feeling victorious. Maybe I just don’t argue very well, but I do try.
It’s like I’m often the “lunatic” pointing out the UFO with the aliens peeking through the windows. Except my claims aren’t extraordinary. They’re just discomfiting.
Making a joke based on racial features/terms automatically makes you a racist?
The problem there is multi-fold.
First, it sets up the discussion as a legitimate conversation, and especially legitimized since they can always point to you and say “See, even Jews believe it’s a reasonable conversation to have.” Racists love, absolutely love whenever they can get a Token Jew to parade around as a talisman. In very short order 'Jews, does their ethnicity possibly effect their inclination towards race-based treachery, and if so to what degree?" becomes part of the conversation. Politics, business, entertainment, social action… it becomes legitimate to wonder to what degree Jewish Treachery is evident.
That, is some very bad shit.
I think of it a bit like the anti-vax movement, actually. The media helped create the shit storm by letting the bullshit inform the dialogue. “Vaccines, do they contribute to Autism and, if so, to what degree?” Surely you can see how different things would have been if, instead, the line was “Wackjob scientists with sloppy methodology and questionable results claim that vaccines cause Autism. News at 11.”
It’s the difference between Oprah having Jenny McCarthy on to scare her viewers and someone from the NICHD to educate her viewers.
Second, as a segue from the above, the media itself often plays the “If there’s one position and another position, then to be balanced and journalistic, we have to suggest that the truth is somewhere in between.” That helps inform the narrative, too. So if “Jews are normal people and should be treated as individuals unless they, as individuals, give cause for suspicion” is contrasted with “Jews are inherently disloyal and clannish and must be watched when they’re in positions of power to make sure they’re not conspiring to hurt gentiles and enrich Jews”?
Well, you can be pretty sure that the national dialogue, as presented by the media, will be somewhere in the middle, and the concept of Jews as inherently potentially-traitorous will be part of the national discussion, too.
Third, as a segue from that, I truly do believe that allowing such virulent and vile canards to gain the status of an acceptable analytic framework, we are courting disaster. It is a very, very short process from being perceived as a perpetually alien, potentially hostile Other, to people thinking that Something Must Be Done. Coughlin was not that long ago, and America is not so much of a different place. Coughlin also used the same sort of dichotomy that we see from modern purveyors of the same nonsense.
[
](http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcoughlinE.htm)
It wasn’t a problem with all Jews, why, he didn’t hate Jews at all. And if only there were more Good Jews, things would’ve been fine.
America would not have to get all that bad, and there wouldn’t have to be actual violence, in order for things to get truly ugly and truly nasty for our children and our children’s children. I do not want that.
Fourth, I believe that Jews calmly discussing to what degree Jews may or may not be inherently treacherous simply reinforces other anti-Semitic tropes about Jews. Meek, servile, wimps, easy to push around when you can actually confront them and they’re pulled away from their scheming and plotting… In the thread that spawned this, Argent Towers pointed out that perception is important. Most people probably would expect to get their asses kicked if they walked into a black neighborhood wearing a sign that said “I hate niggers”. Most people would not expect anything, probably more serious than whining, if they walked into a Jewish neighberhood warning a sign that said “I hate kikes”. The reality is almost totally unimportant when compared to the perception. That ultimately feeds into the problem I noted above. If Jews are meek and unlikely to fight back, then there’s really not much worry to picking on them a bit. After all, what are they going to do about it?
Which segues into my fifth point, which is that on a personal level, I find racism disgusting in a way that few other things are. I do not fee comfortable, at all, politely discussing just how evil Jews are, and perhaps how we go about identifying Good Jews. Racist babbling is like having a big ol wad of phlegm deliberately spat in your face, and while you could politely wipe your face off and explain why that was rude, punching someone in the nose is probably going to be the better course of action. Going home and knowing that you’ve let yourself be treated like that and your response was to back down may be fine for some, but not for me. Moral victories are all well and good, but if all we win are moral victories, then we’ve lost.
My old Yiddish grandmother had a saying “Nobody can walk all over you unless you lie down for them first.”
I find the perception the black people will beat you up just for calling them a name to be highly insulting. It’s exploiting the stereotype of the “angry, brutish negro.” The perception might protect individuals who are already built like football players from minor acts of dickishness. But it doesn’t stop things like church burnings or James Byrd or racial discrimination at the job place. Those are things that matter to me. Not mere name-calling.
Actually, if I were neither black or Jewish, and I had a hankering to pick on an individual of either type, I would probably go with the black guy. Because there’s another perception…one of the litigious, fat-pocketed Jew who’s plight would be more sympathetic in the justice system’s eye. I’d be more of afraid of THAT than I would be afraid of getting beaten up or (which is more likely), getting cussed out.
When Argent said a guy with a “kike” sign walking around in a Jewish neighborhood would have the cops called on him, I kinda giggled, to be honest. Not all black neighborhoods are poverty-stricken or working class, but in the neighborhood that I grew up in, it was (the latter). If we had called the cops on some crazy fool walking around with a “nigger” sign, I’m betting not a single police officer would have come to “rescue” us from him. If Argent assumes that a cop would even care about a neighborhood name-caller, that indicates to me that our views of law enforcement are vastly different. Maybe he’s right; maybe a cop would come to a Jewish neighborhood and corral the crazy nutjob. But in a black neighborhood? Not so much, IMHO. Of course, I have no proof. But the hook in that Public Enemy song “911” was not crafted just based on its catchiness.
Imus and his producer called the players hos because they’re black. I’m not sure if there is any argument their comments (and “nappy headed hos” was not the entire conversation) were not racist even if they didn’t mean them.
The point is that being thought of as an easy victim is bad. No, not being thought of as an easy victim does not eliminate all racist acts, but it does eliminate the perception that you’re an easy target
And the issue isn’t about “mere name calling”. That Jews are seen as easy targets has informed and will continue to inform racism against Jews.
And yet while acts like church bombings and the like are roundly condemned by society, using the word “niggardly” can end your career and for fuck’s sake even when discussing its use most people can’t or won’t say the word “nigger” and have to say “The N-Word”. Yes of course there’s still work to be done, but it’s no longer socially acceptable (in most cases, in most places) to voice anti-black racism. And despite how a fringe on the Dope might argue, James Watson’s comments were hardly treated by most of the public as anything other than deserving of scorn.
On the other hand, anti-Semitic tropes are seeing, if anything, a resurgence. Dual Loyalty has now become “conflict of interest”, largely in part because folks like W&M recognize that Dual Loyalty is a classic anti-Semitic trope, and they’ve rebranded it. It’s now part of the political conversation.
The LA times recently ran an article talking about how “the Jews” dominate Hollywood and run it. And again what’s at issue is that anti-black and anti-Jewish racism have different patterns through history. One of the first steps to Jewish persecution is, invariably, seeing Jews as inherently foreign and an Other. In Nazi Germany, for example, the concept was that you were either German or Jewish, but not both. Just like we see now that being Jewish might just mean that you’re not to be trusted like a Real American. Seeing Jews as an inherently alien Other is also coupled with seeing Jews as inherently hostile to non Jews, it’s the basis for the “clannish” concept and much of the persecution of Jews because, obviously, they must be working to hurt society.
Those attitudes serve as a precondition for the cyclic pattern of persecution of Jews in western society, from Roman times on down. Their resurgence is cause, if not for concern, than at least for awareness and watchfulness.
Remember, the ‘Jewish litigiousness’ doesn’t much matter if society shifts to the point where taking away Jews’ rights is acceptable.
This gets back to what I’ve been pointing out, which is that racism against blacks and Jews is both bad and should be fought against simply because it’s racism, but it takes different forms. Driving While Black is a recognized phenomena, complaints against police racism are often proven by the facts. But at the same time, how things play out is different from Jews. We don’t hear, for instance, a common refrain that we can’t trust blacks in government because they’ll intentionally (or perhaps even worse, subconsciously due to ethnic influences) betray America to African interests (or “black interests”, or whatever). We didn’t hear, for instance, that Clinton couldn’t be trusted to deal with the UK because he was a Rhodes Scholar. We don’t hear that strong supporters of NATO can’t be trusted to be on America’s foreign policy setting team. But we routinely hear that Jews who have the ‘wrong politics’ on Israel (often dishonestly framed as “a personal attachment” rather than “politics I don’t agree with”) are potential traitors against their own home. Perhaps even subconscious traitors, Jewish Manchurian Candidates led by their ethnicity or “special relationship” with Israel to betray their homes without even realizing it.
They need to be like Caughlin’s Good Jews, because if they have a political viewpoint that folks don’t agree with, then arguing against that viewpoint on its merits is a lot of work. Instead, it’s now politically palatable in certain circles to simply declare that they’re a Jew who can’t be trusted due to having a conflict of interest over their special, personal relationship with Israel.
Yes, there is anti-black racism and it’s bad. And people who are racists against blacks are assholes who should be ashamed of themselves but probably won’t and will probably view themselves as just Making Good Sense.
Yes, there is anti-Jewish racism and it’s bad. And people who are racists against Jews are assholes who should be ashamed of themselves but probably won’t and will probably view themselves as just Making Good Sense.
But the way that anti-black and anti-Jewish racism is expressed, and the ways in which that expression can manifest and effect things, are often different. Just like anti-Muslim bigotry often takes a different form and has different effects from anti-Jewish racism. But it’s still bad.
Read: The Influencer | The New Yorker
That’s how it’s done. And no amount of meaningless dickering and searching for nuances can change the fact that regardless of what you think or what you do - it is done already. Denying it eventually becomes part of it.
The problem here is the “no smoke without fire” phenom. If so many are “just asking questions” about (say) the genetic inferiority of Black people’s intelligence, it lends an air of reality to the notion … it both derives from, and builds on, an already-existing stereotype.
My solution is this: avoid going there (that is, participating in the spread of a “theory” that just happens to be the exact same as an ancient and shopworn ethnic stereotype) unless one has some extraordinary level of proof.
The reason? All such stereotypes manufacture, as the product of their very existence, lots of “proof” of the predictable kind, because there is always lots of folks with a vested interest in perpetuating them. How can more than a hundred years of various physical anthropologists and other quite legitimate scientists - be wrong about the inherent inferiority of Blacks? Well, as it turns out, very easily.
In summary, such “theories” are not starting from a base-line of equality, like many (neutral) scientific theories. There have often been hundreds of years of falsification, smears, biases etc., in many cases by very clever people, busy falsifying theories and evidence to support 'em. Thus, the starting-point ought to be of redoubled skepticism.
Personally, I pause one step before that. I ask, “Why is the question of average IQ of sub-groups so important to you?” My personal take in those discussions has been to simultaneously look at the arguments made with an open and critical eye and to wonder, aloud, why the question matters. If the answer is to be open to the concept that not differences in outcomes must be the result of discrimination, then fine. I’d accept that statement as a matter of course: statistical differences are not necessarily the result of either nature or nurture. But the answer is usually the inverse - any difference in outcome is held by these people to be proof of biologic differences, and that therefore there must be no discrimination that matters.
The question isn’t off-limits (and I have been part of many of those discussions) but the fact that it is so important to some to demonstrate its “truth” is the result I believe, of its usefulness in justifying other actions and beliefs, beliefs that are, to my way of thinking, unfair and wrongheaded. Out of all the questions in the world to be fixated on, that one is chosen by some for some reason.
And I’d ask you to ask yourself: why, out of all the tens of thousands of conspiracy theories about, from Templars, to hidden information about UFOs, to an international conspiracy to cause children harm with vaccines that has now gone so far as to pretend that Wakefield had committed fraud in order to discredit him, do you find a particular first glance crazy idea worth considering that maybe it could be true? As a scientist you know that science is not a completely objective beast: we choose our questions for reasons, we choose them in the context of the beliefs of our times and in context of what we think may be true.
Honestly, I find your willingness to consider the statement “Jews are …” doing anything, and to hold that to be something that could have evidence to be presented about, to be quite discomfiting. (No, I am NOT calling you a racist.) It implies an assumption that there is a group of Jews that has an agenda. It sets up providing “evidence” that will usually be found:
Thesis - Jews are part of the Communist plot to take over the world. A very common one in the 50’s. Evidence? Many of the founders of Communism were Jewish. Marx Jewish. Sure his parent’s both converted and he was baptized, but … Trotsky Jewish. The list goes on. And many of the members of the American Communist Party and many Hollywood writers writing scripts that clearly promoting “communist” ideals … Jewish.
Thesis - Jews are part of the capitalist plot to oppress all the workers of the world. Well lots of Jews in positions of corporate power then and now. Over-represented in banking. Jews are far over-represented in the field of economics (and thereby have manipulated policy to their own ends). Rothschild and on and on.
Thesis - Jews are elite liberals who work to drive this country away from its traditional values and excessively dovish. Lord knows you can find lots of elite liberal Jews in positions of power and influence. Anti-war movements often have Jews heavily involved.
Thesis - Jews are conspiring to drive us into wars and are the driving forces behind the neocon movement. Yup lots of Jews there.
Your father was right: Jews are everywhere. And whatever the thesis, no matter how contradictory the theses are, there is “evidence” that Jews are secretly, or not so secretly, “in control”.
How do Jews defend against that sort of evidence? After all it is true that Jews are there, everywhere, outside our numbers. Hollywood. Publishing. Business. Medicine. Economics. Law. Science. (Boy talk about over-representation, look at that Nobel Prize winning list.) Literature. Communists. Socialists. Conservatives. Civil Rights activists. Human Rights Activists. Racists. Capitalists. Banking. Comics.
I mean Jews are not alone in having their “otherness” place them automatically as suspect. JFK had to deal with it with his Catholicism, Obama did with being Black (and his having spent time in his youth out of country), Romney still has it with his being Mormon. Jews aren’t more “other” than Blacks, or Mormons; we do have longer experience at it however. And historically, once given a chance to contribute, we do, outside our numbers. And historically, that process raises resentment and suspicions. And historically that has led to … bad things.
Finn’s post puts forth the argument for defending against it in loud terms. And I understand his reasoning. I just find his approach to often end up being ineffective in achieving its desired end. Yet he is right. Being “meek” is also no defense against it. And perception does matter. Back to my youthful fight - the racist may have also called a Black man a name, but his expectation would have been that a fight would have resulted which may have given him pause; his expectation of me was to take it and he had no pause. Of course having those preconceptions is biased and prejudiced. But the preconceptions are what he holds and influenced his actions. Maybe next time he paused before saying “Kike” and “Jewboy”. I can only hope. After all they aint making Jews like Jesus anymore.
So seriously, how should we respond when we are in this damned if we do and damned if we don’t circumstance?
The danger however is the cesspool that every conspiracy theorist falls into. The lack of evidence is evidence! It is proof of how hard the powers that be are working to hide the truth from us! It must be taken seriously precisely because of that!
Most of the time crazy conspiracy theories are just that. And most of the time the media is not conspiring to hide them, they are conspiring to foster them because it is “controversy” and that means people turning on and clicking links. “It COULD be that Obama is actually not a citizen, we are just asking. It deserves a fair trial.” It could be that our government was behind 9-11. They are just hiding the truth." “Immunizations COULD be causing autism. Some people think so. They should get equal time on (okay more than equal time) with mainstream organizations who after all could be part of a conspiracy to harm our children.”
Most of the time that which sounds crazy, is. But as pointed out, denying the crazy only elevates it.
No, in my hypothetical it is always the Indian family being blamed for causing the UFOs. The crazies both imagine UFOs and blame the one family that is different as causing it. And if it the crazy was accusing Dr. and Mrs. Smith they’d be laughed at. But Mr. Patel? Hmmm. This deserves investigation, and we shouldn’t be afraid of being called racist for asking questions.
I have obviously failed to express myself clearly. Or at least we see it very very differently. There is racial bias in our institutions and it is not really the result of individual contemporary racists. I’ll stick to what I know best: healthcare. As a group Blacks have poorer access to healthcare. This is not because some racist individual is making that choice or refusing to care for someone because they are Black. It is simply because Blacks in America are disproportionately concentrated in poorer urban environments. And the larger percent of primary care physicians have chosen to practice in less poor areas where we have a greater percent of patients who have insurance that compensates us better for our time. These poorer and more urban Blacks also do not have the resources to travel to get the healthcare at the times those more distant resources are open. So they resort to going to Emergency Rooms for things that are poorly cared for there, or don’t get the care at all. This is a racist effect without any individual having a racist intent. There is no one for you to yell at that would do any good. But there are still things for you to do.
Sorry monstro but that is just the nature of these forums. The times that individual posters end up getting someone to say: “Gee, you are right, I’ve been a fool. You’ve given me something to think about.” are very few indeed. If we participate expecting that to happen then we will be very frustrated indeed. What we can hope for, I think, is to have achieved a little more clarity in our own positions by having them challenged, achieving some understanding of the thought process that someone else has that is different than our own, to have impacted a few of the thoughts of those lurking who are not yet sure what they think about the subject, and maybe getting a few to question that which they thought they knew by at least understanding our POV even if they still do not agree with it.
Not sure I’m understanding what you’re saying here. Could you develop?
We are discussing the article that using veiled analogies, and some quite direct, implies only one conclusion. The key passages are as follows: *
No, when he (Andrew) piously implies that the orbit of The New Republic is immune, or hostile, to the eternal verities of Christianity, he is baiting another class of people, and operating in the vicinity of a different canard.
…
That is his criterion for dividing the American Jewish community into good Jews and bad Jews–a practice with a sordid history.
…
Sullivan is hunting for motives, not reasons; for conspiracies, which is the surest sign of a mind’s bankruptcy.
…
And this is not all that is disgusting about Sullivan’s approach. His assumption, in his outburst about “the Goldfarb-Krauthammer wing,” that every thought that a Jew thinks is a Jewish thought is an anti-Semitic assumption, and a rather classical one.*
The last one is the most direct and IT IS accusation of anti-Semitism (i.e. there is no other more certain interpretation of it). In fact it is so obvious that Andrew is accused of anti-Semitism that your attempt here on Dope Forum to provide a nuanced view – that Andrew is only being accused as insensitive – is offensive to an n-th degree, at least to me. Your re-definition is essentially saying that whatever my clear mind interpreted (and of others as per other links I posted) is just another self delusion and here you are to offer correct way of understanding original article. It is incredible how someone like you can come along and try to change common and obvious understanding of concepts and turn everything upside down and then, based on that upside-down trick (which is to say Andrew is being dishonest by defending himself from anti-Semitic accusation) accuse Andrew of even worse character trait.
Incredible!