Vorlon
First, let me say that you are such a stupid dick. Second, let me apologize to all the stupid dicks of the world for offending them.
What do you think the “things Jewish” Joe K was talking about?
If he wasn’t talking about traditions like those he referenced (not eating pork, menorahs, keeping meat and dairy products apart, etc.), what did that statement mean?
Actually, it would be ‘not supported by current evidence’.
Are you actually going to take the position that ‘homophobia’ refers only to fear of gays and not to prejudice? If so, I should point out that it is not supported by current English usage.
Yes. Shockingly, he claimed a liking for things that are part of a culture that he (for whatever reason) found familiar. It’s not as if he claimed to suddenly start speaking in Hebrew.
I begin to despair of arguing with someone who’s beyond logic.
He noticed an alignment between his previously unknown heritage and his self-identification. He asked, guessed, nay even stated that there might be some cause and effect. He may be wrong in this instance, but he never said anything that even comes close to “genetic background [is] the defining element of a person’s personality.”
I’ve already pointed out to you that your point could have been made without name calling and without being a jerk.
Sadly, I’m thinking that you enjoy the attention of being pitted. And I took your bait, hook, line and sinker.
** That is NOT the “heart of this debate”.
First of all, the duality you’ve set up is a false one. Every aspect of cognition is dependent on physiology at some level – and every aspect of cognition is affected by environment cues at some level.
Secondly, the question at hand is whether being “Jewish” according to traditional Orthodox tradition (in terms of genetics and NOT cultural upbringing) is in any way an explanation for a person’s liking certain aspects of a culture.
** If Joe K’s opinions about Jews had been negative instead of positive, and he attributed traits he didn’t like in someone to the his Jewish ancestry, people would have been on him in a heartbeat, condemning him for his racism.
If he had suggested that his personality was rather like his great-grandmother’s, that wouldn’t be objectionable (although it would be somewhat improbable). But he not only suggested that large numbers of extremely complex preferences were somehow inherited from his great-grandmother, but that these inborn preferences were common to her entire ethnic/cultural group.
Claiming that Jews have large numbers of specific and complex traits in common because they supposedly share genetic relationships IS racist. If you think the traits are positive, it’s just racism that’s positive towards Jews. If you think the traits are negative, that’s racism against Jews. In the best possible scenario, you’re indifferent to those traits – in which case you’re still presuming that Jewish people are primarily defined by genetics, which is not only contrary to scientific knowledge and all common sense but verges dangerously towards the historical tendency to view all members of ethnic groups as alike and biologically defined.
For Jews to not only have genetically-determined cultural preferences (which is improbable enough on such a sweeping scale) but to share them, Jews would need to be extremely similar genetically. Criminy, genetically-linked traits often don’t manifest even in families known to carry genes predisposing them towards it – and that’s just simple traits affected by one or two genes. Complex ones are even harder to analyze.
Joe K’s flippant remark that having a Jewish ancestor explains his positive reaction to Judaism implies that the people who identify themselves as “Jews” are so genetically similar that they’re virtually copies of each other, with only some minor differences (appearance and so forth). There’s a reason that position is so historically linked with hatred and persecution. (Without invoking Godwin’s Law, that’s precisely how Hitler thought, after all.)
A potentially interesting and informative thread was all fucked up because of the unnecesary accusation of racism. Shame.
DaLovin’ Dj **
[/QUOTE]
Drat. Ignore that last part – I didn’t delete it properly.
The OT wasn’t significantly affected – all of the garbage rapidly spewed over to this thread.
I’d say that a potentially interesting and informative thread was ruined because of a casual comment, a statement that the poster didn’t realize was profoundly racist because he didn’t give it a second thought.
It was then tarnished even further by people who had a knee-jerk reaction to the word ‘racist’, and began defending Joe K without even considering what his statement actually implied.
TVAA, I wonder if it’s possible for you to consider for even a second that I am not racist, or that I have or condone such feelings. At least everyone else knows better.
Straight from the horse’s mouth, folks.
And, yes, however ‘insignificantly’, it was affected, thanks to your ignorant drivel.
Well, if you claim that physiology IS always a factor in personal cultural taste (which I would call an “aspect of cognition”), and if physiology is affected by ancestry and/or genetics, then you are basically stating that ancestry and/or genetics CAN have an effect on personal cultural taste. This is the same thing Joe K suggested, so you guys should only have been debating a matter of degree.
By my reading of the definitions you provided this case is NOT racist, as there is no implied superiority nor any expressed prejudice. All that was expressed was a suspicion (again not a claim, or an assertion, or a belief), that one’s heritage may have an effect on their behaivior/tastes. Regardless of the validity of this hypothesis, simply considering or posting such a posibility does not make a person a racist.
DaLovin’ Dj
“I’m not a racist, I just think that Jews do what they do because they’re born that way.”
“I’m not a racist, I just don’t like those yellow, slant-eyed Chinamen.”
“I’m not a homophobe, I’m just worried about homosexuals tainting my children with their unnatural practices.”
You seem to believe that Jewish tradition and culture is part of a racial identity, Joe K, which is automatically passed down to whoever fits the Orthodox criteria for being a Jew. If you don’t believe that, then you made an extremely unwise flippant remark, and you could consider your phrasing more carefully in the future. If you do believe that, then you are a racist – you just haven’t realized it yet.
** Well, yes. Sea cucumbers are unlikely to value human cultures, and most humans take no interest in beehive politics.
What’s your point?
But there is implied prejudice: the descendants of Jewish females will be innately predisposed towards traditionial Jewish culture. That’s a prejudgment if I ever heard one.
But he didn’t say that there might be a connection – he said his heritage explained his lifelong interests.
Quit defending this strawman, and take a look at Joe K’s actual, original post.
People (in general) MAY do things just because they were born that way. We just don’t really know yet. We don’t understand conciousness enough to determine what it results from - be it a god or rule-bound physics. If it is just a rule-bound physical processes, we face some difficult issues concerning the resulting elimination of free will and how to treat criminals.
Totally unfair, he never said anything about not liking a certain race (which could count as a claim to superiority and therefore racism). STRAW-MAN.
Again, NO WHERE did Joe K worry about anyone tainting anybody. He made no claim to a moral high ground on his own or on behalf of a particular group.
Flippant? What, this comment?:
How the hell is this flippant? “An unconcious feeling seems to be explained.” Come on! That statement is not definitive, it is suggestive, and the tone (if we must describe it) is thoughtful and curious, but it damn sure isn’t flippant.
That to some degree, Joe K’s (and your, and my) cultural preferences are effected by heritage. “To what degree” is the debate, not “if”. But you didn’t debate that. You just accused him of racism for even considering it.
Cite for the bolded part please? While your at it, see if you can tell the difference between the folowing two statements:
-
A rather unconscious identifying with Jews seems to be explained.
-
A rather unconscious identifying with Jews is explained.
I’ll give you a hint: 1 leaves room for the possibility that one has drawn a false conclusion, 2 does not.
DaLovin’ Dj
The irony is sickening.
annaplurabelle nailed it the original thread:
No trivial difference indeed.
You are (once again) utterly missing the point.
Who said anything about consciousness? This isn’t about self-awareness, it’s about cultural and traditional preferences. There are lots of people who (according to Orthodox/Conservative tradition) are Jewish, but who don’t feel a pull towards traditional Jewish behaviors and practices. Heck, there are plenty of Jewish people who actively dislike those practices (where do you think the stereotype of the self-hating Jew came from?).
Those are merely examples of things sorts of things people say when they’re actually quite racist but don’t realize it. I’m comparing the first statement with the others.
** But he didn’t “consider” it, he claimed it.
** But it doesn’t even “seem to explain” anything. Saying things like “well, I guess that explains it!” doesn’t soften the conclusion, it just makes it easier for apologists to justify it.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t a big part of Jewish culture the idea that theres a man who lives in the sky who made the entire universe, and who takes a personal interest in the lives of human beings, particularly Jewish human beings? I don’t know Joe K.'s religious views, but if he does believe in God, even the Christian God, isn’t it possible that the reason he was drawn to Judaism is not genetic influence, but divine interference?
Well, no, of course it’s not possible, 'cause God doesn’t exsist and all that, but it’s a plausible explanation for his statement, and far less inflammatory than calling someone a racist (easily the single most loaded term in the English language) for not adhering scroupulously to the current scientific understanding of genetics.
TVAA, thank you for the continuing devaluation of the term “racist.” It’s a word that used to mean something, once upon a time.
For the last time, Joe K was not asking questions about the heritable components of behavior. He was asking for advice about being confused regarding his status as a Jew.
This isn’t Dune, people. There’s absolutely no evidence that people have genetic racial memories. Inheriting roughly an eighth of your genes from a person in some ethnic group doesn’t grant some kind of magical affinity to that group.
The implication of Joe K’s statement was that everyone descended from Jewish women would feel some instictual link with Judaism. That’s not merely prejudicial and stereotypical, it’s actively racist.
And don’t start with all this “we don’t understand consciousness” garbage. That’s about as impressive as the thread I was in where people claimed that they weren’t lying to their kids when they told them Santa Claus existed, because we didn’t know that Santa Claus wasn’t real.
Bullshit. Nowhere did I say that everyone thought this, and nor did I, for that matter. Don’t blame me for your ignorant misinterpretations.
People are finally waking up to the reality that assuming that some group of people automatically have some positive trait is just as bad as assuming they have some negative trait.
The stereotype that all Asian people are good at math and scholastics sounds complimentary, but it’s really, really offensive for quite a few Asian people I know. (There are probably some who enjoy it, but whatever…)
The twit who posted on the original thread making claims about the genetic marker of Jewishness – do any of you doubt that he was racially prejudiced?
Joe K claims he’s not a racist, yet his statements indicate otherwise. He has no problem with the idea that ancestry on his great-grandmother’s side gives him an unconscious link with Judaism – now, who does that sound like?
Criminy, even Hitler wouldn’t have considered him Jewish, and he killed thousands of people whose only “crime” was having a Jewish grandparent. Those poor people were no more Jews than I’m a hunter-gatherer, but their geneology defined them in the eyes of the most infamous racists ever to live.
Gee, I wonder why defining someone by their ancestors’ ethnic status might be considered racist? :rolleyes:
Feel free to Pit me as much as you like, Joe K – this thread has turned my stomach enough.
Pitting you was never the intent—I was defending my character against wet-brained (to use your term), loud-mouthed assholes such as yourself, lest someone who knew not of your nature read and believe the shit you have spewed.
This is wildly hyperbolic and silly. Joe never stated nor implied such a thing. He knew he had a Jewish maternal grandmother. He had always felt some affinity for Judaism. It is vastly more likely that his awareness of his Jewish heritage caused this affinity than any genetics.
In point of fact I would say that taken literally Joe was flat out wrong. Genetics played no role in his interest in Judaism. So what. Big fucking deal. He was wrong. He is not a racist.
TVAA, I must say my hopes for a softening of your stance have clearly been dashed. Is it impossible for you to admit the chance that you might be wrong? Wrong in whole or in part.
You clearly feel that branding people a racist for mildly silly comments is acceptable discourse. I don’t. Please continue, root out more racist comments, bring the offenders to justice. You can be some kind of anti-racist superhero. I’ll ask my grandma to make you a cape. Just don’t be surprised if people get sick of you pissing all over their perfectly lovely threads.