But where is anybody here refusing to acknowledge any factual weakness, or other facts? Again, can you point to any specific statement you think is doing what you complain about?
The slavers, white supremacists, and Nazis never had a shred of real evidence in favor of their arguments.
I think that’s unfair. It’s more that some ideas are so awful in their potential for abuse that the natural reaction is to build the strongest bulwark possible against them, and to refuse to concede any weakness in that bulwark that might possibly provide a point of entry for the enemy.
It’s a sort of defense in depth: put as many layers of impossibility as possible between you and the taboo idea, and then vigorously defend each layer, even when a different interpretation doesn’t imply anything bad in itself.
People already have a strong cognitive bias towards ideas they agree with. For example, they will attempt to verify the truth of a news article if it disagrees with what they believe, but not if it supports their beliefs. This bias is vastly stronger when an alternative theory exists that’s widely agreed to be morally unacceptable and dangerous.
What’s notable to me in this thread is not the refusal to admit any weakness. It’s the (lack of) standards for evidence. People who are quick to demand a cite for any idea they disagree with (and will try hard to find weaknesses in it when given one), have offered and accepted anecdotes, conjecture, and hand-waving explanations here with seemingly no consciousness that these are inadequate as evidence.
Arguably it’s also the implication of this:
Would you like to defend ‘The Jews run Hollywood’ (not ‘Jewish people run Hollywood’ mind you) without unpacking of the history of both Hollywood and Jews?
Please, rehabilitate a decades old anti-Semitic trope. I dare you.
No, I wouldn’t like. My point is that it’s better to do that unpacking than to tell people to shut up about the fact Jews (or Jewish people, if you really think it matters) are overrepresented there. It’s better to make your stand on something defensible, rather than trying to hush up facts because they are easily misinterpreted.
I’ll let the quoted above speak for themselves but, IMNSHO, you are grotesquely misrepresenting their positions.
No one is trying to 'hush up facts’.
Are you seriously saying that you do not understand the difference between 'The Jews run Hollywood’ and ‘Jewish people run Hollywood’???
No, I get it now. The first is implying some kind of conspiracy. I should have paid more attention to the wording rather than assuming it was just a political correctness thing.
Can we see some examples?
I’ll note that this is the second time I’ve asked you to provide examples for your claims, with no response.
Exactly. Now what do you think it means when folks say ‘Blacks are criminals, just look at the statistics’?
Bearing in mind that the calumny of ‘African Americans are by their nature criminals’ and ‘Black men in particular like to rape, White women’ is one of the roots of post Civil War racism.
So, it’s OUR job to “unpack” the factoids that racists fall back on to support their bigotry? Some jerk wants to say that Jews run the media or Blacks are violent criminals, and the good people of the world have to spend their days parsing tidbits of information that the racists aren’t going to listen to anyway?
The president of my country told the world that immigrants are “eating the dogs” and half our voters gave the guy a thumbs up in the election. On my side of the aisle, we have to do multi-variant statistical analysis on the propensity of ethnic groups to act a certain way instead of telling bigots to STFU. No, I don’t approve.
Let’s have the bigots do the math for their stereotypes, and we can spend our time picking their bad math to pieces.
This is a great example of the ongoing trope of the media automatically treating Republicans, conservatives, and MAGA as inherently legitimate, with good faith arguments and opinions, and ONLY Democrats/liberals/progressives ever need to actually explain themselves, empathize with their opponents, moderate their arguments, etc. Only Democrats/progressives/liberals have agency; Republicans/conservatives/MAGA are just the way they are and can’t be criticized.
It’s infuriating and perhaps the largest contributor to MAGA political success.
Juror #10: I don’t understand you people! I mean all these picky little points you keep bringing up. They don’t mean nothing! You saw this kid just like I did. You’re not gonna tell me you believe that phony story about losing the knife, and that business about being at the movies. Look, you know how these people lie! It’s born in them! I mean, what the heck? I don’t have to tell you! They don’t know what the truth is! And lemme tell ya: they don’t need any real big reason to kill someone, either! No sir! They get drunk! Oh, they’re real big drinkers, all of ‘em - you know that - and bang: someone’s lyin’ in the gutter! Oh, nobody’s blaming them for it. That’s the way they are, by nature! You know what I mean? Violent! Human life don’t mean as much to them as it does to us! Look, they’re lushing it up and fighting all the time and if somebody gets killed, so somebody gets killed! They don’t care! Oh, sure, there are some good things about 'em, too! Look, I’m the first one to say that! I’ve known a couple who were OK, but that’s the exception, y’know what I mean? Most of ‘em, it’s like they have no feelings! They can do anything! I’m trying to tell ya… You’re makin’ a big mistake, you people! This kid is a liar! I know it, I know all about them! Listen to me… They’re no good! There’s not a one of 'em who is any good! I mean, what’s happening in here? I’m speaking my piece, and you… Listen to me. We’re… This kid on trial here… his type, well, don’t you know about them? There’s a, there’s a danger here. These people are dangerous. They’re wild. Listen to me. Listen.
Juror #4: I have. Now sit down and don’t open your mouth again.
Reginald Rose and Sidney Lumet ~ 12 Angry Men
Having heard a lifetime of Juror #10s, I, like Juror#4, have no more fucks to give.
I had an experience this weekend that immediately made me think of this thread.
A family member was visiting. This person is quite smart, professionally successful in the business/tech world, and reads the news from a number of different sources.
While walking, we ran into a friend, and after moving on, explained to the family member that the friend ran an organization that provides support for dads/fathers. “When he became a dad, he found that there were a lot of resources and support groups for his spouse (mom groups, etc), but not for him. So he started the group. They provide access to resources, support and community for fathers.”
The response:
Them: “Ah yes! Did you know that the courts are unfairly biased against men, and always rule in favor of women in custody fights?”
Me: ”Well, that is a thing that people say.”
Them: “… This group sounds like a good thing. Did you know that X% of black children are raised without fathers? Maybe their work will help incentivize black men to stay with their wives and children.”
Me: ”…”
Neither of these “facts”, even if grounded in reality (not conceding that point), were relevant to the conversation. Instead, the conversation about fathers served as an opportunity for this person to bring up debatable or complicated conclusions as simple truths in order to, consciously or not, center his own demographic as a victimized one, and as superior.
And this is why, even in times when I might in my heart of hearts believe that there is truth to a particular conclusion or observation, I will not voice it or lift a finger in support of those who do. Almost every time it comes up, they are brought up as a distraction or deflection, or way to tell a story that positions them as being part of a better or more deserving group, or that justifies withholding support for a less deserving group.
Or, to put it another way, the day my relative stops bringing up stats about black fatherhood at the mere mention of fatherhood is the day I’ll entertain cross-demographic discourse about black fatherhood [or insert your nugget of truth here]. These truths are only ever accurate when context is stripped away[1], and folks bringing up the truths are stripping away context in order to support their beliefs, not to support truth.
Speaking generically here. I am not claiming that every conceivable generalization is inaccurate. ↩︎
And I’m certain he won’t want to, or be aware of, the impact assistance program rules have on Black fathers staying in the same home as their wives and children.
That makes sense.
Though I think that the cultural sense of ‘rigorous theoretical study is highly suitable work for adult men, even done to the exclusion of getting much of anything else done’ very likely carries through for a generation or two after the Torah study stops.
But you don’t appear to want to frame it as acknowledging the fact and then pointing out why it doesn’t support the stereotype. You appear to want to frame it as saying that the fact does support the stereotype. Which it doesn’t, for reasons already gone into exhaustively in this thread. As, it seems to me, the fact that the problem is that you want to claim there is support for the stereotype has also already been gone into exhaustively in this thread. And you appear entirely unwilling or unable to accept that there’s a difference between ‘this fact supports the stereotype but’ and ‘this fact doesn’t support the stereotype because’.
And we could go on for many, many posts about the culturally different feelings WASPs and Jews had about going into ‘show biz’ while were here.
Not than I want, or am going, to!
This just isn’t true. It presupposes that all claims contain some degree of truth. That something cannot just be wrong.
It seems to also assume that, of two claims are in tension, and one of them has flaws, the other must inherently be correct on that same area. That isn’t true.
Just because my non-racist explanation for something isn’t perfect doesn’t mean the racist explanation is correct in that aspect. Saying that a racist position does not contain a nugget of truth is NOT the same thing as saying that my non-racist position is 100% correct.
The vast majority of bigoted beliefs started with the bigotry first, then added selective, biased observations to fit that bigotry.
And, even if that isn’t the case, the “nugget of truth” can be expressed without any reference to the bigoted stereotype. So there is not reason to do as the OP asks and show limited agreement with that stereotype.
Is that possible, or will detractors of the bigoted stereotype be the ones to bring it up?
I don’t know that I understand your question.
Jewish people are overrepresented in Hollywood relative to the overall population. That’s true, and maybe that’s the nugget of truth you mean.
The Jews run Hollywood. This is conspiracy-theory nonsense based on the nugget of truth.
Will the detractors of the second bring up the first? Is that your question?