Moving away from icky antisemitism for a moment (unfortunately we can’t move away from it forever because the damn stuff keeps coming back – )
Tolerating people who have an incorrect belief is a different thing from tolerating the belief.
Of course, there’s a point at which a belief is abhorrent enough that a person who holds it must be a terrible person (for example, 'I believe you and your kids should be murdered because I don’t like your religion!).
But I think part of the problem is that some people have a lot of trouble telling the difference between ‘You’re wrong about that!’ and ‘You’re a wrong person!’ Anybody on these boards is going to get at least some of the first, and some people are going to get a lot of it. Reacting to it as if it were the second is only going to make matters worse.
I’d say it’s more complex than that. The line between tolerating a person and tolerating a belief or behavior is kinda fuzzy. As is the line between harmless wrong and harmful wrong.
For example, you can have a rather heinous belief, but if you don’t bring it up and aren’t acting on it in any noticeable way, then it’s hard to argue against tolerating them. But, on the other hand, if you are constantly talking about a bad but not horrible belief, then you can run into the paradox and need to not tolerate them in order to not tolerate that belief. You may want to push them to either change beliefs, shut up, or leave.
But I do agree that there are a lot of times where people seem to focus more on the person when they should focus on the behavior. That is actually the unwritten I’ve mentioned. I will Pit people, but I try to focus on the behavior—even if, in the moment, I feel like attacking the person. (In fact, there may be attacks in my first draft. Angry posts take me a lot longer because I rewrite them a lot. It actually gives me time to calm down.)
Sabbatean in conspiracy land is just another name for Jewish people. Sure, technically the term refers to Jews who thought a particular guy was Messiah, but conspiracy theorists use it to mean “Jews who follow the Sabbath.”
But, even if that wasn’t the case, the antisemitism is in believing these groups are the ones who run Israel. Because Israel is just run by Jewish people. So saying they’re “lizard people” is an attack on Jewish people.
I do agree with Beck—this book is not a good book to read. The guy is a conspiracy theorist, and a lot of conspiracy theories are antisemitic. It sounds like you’re finding him convincing, which isn’t good.
The guy does not know what he is talking about. You should probably ignore anyone who believes in “lizard people.” They do not exist. The idea came from a sci-fi movie.
I came to that conclusion long, long ago (decades, in fact), and have posted that sentiment on this site a few times.
@crowmanyclouds Good point (the picture you posted on tradition). I like to say, “Tradition isn’t a great reason for doing something. It used to be tradition to sacrifice the first born. By the way, are you the first born?” Only two people IRL grokked my point, although I’ve said it often.
I believe you mean “many people are saying …”, which in the fields of scientific endeavour, jurisprudence, and formal logic is generally regarded as unassailable proof of the proposition being advanced.
Think of a politician saying that they did not leave a party because they changed, but that it was the party who did change, a lot of fact checkers like Snopes or FackCheck are encountering that one side is nowadays constantly claiming that it is the fact checkers the ones that are also wrong, they claim that it is not just the progressives, but also the moderates or the ones that do check the facts.
That makes a lot of sense. I do love reading conspiracies, these people have creative minds all right.
I couldn’t find an emoji that was prostrating towards the pie.
