[QUOTE=ralph124c]
the fact that nobody in the USA can question anything about the actions of the israeli government, and not be labelled an “anti semite”.
[/quote]
No no, you are confused. See, facts are true things, not things you make up in order to give your argument a nifty strawman to fight against.
FinnAgain is right. Merely questioning Israel doesn’t get you labeled an anti-Semite. It’s more of a three-step or four-step process. Questioning Israel’s actions leads you to question why US politicians support Israel so unwaveringly. That line of inquiry leads you to the lobbying group AIPAC.
Once you start questioning the depth and breadth of AIPAC’s involvement in US politics, then you get labeled an anti-Semite, either directly or (as is more common) by innuendo.
As that isn’t true either, I am left wondering why you need to make up falsehoods like that. (leaving aside that “AIPAC did it!” is way, way over simplistic and ignores factors which counters its influence) Do you want people to call you an anti-semite? Does it somehow make your argument stronger?
Look at this thread, and all the Americans in it. How many have called anybody an anti-semite? None, eh?
How many will insinuate that you’re an anti-semite because of your views of the influence of AIPAC? More likely than not… none.
Why, exactly, do you need to invent persecution where none exists?
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Look at this thread, and all the Americans in it. How many have called anybody an anti-semite? None, eh?
[/QUOTE]
We’re Dopers. Not exactly a fair representative sample of America or any other country. (As is being discussed in this thread.)
Regarding AIPAC, there’s a fairly measured (mostly) discussion in this thread.
FinnAgain, you have been one of the worst offenders on these boards.
But I will not further hijack this thread to re-hash the matter. Rather I will direct the interested reader to this Pit thread, where the hair-trigger on charges of anti-Semitism was discussed at some length.
Fixed link: Pit thread.
For a somewhat less measured and more heated discussion of AIPAC’s influence on American policy, see this thread from 2004 (about the Douglas Feith/Larry Franklin scandal).
[QUOTE=spoke-]
FinnAgain, you have been one of the worst offenders on these boards.
[/QUOTE]
In other words, you got nuthin’. And instead of even attempting to back up your false claims, you lie about me with this silly little ad hominem. I have called exactly one other poster on these boards an anti-semite, and have pointed out, on one occasion, the hysterical and irrational nature of the “dual loyalties/Zionists made us invade Iraq for Israel!” meme. I could ask why you feel the need to lie about me, but I suspect it’s much the same reason you need to invent persecution where none exists.
The Dope landscape bears not even a passing resemblance to your deliberate untruthful statement. This thread bears not even a passing resemblance to your deliberate untruthful statement. And the American political scene, likewise, bears not even a passing resemblance to your deliberate untruthful statement.
The truth, as opposed to your lie, is that yes, sometimes some people will call someone out for anti-semitism where none exists. And, sometimes, people will get called out for anti-semitism when it does exist, but they’re hiding behind a tissue of obfuscation.
See, the truth is that at least as often as spurious charges of anti-semitism are cast, if not more often, we have folks who are anti-Israel who attempt to stall any discussion by immediately claiming that they will be accused of anti-semitism. Up on the cross they hop before discussion has even begun, and loudly decry their imaginary persecution.
BG, Spoke claim had no qualifier on it, at all. At least we can agree, I’d hope, that it’s 100% pure bullshit when applied to the Dope. And, in addition, almost totally untrue when applied to society at large. Or, when people wrote debunked the flawed methodology of the original “AIPAC study”, did they not focus on massive methodological problems, and instead call them anti-semites?
This preemptive auto-martyrdom serves no purposes other than muddying the waters. It is used most often as a smoke screen for shoddy logic and irrational flights of fancy
When, for instance, Cheney and Rummy are never accused of having ‘dual loyalties’ to Israel, despite massive connections to the PNAC, but people like Wolfy are, and when the actual PNAC documents are distorted and cherry-picked to get at a preconceived conclusion… Well, the people making those obviously irrational and cherry-picked claims usually get called out on that. The fact that they only accuse people who happen to be Jewish, on flimsy evidence to boot, does not mean that they’re anti-semites, but some certainly are. The fact that they only accuse people who happen to be Jewish, on flimsy evidence to boot, does make them intellectually dishonest and intellectually lazy. But necessarily anti-semites? No.
There’s that innuendo. I knew we could count on you, FinnAgain.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
There’s that innuendo. I knew we could count on you, FinnAgain.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
So, in your world, saying that someone isn’t necessarily an anti-semite is innuendo that they’re an anti-semite? Like I said, if you have to manufacture persecution where none exists, you might want to ask yourself why. You might also want to ask yourself why, when my post is right next to yours, you think you can simply make stuff up about what I said, when the clear text in black and white is the exact opposite of your little ad hominem fallacy. Perhaps you simply lack reading comp skills, and that’s okay too. But you should probably ask for clarification first, if that’s the case and you’re not deliberately twisting my words.
It would go something like this
“Finn, you say that something is irrational, intellectually dishonest and intellectually lazy, but not necessarily anti-semitic. Does that mean you’re saying that it’s necessarily anti-semitic?”
“Why no, spoke, that’s what the word “not” means.”
“Ah, thank you Finn. I wondered what the word “not” was doing there. I guess I just ignored it in order to evade your actual point and complain about how I’m such a martyr.”
See? Your lack of comprehension could’ve been dealt with by one simple question instead of silly ad hominem snark.
Or you can keep imagining that I’m out to get you, whatever floats your boat.
Accusing people of “anti-semitism” when they merely seek to criticize Israel is a discreditable and fallacious act.
Pre-emptively accusing those who seek to criticise you of this discreditable and fallacious act is equally discreditable and fallacious.
Personally, it seems pretty obvious that the latter is by far more common than the former - and this thread is additional proof.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
Accusing people of “anti-semitism” when they merely seek to criticize Israel is a discreditable and fallacious act.
Pre-emptively accusing those who seek to criticise you of this discreditable and fallacious act is equally discreditable and fallacious.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, even assuming both of those things occur, they are NOT equally discreditable.
The former is an attempt to short-circuit honest and open debate. The idea is to silence potential opponents by smearing them as bigots.
The latter is an attempt to pre-empt ad hominem attacks, which have no place in honest debate.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Actually, even assuming both of those things occur, they are NOT equally discreditable.
The former is an attempt to short-circuit honest and open debate. The idea is to silence potential opponents by smearing them as bigots.
The latter is an attempt to pre-empt ad hominem attacks, which have no place in honest debate.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree totally. Both are smears, intended to silence or discredit opposition, and neither has place in honest debate.
The only difference is that being an anti-semite is generally considered worse than simply being a dishonest debater willing to use smear tactics to silence opponents (which is the innuendo of the second smear). That is, if both accusations were true, the first would carry the heavier “sting”.
Well, no. The latter still leaves the opponent free to engage in open and honest debate. The opponent need have no fear of being labeled a dishonest debater…unless they start slinging reckless charges of anti semitism.
The former (on the other hand) is designed to silence all honest debate. No one dare speak up lest they be labeled a bigot.
The latter is much worse. Indeed, the former is no sin at all, in my opinion, since its object is to ensure honest debate.
That should be: the former (reckless accusations of anti-semitism) is much worse, and the latter is no sin at all.
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Well, no. The latter still leaves the opponent free to engage in open and honest debate. The opponent need have no fear of being labeled a dishonest debater…unless they start slinging reckless charges of anti semitism.
[/quote]
Well, obviously not, since you didn’t let your smear be at all influenced by anything that I actually said. You use it in exactly the same way you decry those using the charge of anti-semitism: to shut down debate. Unless, of course, you have an honest reason for believing that “not” means something other than what it’s normally taken to mean? Didn’t think so.
No, preemptively hopping up on the cross, especially when, as you’ve done, you have to invent a reason for hopping on up, is most certainly not in the cause of honest debate. And you know it.
Finn, I will not debate the meaning of “not” with you. I am content to let readers view your post and decide whether the innuendo was there. If you want a trainwreck, you’ll have to do it on your own.
Hoo boy. Go to work for a while and see what happens?
Tagos thanks for bringing some meat to the debate. My post was in response to Sev’s claim of “ethnic cleansing” which you concurr is not occuring. If you want to debate with someone who will defend Israeli settlement policies you may have to go elsewhere than here. To me the fact that private property has been confiscated for settlements is not required for the policy to be wrong. Even if no private property was confiscated the land is not Israeli land to use for purposes other than security needs or for the well-being of the occupied. But those wrong-headed policies are a long way from apartheid. And an honest discussion would also acknowledge how the settlements came to be, after “The Three Nos.”
The common point here is how words can be chosen to have inflamatory effect. “Apartheid” is not a word to use to get all sides engaged in honest discussion; it is a word used to rally those who already agree with you and to insult those who don’t. Likewise “ethnic cleansing” is an untruth used in order to inflame and to demonize.
Now who exactly is calling Carter an antisemite? No one I know. Foxman of the ADL only expresses concern that some of his statements implying that Jews control the media veer in that direction. Oh boy, a few tv call-in folk and a few bloggers have called him that. Wow. More people are accusing people of calling him an antisemite than are actually calling him that! And Malthus is right, this spurious claim that any criticism of Israeli policies is labelled antisemitic is as much a smear, as vile of a smear, as falsely calling someone antisemitic would be. Carter intentionally using a vile word to get press for his book. That is despicable but not antisemitic. “Antisemitic” would be an untruth intended to inflame and to demonize.
If criticizing Israeli policies gets one labelled an antisemite then I would have been called that many times. No it takes a lot more to bring that suspicion to most of us.
Oh they are there. There are those who use anti-Zionism as a trendy way to be antisemitic in a pc manner. And there are many who want to engage in honest debate, who have honestly come to different conclusions than I have, or who are just not fully informed. How do you know who is who?
If you find yourself saying that Jews control the media, the government, and the banks, if you find yourself agreeing with David Duke, then you may be an antisemite. If you are grateful that anti-Zionism has given you a chance to repeat those old canards again under a new cover, then you may be an antisemite. If the facts are of no consequence, if it is Israel doing it it, then it is evil, it is ethnic cleansing, it is apartheid … Certainly if you do those things I may begin to suspect those things. But I will not call you one even if I suspect such is so. I won’t need to. Your actions declare what you are just the troll declares itself for all to know by how it behaves. It quacks, it waddles … I have no need to announce what it is.
Qed
Just to clarify, in case there was misinterpretation, that “Your actions …” was a rhetorical “your”, not directed at any particular person. If anyone here percieves themselves to waddle, and thereby takes offense, that’s their own business. I don’t pay enough attention to any individual’s posting histories to know enough about them to make an assessment of their motivations, and again, I generally do not care to try. Carter would need to surround his “apartheid” comment with a bunch of Jews controlling media/banks/government and/or throw some Christ-killer myth into the pot for me to believe him to be antisemitic. Oh some Holocaust denial or passing out of The Protocols would do it do.