Is this anti-semitism?

I don't know enough about the tenets of Judaism to go into it, but by analogy -- it *is* intolerant if it sanctions the law, surely?

Judaism != Jews, maybe, run it off? It's clumsy, but race and religion are not the same. So it isn't racist to criticize a faith? I doin't know.

Surely religious las IS intolerant of people who break it. I'm guessing there must be punishments for transgression, even if it's just an evil look during church - and that kind of emotional punishment can be extremely effective/painful, especially in close-knit communities and ones where the people have a God's good will yo lose.

Laws are not opinions, so flouting the law is not a differing opinion either.
If you are a Jew, you do not drive etc on the Sabbath. This is a ritual by which you live a religious life. It is the code by which you get closer to god. That is not intolerant. Judaism would be intolerant if it forbid non-Jews to drive etc on the Sabbath.

-- run it off (davebeec...), January 27th, 2004.

Laws are opinions, they're (usually(should be!)) the opinion of the majority as to how individuals should behave.

Also, not being allowed to drive on a Sunday (or Saturday) IS intolerant: intolerant toward Jews. I think most religions are least tolerant of their own.

That's a bit of a shallow view of jurisprudence.

The ideological screen idea is itself an ideological screen.

As such, juridprudence is not an ideological screen; it is ideological. That doesn't mean it is no different from other ideas or opinions. Opinions that are ratified and authorised are not opinions in the same way as opinions that are not.

-- Ricardo (boyofbadger...), January 27th, 2004.

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law isn't it? Isn't what I've said what that all boils down too?

Where _is_ the depth?
It's simple isn't it?

See! Told you!

And more kvetchup please!

How humans should behave is a matter of opinion. Different religions, for example, havie differing opinions.

To clarify, laws themselves aren't exactly opinions, but what they attempt to enshrine as 'right' and 'wrong' ARE opinions.

If laws are backed by the state (and, after all, that's what makes them laws, rather than guidelines or codes or something else) then they are not just opinions, they are sanctified, ordered, institutionalied, backed up by the criminal justice system etc. I'm not saying power and hierarchy and stuff aren't involved -- of course they are -- but laws don't get to be laws without going through a socially sanctioned process.

The case of breaking the law because you have a different opinion (civil disobedience etc) does not mean that the law is treated as opinion it means that laws are seen as arbitrary and changeble, so that collective action can bring about social changes that force laws to change.

Yes, they are socially sanctioned, they are the combined opinions of a lot of people.

Also, I'm not saying the law is _treated as_ an opinion, I'm saying it _is_ an opinion.

o·pin·ion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-pnyn)
n.

A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion” (Elizabeth Drew).

A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.

A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.

The prevailing view: public opinion.

Law. A formal statement by a court or other adjudicative body of the legal reasons and principles for the conclusions of the court.

And "Killing is wrong" is "A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof".

(The last clause of that definition is a coincidence, and not what I was aiming at really, 'opinion' seems to be fairly slight homonym.)

That's all I'm saying.

So what if a culture is associated with professions like banking and so on? My Parsee ancestors held a similar position in India. Big deal.

That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

Also "playing the victim" in regards to the Holocaust has that vomit-inducing ring of Holocaust denial.

That is not nearly as harmless an accusation as you may think. The belief that Jews are obsessed with money is one of the foundations to anti-semitism.

I think N made his point well, actually, in that within the matrix of (especially central and eastern) European culture, the link between Jews and banking/trade was made into an ideological justification for anti-semitism, and was therefore more harmful than in other contexts. Stereotyping according to race/culture is a touchy area, but the association, or the making of associations, is/are not in themselves bad.

bnw - I know that about the money thing. But the question didn't ask 'are Jews intrinsically obsessed with money?'. I know that a good number of the people who answered yes to the question are probably horribly anti-semitic, but I resent the implication that they all have to be. 'Vomit inducing rings' are what all these questions work with, but I prefer my anti-racism to be less 'you must mean that really', in character.

My problem with it is how reasonable and academic it makes anti-semitism sound. It allows people to hold onto their suspicions about Jews, and not have to consider themselves anti-semites.

Really, what's the point of the association between jews and money if not anti-semitism? Have you heard this made in a positive light?

Stuart - oops! I pasted all the text anyway but the link is here

It also makes note of this, which I hadn't heard about: One in seven Britons says Holocaust is exaggerated.

Lots of murderers believe killing is wrong, too.

I think calling these ethical viewpoints "opinions" trivializes the amount of importance we place on them. "Opinion" also implies some sort of choice in the matter, whereas we often perceive the truth of ethical standpoints so deeply that we cannot imagine thinking they are wrong, or relative, or whatever.

1) 50 years is not such a long time, after all, is it
2) It wasn't the first time
3) Of course Europe doesn't understand Jews - they killed 'em all

and here's the official chain of events for the start of this
conflict:

1) Jews move into Palestine
2) Jews declare nation of Israel
3) Arab neighbors invade with no other provocation beside step 2
4) ALL OTHER SHIT GOES DOWN (repeat step 3 in the 60s and 70s)

I get the feeling that too many people look at step 1 as the beginning of all this crap, not step 3.

please nobody misconstrue my posts as a defence of the obviously horrible and anti-semitic tweets

I don't think anyone is viewing your posts as a defense of that tweet.

Bringing the discussion to the ethics of "doxxing" of people who make hateful posts and tweets on public social media platforms is sort of a topic in itself. In a context where people are already saying there is too much conflation of Israel with Jewish people in general, bringing attention back to this particular doxxing site is perhaps adding to the conflation. I don't know, just a thought.

As far as it being an old tweet or from 2015 or college student days, aren't these kind of social media posts being revived in other contexts for "reasons" other than to do with anti-semitism or chilling political discussion? I am thinking of the instance of the Teen Vogue editor who resigned and apologized because of posts made in high school. I think it's difficult to try to make bright line rules here.

Anyway, it's a hateful tweet, and there were consequences. Becoming ultra-focused on the "fairness" of such consequences and the methods - maybe that's a bigger discussion. Isn't it fairly easy to not to make these kinds of tweets? The problem is that the tweet existed at all, not that someone saw it.

I once saw a comedian joke that having to go back several years to find an offensive tweet or post is proof that the person in question clearly learned their lesson and should be praised for their good behavior.

anvil which conspiracy theories did Hasan Piker endorse?

and

Ok, I have a mate who's a big Hasan fan and if dude was spreading any misinformation I'd want to flag that up for him.

Probably not the thread for it, but I wanted to come back to this as I remembered that he referred to the Crimea referendum results as 'supposedly rigged', and also pushed the story that Boris Johnson (as mouthpiece of US) ordered Ukraine not to negotiate.

I realize this is nothing to do with anti-semitism or Palestine but remembered these and thought I should answer anyway. There were a couple of other dubious things but wouldn't necessarily classify them as coming under the above umbrella

"supposedly" as in disputing the disputedness of the 2014 referendum (there's a weird double negative thing here)

Having reflected on it, I’m not even sure that person should lose their job based on those tweets alone, if they regret them. But maybe it would be good to have them get some kind of training about historical antisemitism, the kinds of imagery and slurs and theories used, etc?

They already seem well versed in it

Someone apparently spraypainted a jewish star on the bakery in my town, which is Jewish-owned and kosher. It's one of only two businesses in town that would really read as Jewish. I'm not at the point where I feel concerned for safety or anything but it is surprising to have it happen here. Town has a significant Jewish population - mostly liberal and reform or unaffiliated.

that's really messed up

Having reflected on it, I’m not even sure that person should lose their job based on those tweets alone, if they regret them. But maybe it would be good to have them get some kind of training about historical antisemitism, the kinds of imagery and slurs and theories used, etc?

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Friday, November 3, 2023 5:49 AM (two hours ago)

don't think there's any public evidence of her disavowing or apologizing for those tweets, but I agree that sincere regret would make a big difference. Ilhan Omar is someone who used anti-semitic tropes in tweets before she was in congress, and did the work of understanding and explaining the problem with the language she used.

absent any regret from A. Johnson, I am OK with her losing her job. My concern is that she'll be the victim of a campaign of harassment and death threats because of her old tweets being un-earthed in this current climate.

As with most cases, I would rather that if she lost her job it was because the students she had dealings with were upset about the tweets, rather than some outside group directing a campaign to get her fired.

I think it was both.

There's an article where she recaps the incident, apparently without remorse.

https://dailynorthwestern.com/2023/03/02/featured-stories/in-focus/community-members-say-northwestern-is-neither-a-safe-nor-free-space-for-conversations-about-palestine-and-israel/

Agree, an apology and acknowledgement can lead to moving on. Don't think she needs to be banned from all jobs. But when the job is some sort of role model for college students, hard to see how to stop perpetuating cycles of hatred otherwise.

Aneesa Johnson (Communication ʼ18), said the University’s reactions to individual students expressing their views has hindered open conversation.

Johnson, who is Palestinian, said that while at NU, she was reported to the University for bias and hate after she posted tweets criticizing Zionism.

kinda buries the actual anti-semitism doesn't it

Yes

my wife's uncle (recently retired) was a Northwestern professor who survived the holocaust and i'm glad he probably never had her as a student.

that's an interesting article, thanks for sharing it.

Johnson, who is Palestinian, said that while at NU, she was reported to the University for bias and hate after she posted tweets criticizing Zionism.

lol come on now

The article happens to go into detail about the effects of the doxxing site:

Several students who are critical of Israel also consistently identified Canary Mission as making it more difficult for them to speak out. Canary Mission is an anonymous online blacklist that compiles public dossiers of student activists and organizations it deems to be anti-Israel or antisemitic.

According to reports from media outlets The Forward and The Times of Israel, the Israeli government has used Canary Mission’s blacklist to deny visitors entry at its borders.

“Canary Mission is literally the thing that stops me the most when speaking up,” Ava said.

Ava is stateless — her family grew up in Palestinian refugee camps — and she hopes to someday attain U.S. citizenship. She said she worries being blacklisted on Canary Mission would make it more difficult for her to get a job and, eventually, U.S. citizenship.

As a result of this fear, Ava said she never joined SJP during her time at NU. George said many Palestinian students he knows have avoided becoming involved with SJP for this same reason.

Charles*, a Palestinian American student, said he’s been having conversations with his family for at least 10 years about precautions to avoid being blacklisted on Canary Mission.

“If it’s out there and attached to my name that I’m critical of the Israeli government,” he said, “that can be preventative to me being able to go back to where my people are from, and where I have family and connecting (with) what I consider my homeland.”

I really hate this persecution taking place in the name of fighting anti-semitism

xps!

Yes antisemitism and other hate amd microaggressions wrapped up in the First Amendment is a blurry line that many lawyers spent their whole careers trying to delineate. Usually it's passive aggressive subtle dogwhistling but these overt examples are on the rise.

More consequences:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/02/business/law-firms-antisemitism-universities/index.html

The law firms' letter's definition of antisemitism includes

Over the last several weeks, we have been alarmed at reports of anti-Semitic harassment, vandalism and assaults on college campuses, including rallies calling for the death of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel.

I saw the video of the two people eating bagels in Montclair NJ that had just removed one of the posters from a wall, and were being asked why they had taken it down. Its unfortunate that the person asking them is basically harassing them so its not a surprise they don't want to answer.

I feel like this kind of thing would be better approached in the way the 1420 guy does in Russia when asking about the SMO and related topics.

I did feel these two maybe weren't really able to explain their rationale, but I think there's something else going on underneath that isn't anti-semitism, but it could become so. I think sometimes we think of these things as inherent, when often its something that can develop

At the same time, as with the above two it may also be a form of group dynamics and not necessarily something thought out or explainable, and that these dynamics can continue even when not in the group situation

New thread:

Anti-semitism thread: onwards from 2023