Thanks to some whiny people I don't get to read Tuesday Morning Quarterback any more

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, that complicates things if he is in a joint congregation. The only problem I have with his statement is that he is not holding the Christians to proper accountability.

I worship in one of the handful of joint Christian-Jewish congregations in the United States.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM:
I think there is nothing wrong in warning of antisemitism when it is justified. Mahathir's comments were obviously anti-semite, and this guy deserves to be criticized for that.
But many Jews have the really bad habit of screming "antisemitism" everytime the Jews or the Israelis get associated with something unpleasant. It pisses me off greatly, because these whiners completely denaturate this grave word. It pisses me off even more so, because according to such logic, we can't allow ourselves to criticize some Jews or to criticize Israel without being associated with the worst horror of modern history

Many criticisms of Israel are NOT antisemitic. Some criticisms of Jews in are not antisemitic (well Im not sure about that) But MANY criticisms of Israel are antisemitic, and most criticisms of Jews in general are antisemitic. It pisses ME off, that I cant call a criticism of Israel antisemitic, when I believe it to be so, cause some folks will say im shouting "antisemite" as a rhetorical weapon and abusing the holocaust.

And yes, many (not all) criticisms of affirmative action in the US are anti-black, many criticisms of feminism are anti-female, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, that complicates things if he is in a joint congregation. The only problem I have with his statement is that he is not holding the Christians to proper accountability.

Or perhaps what he should have done is hold these HUMAN BEINGS to their proper accountability. Which he has done in the past.

[DinoDoc]

I am not pleased at those who dont understand the things that Greg Easterbrook DOES understand.

Why should we understand those that jump to needless conclusions based on nothing more than thier own fears and prejudices?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Gregg Eastebrook himself disagrees. To see why read his eloquent apology.

I've read his apology. And it merely confirmed what I was thinking from the beginning: the only people he shocked are Jews who are still dwelling in the age-old prejudices cast against them.

If said prejudices continued to apply in the American society, these people would have a point. But I have yet to meet an American who actually believes the Jews are worshipping money above all else.

The whole ruckus over his wording is a pure overreation by people who can't tolerate that words can be accidentaly reminiscent of the prejudices of the past This is exactly "whiny" in my book.

Heck, if I entered a righteous crusade to ban anti-French prejudices on Apolyton (which are still running rampant as we speak), many would think I'm overreacting. But if the people who had a poor wording once, linking France and cowardice even if it wasn't their intent; if I had these people banned by Ming, I'd be rightfully called a "whiny Frog".

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It pisses ME off, that I cant call a criticism of Israel antisemitic, when I believe it to be so, cause some folks will say im shouting "antisemite" as a rhetorical weapon and abusing the holocaust.

You didn't restrict yourself that much when you implied GePap's criticism of Israel may have come from latent antisemitism.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I am not pleased at those who dont understand the things that Greg Easterbrook DOES understand.

Why should we understand those that jump to needless conclusions based on nothing more than thier own fears and prejudices?

You said it much better, and much clearer than me

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I've read his apology. And it merely confirmed what I was thinking from the beginning: the only people he shocked are Jews who are still dwelling in the age-old prejudices cast against them.

If said prejudices continued to apply in the American society, these people would have a point. But I have yet to meet an American who actually believes the Jews are worshipping money above all else.

The whole ruckus over his wording is a pure overreation by people who can't tolerate that words can be accidentaly reminiscent of the prejudices of the past This is exactly "whiny" in my book.

Heck, if I entered a righteous crusade to ban anti-French prejudices on Apolyton (which are still running rampant as we speak), many would think I'm overreacting. But if the people who had a poor wording once, linking France and cowardice even if it wasn't their intent; if I had these people banned by Ming, I'd be rightfully called a "whiny Frog".

well im so glad that youve moved beyond worrying about antisemitism, antiblack prejudice and so forth.
First - yes, while I think there is less antisemitism in this country than anywhere else in the West, there ARE some backword people who hold old antisemitic prejudices. Most do not make those prejudices public, though some, like Louis Farrakhan, do. There are also millions of people around the world who hold such prejudices, many of whom are actively engaged in trying to kill Jews even as we speak.

Im also glad that you didnt mind the Anti-French rhetoric - Id like to know which head of state has recently said that Frenchmen rule the world, or has made the French the one of the principle targets in a global campaign of terror. But if youd like to consider "Cheese eating whatevers" the moral equivalent of antisemitic remarks, go right ahead.


And yes, we do live in the past, to some degree. Part of that is a religion that constantly asks us to remember. Part of it is the need to remember the recent past. Part of it is the present, when blood thirsty antisemitism is espoused by someone who gets widespread admiration from several hundred million people around the world. And part of it is that the Jews of Germany were quite convinced that things had changed, and that the pogroms and persecution that afflicted there ancestors could never happen again.


And I still dont understand why you dont take seriously what Mr. Easterbrook himself says about his words.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You didn't restrict yourself that much when you implied GePap's criticism of Israel may have come from latent antisemitism.

He (and plenty of others) didnt stop criticising Israel cause they might be accused of antisemitism. One presumes that when you say this causes self-censorship, you mean there would be even more criticism. Well i can tell, you, i have limited myself to what i saw as the most egregious cases - I am sure there are other instances that I thought were antisemitic, when i restrained myself to avoid the appearance of being "whiny".

GePAP refused to admit that Hezbollahs attack on a Jewish Center in Buenos Aires constituted an attack on Argentina, since the attack was aimed at Jews. Now perhaps that was in defense of a political agenda (he didnt want to admit that Hezbollah was global terrorist group, since then it would logically follow that Syria and Iran supported global terrorism, and that had political implications he didnt like) - but the implication - that an attack on Argentinian Jews was not an attack on Argentina - seeemed classically antisemitic to me. and no, I was NOT attacking him as antisemitic for criticizing Israel.

[Master Zen]

This more pathetic uber-PC bullsh*t.

There was nothing anti-semitic about his post but as usually, oversensitive whiny Jews will raise a racket. I'm not saying they all are, (there are whiny people everywhere) but those who are seems to be particularly intent at using political correctness for doublethink purposes. Just look, they even manage to change thread titles here!

(yeah, under their definitions I'm an anti-semite for this kind of posts. )

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I am not pleased at those who dont understand the things that Greg Easterbrook DOES understand.

Why should we understand those that jump to needless conclusions based on nothing more than thier own fears and prejudices?

Because in this case their fears have legitimate historical roots, as Gregg Easterbrook has the understanding and insight to say.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Master Zen
This more pathetic uber-PC bullsh*t.

There was nothing anti-semitic about his post but as usually, oversensitive whiny Jews will raise a racket. I'm not saying they all are, (there are whiny people everywhere) but those who are seems to be particularly intent at using political correctness for doublethink purposes. Just look, they even manage to change thread titles here!

(yeah, under their definitions I'm an anti-semite for this kind of posts. )

Well speaking of jumping to conclusions "ust look, they even manage to change thread titles here! "
I must again repeat - I did NOT - repeat NOT - request the change in thread title. I dont know who did. Why not ask the moderators before you throw accusations around.

[Spiffor]

And I still dont understand why you dont take seriously what Mr. Easterbrook himself says about his words.

Because he apologized to people who were only shocked because of their own fears and prejudices, as DD put it much better than me. What he said had zero impact on the population's antisemitism - it had only impact on some Jews' sensibility. And I think that's what he exprimes, albeit in a non-hostile way.

And what you are saying is right. There is some antisemitism in this world. I didn't know Farrakhan could spill anti-semitism hatred, but it isn't a surprise from what I heard on the guy. There is still much antisemitism around that has to be fought.

And this rightful struggle against antisemitism goes along with an absurd struggle against every slip of tongue and against many bad opinions towards some Jewish people or towards Israel.

What I'm opposed to is not the struggle against antisemitism. What I'm opposed to is not the fact that Jews can really have power to shut down antisemitic media in the West. What I'm opposed to is when the Jews fight on the wrong battleground. There are too many grounds on which to fight; it is a waste to choose this one. It achieves nothing besides giving the Jews a bad name.

[rah]

*********NOTICE**************


I changed the title. I didn't mind the discussion, but I thought having whiny Jews in the title was not appropriate. MY CALL. And for being a dumb A** and pushing his luck with a copy cat thread, Ben Kenobi will be sitting on the sideline for 24 hours.

Anybody else that complains about it can join him.
Geeze. I just tweeked a title to make it sound a bit less inflamatory, without changing it in the thread.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
GePAP refused to admit that Hezbollahs attack on a Jewish Center in Buenos Aires constituted an attack on Argentina, since the attack was aimed at Jews. Now perhaps that was in defense of a political agenda (he didnt want to admit that Hezbollah was global terrorist group, since then it would logically follow that Syria and Iran supported global terrorism, and that had political implications he didnt like) - but the implication - that an attack on Argentinian Jews was not an attack on Argentina - seeemed classically antisemitic to me. and no, I was NOT attacking him as antisemitic for criticizing Israel.

In this regard, I'd be with you if GePap himself separated the Jews from Argentina from other Argentinians in general. However, in the case of an attack, the target is largely determined by the intent of the attacker.
If the Hezbollah wanted a cheap spot on Jews somewhere unexpected on Earth, the attack was against Jews. If the Hezbollah wanted to destabilise Argentina, and their attack happened to blow up a Jewish Center, the attack would have been against the Argentines.

In your opinion, was the US attack on Iraq aimed against the Saddam regime, or against the children of Iraq ? Many Iraqi children died in the process, yet the target of the war was clearly the Saddam regime.
If the Hezbollah defined its target as "the Jews", then their target was "the Jews". No matter what GePap actually thinks of the integration of Jews in the Argentinian society.

I would have been with you if the FARC attacked some Colombian top leader happening to be a Jew, and if GePap had said "This is an attack against the Jews of the world, not against the Colombian government". But in the case of the Hizbollah, I fear you are acting according to your own fears.