The real enemy of the Jews - Why does Borat ignore the left?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by joncha
I'm sure that depends on the criticism. "The state of Israel is not doing enough to stop the arab menace," for example, is acceptable.

Oh sure, they're all lazy in Israel. It's because they're Jewish, isn't it? You make me sick!

[joncha]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Much like anyone who criticizes Israel is a dirty anti-Semite, anyone who criticizes gangsta rap is a dirty racist.

Indeed. Furthermore, anyone who opposes Heresson's proposed Frog Forum is a dirty anti-Batrachite.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Ned, how critical of the state of Israel and its policies can one be, in your mind, before they become anti-Semitic?

So long as it is based on its policies. What Krauthammer quoted were statements about Jews that were quite racist. There is a difference between political differences and racism.

[Ned]

Originally posted by loinburger
I think it's a bit silly to use "democrats" interchangably with "liberals" and "republicans" interchangably with "conservatives" while at the same time bringing the more-than-a-century-old history of the parties into the mix. If anybody is claiming that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have remained static for the past, say, 150 years, and that the Republican and Democratic platforms have remained static for the past, say, 150 years, then by all means use the terms interchangably. Short of that, this "party of Lincoln" or "party of Jefferson" or "party of Taft" or "party of Harrison (the one who died after a month in office)" crap is just as annoying as calling the other side "repukelicans" or "demoncrats" or whatever.

I tend to agree with this, but with one caveat. The leading "conservatives" of today are guys like Limbaugh and Bill Buckley, who clearly are not of the Southern ex-Democrat type. Limbaugh and Buckley are just what I said they were, individualists. They are not segregationists, like Sheets Byrd, Democrat Senator from West Virginia.

Be that as it may, Socialists like to conflate themselves with Liberals (classic), who did move the franchise forward and spread democracy. Socialists do not like freedom and democracy, except as a means to power. Once in power, they soon find they cannot impose socialism and stay in power, so they either have to compromise on their ideology, or put an end to democracy. European socialists generally choose the former. Guys like Chavez are clearly choosing the latter.

I have a question. Is Putin a Socialist?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ned
I have a question. Is Putin a Socialist?

There are stupid questions, and there are STUPID questions. This falls into the latter category.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ned
So long as it is based on its policies. What Krauthammer quoted were statements about Jews that were quite racist. There is a difference between political differences and racism.

What about questioning the legitimacy of the establishment of Israel in the first place?

[Ned]

Originally posted by loinburger

There are stupid questions, and there are STUPID questions. This falls into the latter category.

He is ex-KGB.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Elok


Er, bear in mind that this is IRL, not online. Online, you're untouchable, so if anyone says anything you disagree with you're free to flame away. IRL, if a man who appears mentally or emotionally unstable (plus IIRC he's well over six feet tall) starts spewing this crap, and no harm appears to result...typically people play along. There's just no point in trying to correct a man who appears to be coming from bizarro world. If he were rational enough to be convinced, odds are he'd be too rational to believe the wacky rubbish coming out of his mouth.

Not that I think most people even progress that far in their explicit inner reasoning. Mostly I suspect that, as social animals, humans default to playing along until they can escape from situations where they just don't have the slightest idea WTF is going on. It's the safest course of action.

Really, can you honestly say that if some random loon came up to you one day and started babbling insane, hateful beliefs, and refused to go away until you played along, you would do anything other than A. play along or B. smile ambiguously and look uncomfortable until he was satisfied/frustrated and went away?

I think that's a very good point.
Although, to be fair, it only explains up to a certain point.

Some people in some sketches actually become very active.
He acts like a trigger and then they go on their own rant or whatever.

But I agree that you can't read too much into laughter or silence.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Given that it was the Democrats who ended the system of segregation, and the fact most pro-segregationist then fled the Democratic party and joined the Republican party, its easy to do so.

There is a reason why most blacks, who used to vote Republicans switched to almost completely voting democrat. Obviously they know something you don't. But then, that is a common thing.

Democrats, not Republicans, blocked civil rights legislation for about a century until the 50's and 60's, where a coalition of Northern Democrats and the Republicans finally were able, together, to get enough votes to overcome the barrier the Southern Democrats had imposed in the Senate for such a long time. Your post simply ignores the source of the problem, Southern Democrats, and clearly implies that it was the Republicans who were blocking civil right legislation since the Civil War. Thus your post is a not true, and I assume, an intentional lie not as I think you are not ignorant.

Black began voting Democrat in the '30s. I assume it had to do with the New Deal.

But, clearly today they are constantly told lies by Democrats who say such things as "the Republicans are the Devil" that they continue to vote Democrat, ignorant of the history of the Republican Party (most blacks think Lincoln was a Democrat), ignorant of the history of the Democrat Party, the party of slavery and segregation, the of their own self interest.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Elok
Really, can you honestly say that if some random loon came up to you one day and started babbling insane, hateful beliefs, and refused to go away until you played along, you would do anything other than A. play along or B. smile ambiguously and look uncomfortable until he was satisfied/frustrated and went away?

On camera? Yes.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


What about questioning the legitimacy of the establishment of Israel in the first place?

Legitimacy and wisdom are two different matters, not so? One could lead to Israel's destruction.

[Elok]

Originally posted by LordShiva
On camera? Yes.

You've never been in America, have you? We have people who will go on talk shows and talk about humping their brothers in front of the whole nation, provided it's a chance to be On Television. Even disregarding that, the fact that people play along does not mean they're HORRIBLE RACISTS. It's just human nature to go with the flow under all sorts of ridiculous circumstances.

I remember a famous experiment by some university back in the fifties where volunteers thought they were administering painful and dangerous electric shocks to other subjects, but overwhelmingly elected to continue the experiment when they were assured that they would not be held responsible. The scientists made similar claims to SBC about how this must have been how Hitler came to power, blah blah blah. Possibly true, but it's also how jackass stunt comedians earn a living: human beings tend to be cowards when it comes to confronting others over their behavior in public. And they therefore will take the path of least resistance to avoid making waves.

Now, if some of these people launch into rants as LT suggested, that's a different story, I agree.

[Straybow]

If Borat had been singing, "Throw the Commie down the well" or "Throw the Ruskie down the well" the same crowd of half-drunks would be singing along just the same.

If he went into a blue-collar Boston bar and sang "Throw the Republican down the well" he'd also get the same response. Or "Throw the dago down the well" in it were an Irish pub. If he went into the Cambridge yuppie bar and sang, "Throw the Keynesian down the well" it'd probably do the trick. The Borat character couldn't logically do so, but it holds true in principle.

They're drunk. They'll laugh and sing along with anything that mocks something they're not.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Ned


Democrats, not Republicans, blocked civil rights legislation for about a century until the 50's and 60's, where a coalition of Northern Democrats and the Republicans finally were able, together, to get enough votes to overcome the barrier the Southern Democrats had imposed in the Senate for such a long time. Your post simply ignores the source of the problem, Southern Democrats, and clearly implies that it was the Republicans who were blocking civil right legislation since the Civil War. Thus your post is a not true, and I assume, an intentional lie not as I think you are not ignorant.

Black began voting Democrat in the '30s. I assume it had to do with the New Deal.

But, clearly today they are constantly told lies by Democrats who say such things as "the Republicans are the Devil" that they continue to vote Democrat, ignorant of the history of the Republican Party (most blacks think Lincoln was a Democrat), ignorant of the history of the Democrat Party, the party of slavery and segregation, the of their own self interest.

did ned just call blacks ignorant?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Elok
Er, bear in mind that this is IRL, not online. Online, you're untouchable, so if anyone says anything you disagree with you're free to flame away. IRL, if a man who appears mentally or emotionally unstable (plus IIRC he's well over six feet tall) starts spewing this crap, and no harm appears to result...typically people play along. There's just no point in trying to correct a man who appears to be coming from bizarro world. If he were rational enough to be convinced, odds are he'd be too rational to believe the wacky rubbish coming out of his mouth.

Not that I think most people even progress that far in their explicit inner reasoning. Mostly I suspect that, as social animals, humans default to playing along until they can escape from situations where they just don't have the slightest idea WTF is going on. It's the safest course of action.

Really, can you honestly say that if some random loon came up to you one day and started babbling insane, hateful beliefs, and refused to go away until you played along, you would do anything other than A. play along or B. smile ambiguously and look uncomfortable until he was satisfied/frustrated and went away?

As espoused before, it isn't simply people laughing or staying silent, but people who either volunteer information which tends to be very hateful prejudices which they say because they don't think it'll come back to hurt them. Or they join along. I think even if you think some guy is a loon, you don't start singing stuff with that sort of message!

I think the people who stay silent or laugh along don't come off that badly. The ones that think they are 'safe' to say their hateful stuff (the rodeo guy, the frat boys) and those that join in ("Throw the Jew Down the Well" singers) are the ones that make people stop and get scared.