 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
So, you think that if I wrote a piece admonishing people for seeing jewish conspiracies where there were none, and asked them if they seriously thought that jews controlled the world, then you think that I would have a problem myself? |
With the wording that you used in this thread, yes. All it takes is one or a few people in circular logic, that take your words out of context and repeat them to other people belonging to the same interest group, or to spread it through the net. No matter how unsubtanciated the wlaim of antisemitism would be, you'll be writing an apology for your wording very soon.
quote:
I think you are mistaken. Of course the context has something to do with it. Easterbrook was not discussing anti-semitism or reactions to it. When discussing anti-semitism of course the phrases that are associated with anti-semetism are going to come up! |
I don't think the extremist pro-PC will agree with you. And I don't doubt these extremists, despite being only a few, are the most noisy.
quote:
Are you trying to turn this into a caricature of PC? |
I think PC can bring many good things. The injustice of our society does exist in language, and that's why I think language should be changed and watched to some extent, to diminish these daily reminders of injustice.
For example, in France, there is a ****ing practice among some of the alienated youth, which consists in collectively raping the girlfriend of a gang's member. These people use the harmless word "tournante" (a form of ping pong when more than two players are playing on one table), and the word is now used in the media. I think "collective rape" should be used, so that the horror of rape doesn't get erased by the nice, harmless word.
NOW, in the case of Easterbrook, and in your case as well, I think such reaction is unwarranted, because these antisemitic wordings don't belong to the daily American vocabulary, and it ain't gonna happen soon. As I said earlier, the outrage would have been much more appropriate if there was actually a latent antisemitism in the US.
quote:
Furthermore, would you take issue with some black people taking offence to the word n*****? |
AFAIK, in English, the world "nigger" alone is an insult. As such the use of the world "nigger" cannot come from an accidental wording, except in the very specific case of historical document on slavery. If some Blacks were outraged by the use of the word "nigger" in a clearly non-racist documentary about slavery, then I'd call it Bullshit as well.
quote:
Why do you have a problem that some jewish people have a problem with what Easterbrook said? |
I have a problem that some people can get outraged, and can actually react strongly enough to warrant several long explanations, because of a bad wording that had no antisemitic intent. It gives a bad name to the struggle against antisemitism, and this is bad. The overuse of the expletive "antisemite" by some noisy Jews in the past has lead many people not to take it seriously anymore, even when the warning on antisemitism is justified
quote:
How many black people would have a problem with n*****, and would they be wrong? |
The outraged Blacks would be perfectly right if someone used "niggers" in the general sense of today, i.e an insult. Because except in very few circumstances, "nigger" can only be an insult today. By the same token, had Easterbrook been actually an anti-semite, I'd have absolutely no problem with the outraged Jews' reaction.
However, had some Blacks been outraged by the use of the word "nigger" when it was obviously in a historical context, I would have thought they are completely wrong and should pick their battles better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
But why point out that some people in only one particular group have committed crimes?
It's a universal human behavior, when it all comes down to it. |
OK - but what if it happens to be Jews doing it in the particular case at issue? For example, the occupation/apartheid which Palestinians are subject to. There are people who will call you an anti-semite for criticising that.
Of course the usual response is yours, "look at all the bad things other people do, why pick on Israel?" But the problem with this is that it deflects from the real issue - the fact that other people do bad things is no excuse.
The problem is that the holocaust was a particularly horrible event and thus it's worse to be called an anti-semite than most other things. But this has been taken advantage of by some people who use the stigma of anti-semitism as a means of stifling criticism.
What's bizarrely funny is that, of all minorities, Jewish people probably have it the best. They are certainly much better off than Hispanics or Afro-Americans. Anti-semitism exists, but it has been notoriously unsuccessful at immiserating the Jewish community who seem to be doing quite well in Canada and the US.
I mean, imagine it, a wealthy, well educated and prosperous community with a very low rate of incarceration and victimization by the police is complaining about their lot. How ridiculous.
This doesn't excuse anti-semitism, but it makes me wonder why it should have that much of a profile seeing as how it doesn't seem to cause much evil.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
OK - but what if it happens to be Jews doing it in the particular case at issue? For example, the occupation/apartheid which Palestinians are subject to. There are people who will call you an anti-semite for criticising that.
Of course the usual response is yours, "look at all the bad things other people do, why pick on Israel?" But the problem with this is that it deflects from the real issue - the fact that other people do bad things is no excuse.
The problem is that the holocaust was a particularly horrible event and thus it's worse to be called an anti-semite than most other things. But this has been taken advantage of by some people who use the stigma of anti-semitism as a means of stifling criticism.
What's bizarrely funny is that, of all minorities, Jewish people probably have it the best. They are certainly much better off than Hispanics or Afro-Americans. Anti-semitism exists, but it has been notoriously unsuccessful at immiserating the Jewish community who seem to be doing quite well in Canada and the US.
I mean, imagine it, a wealthy, well educated and prosperous community with a very low rate of incarceration and victimization by the police is complaining about their lot. How ridiculous.
This doesn't excuse anti-semitism, but it makes me wonder why it should have that much of a profile seeing as how it doesn't seem to cause much evil.
|
I am not saying that we should ignore how Israelies are trying to defend themselves against terrorism and fanatical suicide bombers.
And to what extent is it fair to compare the societal experiences of one minority group to another?
I guess you can say that in many ways, homosexuals have it pretty well off because we can choose to repress ourselves at the expense of personal growth and an honest self-concept.
But this comparison gets us nowhere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:31
|
|
http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/an...l_incidents.asp
quote:
May 20, 2002 - Quebec City - During the night, a Molotov cocktail was thrown at a synagogue in Quebec City. The resulting explosion made a hole in the building's door and shattered several windows.
April 13, 2002 - Montreal - Pictures of swastikas and graffiti reading, "Six million was not enough," were found on a memorial to Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg behind a synagogue in Montreal.
April 6, 2002 - Saskatoon - An arson attack destroyed one room in the synagogue in Saskatoon, burnt numerous books, and caused significant damage to the property. |
Now, pin head, do you want to maintain that there isn't a problem?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
you seem to forget why unions insisted on seniority. In the bad old days employers regularly fired employees for mouthing off - not about antisemitism, or black quarterbacks, but about the rather more important issue of unionization. What your employer DID NOT want you to say to your fellow employees was "lets form a union" And since an employer could almost always find an excuse for firing someone, and it was impossible to prove that someone was being fired for mouthing off, they insisted that people be let go in order of seniority, and that the employer jump through hoops to fire for cause. |
I forget nothing. maybe u can remember that its coming back to bite them. that neither end of the scale is the right end. and besides I never once mentioned I support firing for opinion. infact thats what I"m defending and ppl are attacking! if ur boss fires u for wrong reason, sue him. that'll get his attention.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-10-2003 22:42
|