Is the cry "Anti-semetic" overused?

[Tao_Equus]

Ok ...

Thanks for the corrction

[cyberpi]

I am verbally opposed to racism of all kinds. A word like 'antisemitic' or 'Zionist' means to either promote or to oppose a portion of a population depending on the perspective of the person that falls on one side or the other of the discriminator. Both are similar to a concept like "White-supremacist". I am repulsed by the discriminator and anyone who has an agenda with it, whether white or non-white or to promote or to oppose. The meaning of the words include some form of discriminator or shibboleth, combined with a position promoting or opposing one side of it. I denounce the concept of both antisemitism, and Zionism, as either racism or ethnocentrism depending on how a person defines the discriminator or shibboleth within those words.

One way to verbally oppose racism of all kinds is to use a discriminator closer to the root of the problem... like, "discrimination", and yet that is more generic or encompassing to defy the man made discriminators or walls that would otherwise be chosen. In the case of "antisemitism" there is obvious racism, ethnocentrism, and religious intollerance that has built up real walls in the Middle East, which has existed in Europe. I oppose those walls. I think a majority of the people on both sides of that wall are equally opposed to each other, but each side says the following: 1. "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for our children." 2. "They hate us, but we do not hate them." Both statements reveal discrimination. I have heard both mantras sung in many places, especially by governments including the present US administration. So, I will consciously oppose those walls and defy the people who impose them by recognizing a more generic or encompassing definition of the word, and consciously using it.

That is precisely why I favor the more generic, logical, and actually historical use of the word 'anti-semite'. Would the other, 'pro-aryan' be any better? I can see how any definition of "anti-semite" could be a problem in Europe, so maybe it is best to just fall back on an even more generic but appropriate word like "Racist" or "Supremist" and incorporate anyone including the Jew, the Aryan, or the Arab who calls for preferential treatment with a racial or ethnocentric agenda.

And if anyone opposes that and wants to get specific, then lets get specific with the discriminator alone. Tell me what defines a 'Jew', a 'Palestinian', a 'European', or a 'Semite'. Is it: Ancestry? Government? Religion? Language? A personal choice? Lets compare the definition that people here might suggest with the one that some large groups of people in the world have been discriminating people by.

[dauer]

I am verbally opposed to racism of all kinds. A word like 'antisemitic' or 'Zionist' means to either promote or to oppose a portion of a population depending on the perspective of the person that falls on one side or the other of the discriminator. Both are similar to a concept like "White-supremacist".

Would you also suggest that affirmative action is racist, and that those groups who organize to help a specific community are racist, because they're not focusing on everyone? Is it wrong to oppose a certain perspective, for example if someone is opposed to fundamentalist christians?

btw judaism is not a race. or an ethnicity. It's a religion and a people, more akin to a civilization, nation, or tribe.

I denounce the concept of both antisemitism, and Zionism, as either racism or ethnocentrism depending on how a person defines the discriminator or shibboleth within those words.

It's important to distinguish people and causes. The issue isn't the use of terms that distinguish us, which is necessary in order to interact, but when it becomes triumphalist or us vs. them. There is healthy zionism and there is unhealthy zionism. As part of the organismic whole of the jewish people, or of the people of the world, when it becomes cancerous it's a problem. When it is not cancerous it is healthy.

One way to verbally oppose racism of all kinds is to use a discriminator closer to the root of the problem... like, "discrimination", and yet that is more generic or encompassing to defy the man made discriminators or walls that would otherwise be chosen. In the case of "antisemitism" there is obvious racism, ethnocentrism, and religious intollerance that has built up real walls in the Middle East, which has existed in Europe. I oppose those walls. I think a majority of the people on both sides of that wall are equally opposed to each other, but each side says the following: 1. "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for our children." 2. "They hate us, but we do not hate them." Both statements reveal discrimination. I have heard both mantras sung in many places, especially by governments including the present US administration. So, I will consciously oppose those walls and defy the people who impose them by recognizing a more generic or encompassing definition of the word, and consciously using it.

This is the first intelligent thing I've seen you say in this thread, and you make a very valid point. However imo while it is necessary to recognize that it is all simply discrimination and intolerance, it is also important to notice historical and contemporary trends of discrimination and intolerance.

That is precisely why I favor the more generic, logical, and actually historical use of the word 'anti-semite'. Would the other, 'pro-aryan' be any better? I can see how any definition of "anti-semite" could be a problem in Europe, so maybe it is best to just fall back on an even more generic but appropriate word like "Racist" or "Supremist" and incorporate anyone including the Jew, the Aryan, or the Arab who calls for preferential treatment with a racial or ethnocentric agenda.

Here I have to completely disagree. Falling back on the etymological roots of antisemite doesn't actually make it a universal term, only a larger one that in most contexts makes a lot less sense and confuses things. I think it makes a lot more sense when you talk about focusing on universal language than on changing specific language to mean something different than it's understood meaning.

Tell me what defines a 'Jew', a 'Palestinian', a 'European', or a 'Semite'. Is it: Ancestry? Government? Religion? Language? A personal choice? Lets compare the definition that people here might suggest with the one that some large groups of people in the world have been discriminating people by.

Different for each. I'll give dictionary definitionsm all from wikipedia:

Jew: The word Jew (Hebrew: ?????) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity and often a combination of these attributes

Palestinian: In its common usage, the term "Palestinian" refers to a person whose ancestors had lived in the territory corresponding to British Mandate Palestine for some length of time prior to 1948. This definition includes the inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (including Dom and Samaritans, but excluding Israeli settlers and most Armenians), the Israeli Arabs (including Druze and Bedouin), the Israeli Jews whose families moved there prior to The founding of the State of Israel, and the Arab refugees and emigrés from 1948 and their descendants (though not the pre-Israeli Independence (1948) non-Bedouin population of Jordan.)

European: A European is primarily a person who was born into one of the countries within the continent of Europe. Additionally, a person can also become a naturalized European by taking citizenship within a European country. A number of people, who were not born in Europe or hold citizenship there, identify themselves as European due to a strong sense of identification with their European ancestry, language and/or culture.

Semite: Semitic is an adjective referring to the peoples who have traditionally spoken Semitic languages or to things pertaining to them. Genetic analysis suggests that the Semitic peoples share a significant common ancestry, despite important differences and contributions from other groups. ...

Dauer

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by dauer

btw judaism is not a race. or an ethnicity. It's a religion and a people, more akin to a civilization, nation, or tribe.

Originally Posted by dauer

Jew: The word Jew (Hebrew: ?????) is used in a wide number of ways, but generally refers to a follower of the Jewish faith, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture or ethnicity and often a combination of these attributes

What amazes me is how the definition in the world shifts so rapidly depending on the topic. If the topic is racism as a victim, then the definition is based on ancestry. If the topic is racism as an oppressor, then the definition is based on religion instead. If the topic is belief or a relationship with God, then the definition is based on ethnicity. But if the topic is justifying Israel then the definition is again based on ancestry or ancient history instead. I deplore that shiftiness as a double standard... a triple, or a quadruple even. I consider it to be discrimination at its best. It is an ever-changing shibboleth with an interest to control, oppress, or pacify people. I consider the discrimination by the shifty discriminator to be an absence of faith, a lack of love for others, and a sheer lack of honesty or justness. I will lump the discrimination together into one and call it racism / ethnocentism / intolerance.

Lets look honestly at the discriminator that a country or two in the world are using when they accept immigrants of one type, yet reject another. Is it religion? ancestry? ethnicity? What is the discriminator when a people employ one type of person but reject another. What is the discriminator when a people socially accept people of one type but ban the other. What is the discriminator when a people fight and kill people of one type but love the other. What is the discriminator when a people oppose and bulldoze the buildings of inhabitants of one type, but oppose, herd, coral, and force march out a people of the other type. What is the discriminator when the plane lands and someone wants to immigrate... is it religion, language, ethnicity, or ancestry? When the advertisement hits the airwaves begging the world for money to pay for that immigration... is the discriminator religion, language, ethnicity, or ancestry?

Originally Posted by dauer

Would you also suggest that affirmative action is racist, and that those groups who organize to help a specific community are racist, because they're not focusing on everyone?

If there is a discriminator along the same line then yes. Racism does not remove from racism... it duplicates it or adds to it.

Originally Posted by dauer

Is it wrong to oppose a certain perspective, for example if someone is opposed to fundamentalist christians?

Wrong by who? It depends entirely on the method of opposition.

[dauer]

If the topic is racism as a victim, then the definition is based on ancestry. If the topic is racism as an oppressor, then the definition is based on religion instead. If the topic is belief or a relationship with God, then the definition is based on ethnicity. But if the topic is justifying Israel then the definition is again based on ancestry or ancient history instead.

I'm really not sure what you're talking about. I said it isn't a race and the definition from wikipedia never calls it one. I would not label antisemitism as racism. It's not accurate. I don't really understand what you mean when you say, "If the topic is belief or a relationship with God, then the definition is based on ethnicity."

At least as Judaism is concerned, ethnicity doesn't play into that at all. Jewish identity is determined, as per the Jewish religion, by either having a Jewish a mother or conversion to Judaism. As a tribal religion, matters of peoplehood and religion are extremely intertwined, as they also are among Native Americans. That's how tribal religions generally work.

But if the topic is justifying Israel then the definition is again based on ancestry or ancient history instead.

Are you going to respond to me and what I'm saying or are you going to continue to ignore my posts and act as if a much more conservative and imo backwards Jewish voice is my own?

is it religion, language, ethnicity, or ancestry? When the advertisement hits the airwaves begging the world for money to pay for that immigration... is the discriminator religion, language, ethnicity, or ancestry?

I have no idea what you're trying to get at by repeating permutations of the same phrase over and over again. Instead of asking vague questions, could you instead speak your piece?

If there is a discriminator along the same line then yes. Racism does not remove from racism... it duplicates it or adds to it.

Pointing to the creation of laws and organizations to offer benefits to needy minorities, or to focus on one of one's own communities and calling them racism does not make them racism, no matter how many times you repeat that mantra. I think you'll find that the majority of people would be a bit appalled to find the organization of aide specifically for minorities in Darfur, or to help untouchables in India, or to benefit a tribe that lives apart from the modern world whose home is being demolished called racism.

Do you feel the same way about organizations that specifically help women, or people of a certain age, from a certain locality, with a particular illness?

Dauer

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by dauer

Are you going to respond to me and what I'm saying or are you going to continue to ignore my posts and act as if a much more conservative and imo backwards Jewish voice is my own?

I think the words and the discriminations they represent are defined by every person who uses them, and that is why I first said, "... the definition in the world shifts..." I was not implying you personally.

Originally Posted by dauer

I have no idea what you're trying to get at by repeating permutations of the same phrase over and over again. Instead of asking vague questions, could you instead speak your piece?

It was a question. For example, I don't know how the Israeli gov't enforces the discriminatory immigration. Is there a special tattoo (figuratively) that the Rabbi's give and that the Israeli gov't recognizes? How does a person look at someone and decide that they are or are not Jewish?

Originally Posted by dauer

Pointing to the creation of laws and organizations to offer benefits to needy minorities, or to focus on one of one's own communities and calling them racism does not make them racism, no matter how many times you repeat that mantra.

Your question was about 'affirmative action'. Creating laws and organizations to benefit the needy is often called socialism or social welfare; I am opposed to that only because it is an excuse for gov't to control the welfare of the majority and because it supplants individual responsibility for charity. But when you add the word 'minority' as if to discriminate and not help someone who is in the majority but is still needy, then it would be wrong. I view that every individual is a minority because every single person is unique. From there it is nasty matter of what trait or race that anyone is trying to promote by distinguishing someone as a minority and someone as a majority.

I consider that the people who are needy around Israel as a direct result of the major influx of people from foreign countries are the ones who do not call themselves Jew. Are the non-Jewish Palestinians not the minority in and around Israel? How fashionable is it to be charitable to Palestinians in Israel... does the Gov't or the people truly give to the needy, or only to the Jewish?

Originally Posted by dauer

I think you'll find that the majority of people would be a bit appalled to find the organization of aide specifically for minorities in Darfur, or to help untouchables in India, or to benefit a tribe that lives apart from the modern world whose home is being demolished called racism.

The word minority is not needed to help the poor. You have twisted charity with the word minority. Is it truly the case that the majority are rich and the minority are poor? I find that the filthy rich are always a minority and that the gov't is also a minority of the people. Distinguishing who is a minority is simply not needed to help the poor.

Originally Posted by dauer

Do you feel the same way about organizations that specifically help women, or people of a certain age, from a certain locality, with a particular illness?

If they are Israelis who only help women who are Zionists, or Palestinians who only help women who are Muslim, then I am opposed to their discrimination.

[dauer]

It was a question. For example, I don't know how the Israeli gov't enforces the discriminatory immigration. Is there a special tattoo (figuratively) that the Rabbi's give and that the Israeli gov't recognizes? How does a person look at someone and decide that they are or are not Jewish?

Do you also consider Native American Reservations discriminatory?

I'm not particularly familiar with the law of return but this page seems to cover the particulars:

Law of Return - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your question was about 'affirmative action'.

No, affirmative action was an example I gave along with a more general question:

"Would you also suggest that affirmative action is racist, and that those groups who organize to help a specific community are racist, because they're not focusing on everyone?"

Creating laws and organizations to benefit the needy is often called socialism or social welfare; I am opposed to that only because it is an excuse for gov't to control the welfare of the majority and because it supplants individual responsibility for charity.

So do you think the world would be a better place if there were no social welfare programs?

But when you add the word 'minority' as if to discriminate and not help someone who is in the majority but is still needy, then it would be wrong. I view that every individual is a minority because every single person is unique. From there it is nasty matter of what trait or race that anyone is trying to promote by distinguishing someone as a minority and someone as a majority.

I think that overlooks the fact that certain minorities struggle with particular issues and extra focus. And let's not forget that not all minorities are ethnic or religious or racial. There's also those people with specific ilnesses, of a certain sex, gender orientation, or transgendered, people of a certain age, people in a specific location. They're minorities too. And while there are shared issues that all humanity deals with, each group also has certain issues that are in greater need of being addressed. The need among the Jewish people, for example, for a place of refuge from persecution has not stopped. Israel is not a place large enough to accomodate all of the people suffering persecution in the world, but certainly it has room if it focuses on a particular minority.

Likewise, if the aide meant for the people suffering in darfur was equally given out to anyone under any form of persecution (and if we really are speaking of the individual as minority this could then be extended also to refer to things like a bully in the schoolyard) then there's going to be a lot less available to help in darfur.

Are the non-Jewish Palestinians not the minority in and around Israel?

They're a minority too, and I already asked you to stop using the dialogue between us as a place for rhetoric irrelevant to addressing me. I've already expressed my concern for the Palestinians and if you have any real interest in dialogue you'll acknowledge that and build from there. When someone comes to you and says the Palestinians don't matter in this thread, address them. If you continue to answer me by repeatedly debating things I have not brought up I'm simply not going to continue. There's no point in talking to someone who's only looking for a soapbox to stand on.

does the Gov't or the people truly give to the needy, or only to the Jewish?

Firstly, the Palestinian Arabs are not Israelis. The Israeli Arabs are and get the same type of care from the gov't as everyone else. Second:

CAMERA: Aid to Palestinians Increases Since Hamas Election

That discusses aid to Palestinians. Note that Israel is cited as "the single largest trading partner and employer of Palestinians..." One would think that a country suffering terrorist attacks from another, engaged in war, would not be open to trade with that country or hire its citizens. And yet that's what Israel does for the citizens of a country that harbors active terrorist groups who plot the murder of its civilians. According to that citation it surpasses the trade and employment Palestinians receive from other mid-east countries.

The Palestinian authorities themselves have made helping the Palestinian people more difficult as this article illustrates:

CAMERA: Why Palestinians Still Live in Refugee Camps

The word minority is not needed to help the poor.

It helps in some cases, like when focusing on the relationship between income and certain minorities, and then offering additional focused on those minorities.

You have twisted charity with the word minority.

I have twisted nothing. You have throughout this thread been making linguistic gymnastics to suggest that aid targetted at individual minority communities is wrong which ignores the fact that these communities do vary in their needs and a group that targets hunger among a minority that is particularly hungry can better manage providing for them than an omni-charity that sends money wherever people need help.

. Is it truly the case that the majority are rich and the minority are poor?

I never said the majority are rich. They're a minority too. And there are also ways I would address that minority differently, such as a different tax structure of greater benefit to the minority at the other end as a means of providing social welfare. Furthermore, the poor are a minority, as we find clearly stated from wikipedia, emphasis mine:

"The definition of a minority group can vary, depending on specific context, but generally refers to either a sub-group that does not form either a majority or a plurality of the total population, or a group that, while not necessarily a numerical minority, is disadvantaged or otherwise has less power (whether political or economic) than a dominant group.

Minority group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I find that the filthy rich are always a minority and that the gov't is also a minority of the people.

Not as far as political and economic power are concerned.

Distinguishing who is a minority is simply not needed to help the poor.

The poor are a minority. And while focusing on specific minorities is not needed to help the poor, it does facilitate it by focusing on where aid is needed and the issues that arise for specific communities.

If they are Israelis who only help women who are Zionists, or Palestinians who only help women who are Muslim, then I am opposed to their discrimination.

What if it's a group that only helps women in the middle east? What if it's a group that only helps battered women? What if it's a group that helps all Israelis, including those non-Jewish arab israelis, but does not help non-citizens like the Palestinians? What if it's a group that concentrates all of its attention on the poor people in Philadelphia and doesn't help poor people outside of Philadelphia? What if it's a group that focuses on improving religious education for a particular type of religious community but not other types of religious communities? What if it's a group that only helps teens and not young children? What if it's a group that focuses on gay rights and persecution around the world and doesn't spend its time on the rights of straight of people? What if it's a group that focuses on helping people with difficulty learning and doesn't offer the same type of help for people who are very bright but suffer from dyslexia? What if it's a group that helps battered women but not battered men? What if it's a group that helps people with breast cancer but not people with lymphoma? What if it's a group that tries to work with inner city gangs but not violent biker gangs?

Dauer

[Tao_Equus]

No individual or group can be all things to all people. Targetted Aid is always the most effectively delivered. Its more than a little silly to think that a group offering aid be expected encompass the needs of every segment of the community in every case.

TE

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

No individual or group can be all things to all people. Targetted Aid is always the most effectively delivered. Its more than a little silly to think that a group offering aid be expected encompass the needs of every segment of the community in every case.

Perhaps what you say is true, nevertheless in real world situations it becomes a matter of aid to one at the expense of another.

I find it a source of amusement while simultaneously shocking, that some "targetted" groups are allowed while others are purposely dismantled (or attempted to be dimantled). A girl suing to force her way into the boy scouts, for pete's sake??? There is a restaurant chain in the states called "Hooters," and their business model requires busty women in t-shirts. Some clown sued them trying to make them hire men to wear the same outfits / uniforms. (Made for some rather humorous billboards on the side of the road for a while.) There was an all male military academy with a long and storied tradition that was forced to accept women or close.

Yet, all-women's groups are encouraged. No boys are suing to enter the girl scouts. All female health clubs proliferate. As for minorities, there are action groups and support groups out the wazoo...but see if you can find one group that supports average joe workaday guy?...and if you can, tell me if it has been under legal assault?

A fraternity here at the University of Florida associated with the business school this past spring announced a scholarship for a white male student of modest means and good grades...you should have heard the public uproar!!! The excuse was that there are plenty of scholarship opportunities for persons of color and females and other "targetted" groups, but very few such opportunities available for poor white men. That did not satiate the outcry. Now, there is something seriously wrong with this picture.

To some sense I find myself in agreement with what cyberpi is trying to convey, while at the same time I also agree with Dauer. Yes, we seem to feel a need to delineate each other between ourselves. I have no issues with groups supporting those in need. I do have issues with groups that use those divisions to divide and conquer and otherwise subjugate "select" groups. Helping is one thing, as long as that help is not at the expense of another. We run the risk of utilitarian thinking...the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Quite the contrary, the needs of the many need not be at the expense of the one, sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many. The many are composed of "one's." Wtihout ones, eventually there is no "many." Appeal to the past is no valid excuse if it validates and extends the very prejudicial practices it claims to dismantle. If we are to be equal, then let us be truly equal. What is good fro the goose, is good for the gander. If support and assistance is available to one "targetted" group, it should be available (perhaps on an adjusted basis) to all "targetted" groups. Or else, no groups should be targetted, for help or hurt. Fair is fair.

Boy, this does present a moral dilemma!

[cyberpi]

I picture someone trying to help hurricane Katrina victims:
"Sir, are you a Jew? We are targeting our help for Jews. Would you like to convert?"

A person walks into a hospital with a broken arm and gets asked, "Religion?" "Uh... what about it?"

A person walks into a bank to get a loan. "Are you Jewish?" "Why, do I get a better interest rate?" "Yes, we target our loans to help Jews."

A person applies for employment and one of the questions asked is: "Religion?" Have a look around and everyone looks eerily the same.

Any way that you slice it... it is discrimination. To be 'pro-semitic' or 'pro-Jew' requires the exact same determination that being 'anti-semitic' or 'anti-Jew' does. It is just another side of the exact same discriminatory line.

[dauer]

cyberpi,

Please stop making a straw man. It doesn't support your argument. Your caricaturic sensationalism only trivializes anything valid you have to say.

I have worked in the Jewish non-profit community, at JF&CS. They have some aid that is specifically targetted at Jews. Some of it is even only targetted at a minority of the Jewish community, like Shoah survivors, russian immigrants. But they also have other things that anyone can apply for, like a program that delivers food twice a month to families who can use the help. It caters specifically to Jewish needs in that kashrut is an issue in the foods they collect, but they don't turn away the non-Jewish poor. They even cater to other minorities by delivering only food that meets other dietary requirements like vegeterian, or food allergies at request.

If their program for new american russians, to use a different example, was not targetted at the Jewish community it would be less equipped to deal with specifically Jewish issues. There would be fewer opportunities for the case managers to network on those types of issues, and the territory wouldn't be as familiar.

You can declare that something antisemitic and that something pro-Jew are the same, but they're not, even at their root. Antisemitism by its very nature implies an unjustified bias against the Jewish people. Pro-Jew does not imply a bias against non-Jews, nor even a preference for Jews, but simply the focus of an organization on issues related to the Jewish community. If you take a deeper look at the issues, you'll probably realize that we're not a monolithic entity. We're not all triumphalists. We don't all support the Israeli gov't. Many of us have no interest in triumphalism or supporting the current gov't in Israel. This magazine/org is probably a good balance for what it sounds like you've been exposed to:

Tikkun — A Jewish Magazine, an Interfaith Movement

It's headed by R. Michael Lerner and is the origin of the network of spiritual progressives:

Network of Spiritual Progressives

You might also look at the Shalom Center, R. Arthur Waskow's project:

The Shalom Center | A prophetic voice in Jewish, multireligious, & American life

He was recognized by the UN as one of 40 wisdom keepers and helped to start Tent of Abraham (whose website unfortunately doesn't get updated very often):

Tent of Abraham - Home

There's an excellent video of Reb Art on the Shalom Center website that deals specifically with Jewish-Muslim relations, fear, and getting beyond stereotypes. The article it's contained in is about a CAIR conference he attended. A small snippet from the article that to me says a lot:

AND there was a protest band of three or four picketers, all Jewish, outside the hall, angry that Sestak was speaking. A larger number of Jews attended as supporters, including another rabbi besides me; and there was a supportive letter from one additional rabbi in the printed program, and a supportive ad from a smallish activist Jewish organization, Jewish Voice for Peace.

A couple Jewish crazies outside making a scene, large group of Jewish supporters inside including two rabbis, plus written material from another rabbi and other Jews. I suppose since I made a citation I should link to the page:

DANCING OR DENOUNCING IN THE WORLD-WIDE EARTHQUAKE: JEWS & MUSLIMS | The Shalom Center

Dauer

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by dauer

You can declare that something antisemitic and that something pro-Jew are the same, but they're not, even at their root. Antisemitism by its very nature implies an unjustified bias against the Jewish people. Pro-Jew does not imply a bias against non-Jews, nor even a preference for Jews, but simply the focus of an organization on issues related to the Jewish community.

Very well, I am pro-Gentile. Anyone being accused or judged by a Jew over antisemitism can just tell them that they are pro-Gentile and that a Gentileman does not discriminate the way they do.

[Tao_Equus]

Juantoo,

I agree that so called political correctness has been taken to the n'th degree and that there are a lot of scrupeless career lawyers out there ready to abuse rationality. But they dont make the descisons, the judges do, and they are often too willing to make a 'controversial' descision to get their mediocrity recorded in the anals. Honestly i dont know how to fix it. But feel that we must. These ridiculous rulings are often a perversion of common sense, How long till some sexual pertvert claims 'lolita' and lets 10,000 other perverts off the hook? How long till its illegal to look at a woman without invitation? extremes yes....but as you illustrate our modern society seems to be driven by extremes rather than common good.
But as far as offering aid goes, target groups are usually set up by one or two determined individuals within their target group to help sisters/brothers acheive what the founders feel their right. Though many abuses occur the vast majority of such groups are really 'self-help' groups and deserve the resources to put their motivations into actions. If we always look for the worst we will indeed find it. I cannot present statistical data for the number of bogus claims for assistance, but i still bet you my ass that it pales into significance compared to federal funding for the support of corrupt regimes. Its all balancing. You cannot penalise the just for the faults of the crooked.

Cyberpi,
I tend to agree with Dauer that you paint gross caricatures that neglect the truths I alluded to above. Semantics are irrellevant to all but scholars and nit-pickers trying to prove a nuance. Life is rarely about nuances, very often its about harsh realities and we all know the intent of our words in that reality. I did not make this post in the 'philosophy' section, and while i admire your case as a philisophical position I recognise that philosophy is often divorced from reality. While i see you post, your grievances at your ultra-sensitive notions of inter-group communication I see no practical solutions volunteered. And also i know that any you do attempt will be more suited to the philosophy section. Reality is people like to look for differences and divisions, and no matter how anti-racist you yourself are you will not stop the masses. So caricatures might make a pretty smart argument but they make little difference on the ground.

Dauer,

Your posts are always an education to me.....and for that i offer my thanks. I am not the smartest cookie in this cookie jar but I recognise when someone comes at something from the angle of truth.....because they see truth matters. At the outset of this thread i failed to even spell anti-semitic correctly, but there in I got sent to places where i would learn the extent of my ignorance. Is there a greater thing a man can learn?
I hate the wide indescriminate brush of the racist as much as Cyberpi, and i know you do too.. I see a clash of 2 intellects here. But I see a picking over of details and nuance really, not fundamentals. You realise that Cyberpi means well and i know you do. Maybe you can both try discussing this: What are the solutions to anti-semitism? How are some Jews going to be perseuaded that a criticism or a genral remark tending toward a negative does not infer that person is a Nazi?
I realise for Jews this sense of persecution goes back far beyond the hollocaust. In particular i have read about the fate of the Jews of lisbon and napoli in centuries past. Terrible bloody crimes agaist humanity. But how do we get away from them? How do we move on in this era to create a sense of mutual respect? Personaly I think its the religions themselves that prevent that passing through. Not Judaism, all of them....each promoting, however tacitly, it's supremacy. But i suppose thats another thread.

TE

Edit note: consumed a couple of bottles of........yes you guessed right....rather fine Cabarnet sauvignon tonight......so errors in spelling/grammar may be worse than usual.....but content and meaning stands

[dauer]

cyberpi,

Very well, I am pro-Gentile. Anyone being accused or judged by a Jew over antisemitism can just tell them that they are pro-Gentile and that a Gentileman does not discriminate the way they do.

Enough jibba jabba. I've explained the difference between the root idea between being anti- a minority and pro- a minority. If you call antisemitism progentilism you're just engaging in doublespeak which is exactly what I have attempted to address by correcting your misuse of the term antisemite.

Dauer

Tao,

What are the solutions to anti-semitism? How are some Jews going to be perseuaded that a criticism or a genral remark tending toward a negative does not infer that person is a Nazi... i have read about the fate of the Jews of lisbon and napoli in centuries past. Terrible bloody crimes agaist humanity. But how do we get away from them? How do we move on in this era to create a sense of mutual respect?

I would much rather be having those very real conversations than having debates about words that, as you've said, are more concerned with philosophical nuance than with reality.

Not Judaism, all of them....each promoting, however tacitly, it's supremacy. But i suppose thats another thread.

It probably is, and I understand you've been drinking a little , but I've never been one to stay on-topic anyway. I think that the real problem isn't religions. It's the more conservative manifestations of religion. Judaism certainly has movements that reject triumphalism. The Reconstructionist movement rejects any notion of chosenness altogether. And there are similiar strands in other world religions. It's not just a religious problem either. It comes up in nationalism too, really in any flag that can be waved or manipulated by the powers that be. Even atheism and secularism. Look at the stink in France about Muslim women wearing a hijab.

Dauer

[Tao_Equus]

Dauer:It's not just a religious problem either. It comes up in nationalism too, really in any flag that can be waved or manipulated by the powers that be. Even atheism and secularism. Look at the stink in France about Muslim women wearing a hijab.

That too is another thread!! Maybe "responsibility and social cohesion vs Individual expresion" !!

T *hic* E