Is the cry "Anti-semetic" overused?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by dauer

Enough jibba jabba. I've explained the difference between the root idea between being anti- a minority and pro- a minority.

I tried to explain that is flawed. Minority and Majority do not matter. Discrimination does. Everyone is a minority and everyone is a majority in some way. Someone had to draw a line and that is what made the minority and the majority. I consider the discrimination line flawed. If a person wants help, I will give them help whether they are Palestinian or Jew.

Originally Posted by dauer

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.

I'm not the Semite that would ever use the word, but if I see discrimination I would probably use a word that itself is non discriminatory. The words 'zionism' and 'antisemite' are words that require discrimination regardless of how that is sliced. By the word discrimination, I simply mean that someone somehow has to determine whether or not a person applies to the word, and that line will always be fuzzier than a porcupine if someone bothers with it.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

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.

Niranjan revealed how to stop the masses with a crime but I think you failed to hear it before his presence was condemned. By the way though, congrats for being the only one besides Niranjan to repent for using language that you found unacceptable in others. I forgive you even though I personally don't find any of the words unacceptable. Words reveal.

[dauer]

I tried to explain that is flawed. Minority and Majority do not matter. Discrimination does. Everyone is a minority and everyone is a majority in some way. Someone had to draw a line and that is what made the minority and the majority. I consider the discrimination line flawed. If a person wants help, I will give them help whether they are Palestinian or Jew.

That doesn't in any way address what you responded to. I was talking about the differences in mentality between saying one is anti a minority and saying one is pro a minority. You have not answered to that. Being pro- a minority doesn't automatically imply bias. It implies a focus. Some can be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian. If someone is pro-Palestine and not particularly pro-Israel, that also doesn't automatically mean they're anti-Israel. Being anti- a minority on the other hand is not implying that one is more focused on one minority than on others, but that there is something wrong with that one minority that gives reason to single it out for unjustified mistreatment.

[quote[ If a person wants help, I will give them help whether they are Palestinian or Jew.[/quote]

I agree, and that has nothing to do with the creation of groups that have a particular focus on the needs of individual communities. One could go out of their way to offer aid to the communities on both sides via groups with specific focus on the needs of each and imo that would be far more effective than giving the money instead to an omni-charity that has less focus on individual communities.

I'm not the Semite that would ever use the word, but if I see discrimination I would probably use a word that itself is non discriminatory. The words 'zionism' and 'antisemite' are words that require discrimination regardless of how that is sliced. By the word discrimination, I simply mean that someone somehow has to determine whether or not a person applies to the word, and that line will always be fuzzier than a porcupine if someone bothers with it.

The second part is legitimate, although I disagree that the line is going to be fuzzy. Taking a step back it becomes fuzzy because all words, all definitions, are created by man and human beings are diverse. However, communities tend to define themselves and the majority definition is probably the correct one for that time and place, as with the definition of antisemitism. Within individual institutions it's not so much of a problem. They generally have clear guidelines (for example the ones presented in the wikipedia entry on the law of return,) not fuzzy ones that leave the particular case manager or recipients of requests for aid guessing each time something new comes in and coming up with their own definitions on the fly.

By the definition of discrimination you've used, we shouldn't make reference to the following things including in regard to aid, support, focus and based on previous statements you've made perhaps there is the suggestion they should be removed from language entirely: special needs, physical handicaps, psychological disorder, sex, gender identity or orientation, nationality, ethnicity, location, diet, allergy, energy consumption, finances, education, title, credit record, history of abuse, alcoholism, history of felony, age, creative talent, or a number of other issues.

What's your approach to triage in the ER? How do you feel about doctors who specialize like dermatologists and podiatrists? What about merit-based scholarships that show bias to those with a genetic predilection to a higher iq? What about refugee camps setup to help particular minorites, be they determined by race, ethnicity, or locality? What about support groups that form to help particular minorities come together to talk about certain issues in their community?

We live in a world of multipllicity and it is a function of the human mind to categorize and organize, to create structure out of what might otherwise seem very chaotic. These distinctions are not in and of themselves the problem. They are the way we as humans generally relate to the world. The problem is claims to superiority, triumphalism, maintaining an "us vs them" mentality. It's like the slogan, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Destroy all the guns, all the tools, because sometimes they are used inappropriately and the people will find other tools to use.

Dauer

[Tao_Equus]

Cyberpi: Niranjan revealed how to stop the masses with a crime but I think you failed to hear it before his presence was condemned. By the way though, congrats for being the only one besides Niranjan to repent for using language that you found unacceptable in others. I forgive you even though I personally don't find any of the words unacceptable. Words reveal.

lol, thank you....i think. I do regret that I stooped to name calling in that instance but feel justified in calling him racist. I was not around when he first started posting so not suprising I missed a bit.

Words can reveal. They can also mask or cloud. And none of them need neccessarily imply intent, they can just be ill-judged......believe me...I'm an expert!! Everybody has some predjudice, even if its an intollerance of predjudice. It can be hard to define whether this predjudice is genuine or a symptom of frustration tho. We are not faced by a collective threat to humanity that is threatning enough for us to unite and put our differences aside. Even lacking the vast chasms that separate us religiously and politically mankind has a peculiar talent for creating divisions. Sectarianism in football and other sports continues to give us many ugly scenes and reveals that the need to get behind one group and hate another excersises perennial appeal. I just feel that circular arguments on the origins of a word , and the tennis rally of contextual support, becomes that which you claim to condem. Predjudice is not always wrong......or racist, sexist or any other ist. Sometimes its just about believing in what you believe in in the face of opposition. Targeted support is not devised nor designed to exclude the majority but to help a particular group and this is not wrong, far from it. And as I already stated it is usually 1 or 2 individuals from within that group that gets the ball rolling, as 'self-help'. If they do so successfully then the ideas and techniques can be shared and expanded to include a widening circle of people. Not always are....but they can be. We need not always learn from our mistakes....but from what we do right too.

TE

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by dauer

That doesn't in any way address what you responded to. I was talking about the differences in mentality between saying one is anti a minority and saying one is pro a minority. You have not answered to that. Being pro- a minority doesn't automatically imply bias. It implies a focus.

Then I am pro freedom_of_religion, and thus anti-discriminatory of myself and verbally of anyone else. So you could say I am also verbally antisemitic, anti-zionist, and thus anti-Israel due to the discrimination that I see in the Middle East... and if a Jew, Christian, or Muslim insists on discrimination then to that person I am also verbally anti-Jew, anti-Christian, and/or anti-Muslim. Yet each of them, their friends, and their religion are welcome in my house, to be my neighbor, to be my friend, whether they are minority or majority, right along with the atheist, agnostic, secular, Buddhist, Hinduist, Native American, (or other) friends.

It is one thing to choose a religion for self. It is another to choose it for others by employing discrimination. The person who returns from a place where they either enjoyed religious freedom or were repulsed by the discrimination they experienced there, would be a hypocrite upon 'return' if they support discrimination into where they immigrate to. Do you see how that works? This discriminatory LINE for the right of return or law of return can be revealed as unjust per the Golden rule. While a person who enjoys freedom of religion for themselves in the world, if they foist theirs upon others by discrimination then I see them as hypocrites.

Something as seemingly harmless as offering a special daycare for Christians is discriminating... offering daycare with a Christian focus for anyone who wishes to attend it is not. The discrimination occurs when someone has to determine what religion someone already has... as Israel in fact does.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I just feel that circular arguments on the origins of a word , and the tennis rally of contextual support, becomes that which you claim to condem.

I think I saw you had formerly applied the circular argument of, "Intollerant of intollerance". I do not condemn (ban, kill, silence) anyone to make my point with words, and neither do I have to censor my ears to harbor a different set of beliefs or religion than my neighbor. If anyone does, then I imagine the internet, freedom of speech, and the world would be considered a dangerous and distasteful place where people have to be banned to keep things per their standard.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I imagine the internet, freedom of speech, and the world would be considered a dangerous and distasteful place where people have to be banned to keep things per their standard.

And if the standard is simple civility?

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Yet each of them, their friends, and their religion are welcome in my house, to be my neighbor, to be my friend, whether they are minority or majority, right along with the atheist, agnostic, secular, Buddhist, Hinduist, Native American, (or other) friends.

Something we both agree on. So it seems the sticking point between you and I is that I insist on civility and manners.

I do find something a bit...interesting. You said earlier that you were going to work with niranjan, yet I see you ignoring a person who has legitimately been pleading for help for weeks. Would you care to lead by example, rather than pointing fingers at the people trying to do their job? Shadowman is easy enough to find on the Christian board.

[Tao_Equus]

Cyberpi,

I think I saw you had formerly applied the circular argument of, "Intollerant of intollerance".

Well you thought right in your quotation. I think I have used it twice recently. I did not however spend the next half dozen posts giving every possible defenition of tollerant or intollerant. I think folks knew what I was getting at without layer upon layer of nuance.

I do not condemn (ban, kill, silence) anyone to make my point with words,

Well if you did your audience would not hear you....so where would be the point in that?

and neither do I have to censor my ears to harbor a different set of beliefs or religion than my neighbor. If anyone does, then I imagine the internet, freedom of speech, and the world would be considered a dangerous and distasteful place where people have to be banned to keep things per their standard.

Of course you dont, and wont. This being a site with religion at its core its going to have its fair share of proseltisers. But I would imagine almost all of us here come with a pretty firm set of ideas to begin with and are beyond perseuasion to convert. This might frustrate some of the more evangelical types. There is a line to be drawn tho....and I think when someone starts preaching hate most members here dont want it. There are plenty sites out there that seem to thrive on that. Let them go to them.

I already stated quite openly that I support a period of muting for contributers that fail to temper their enthusiasim but I dont make the rules. I dont see the point in you repeatedly coming back at me with the case of Niranjan. He gets off on telling people who they are and what they should do and became abusive anytime anybody did not agree with him. I became increasingly convinced that he came from the hardline ideaology of the Tamil Tigers but i never did get to find out if I was right. I wished I had.

TE

[dauer]

Then I am pro freedom_of_religion, and thus anti-discriminatory of myself and verbally of anyone else. So you could say I am also verbally antisemitic, anti-zionist, and thus anti-Israel due to the discrimination that I see in the Middle East..

How does being pro- freedom-of-religion make one antisemitic? You may very well be anti-israel or anti-zionist but that does not by default mean you're antisemitic. Not all Jewish are zionists and not all zionists are Jews. Not all Jews are Israelis and not all Israelis are Jews. If you are antisemitic that is another matter and has nothing to do with freedom of religion.

and if a Jew, Christian, or Muslim insists on discrimination then to that person I am also verbally anti-Jew, anti-Christian, and/or anti-Muslim.

By your definition of discrimination that makes you anti- most people on the planet, and not by a close margin.

Yet each of them, their friends, and their religion are welcome in my house, to be my neighbor, to be my friend, whether they are minority or majority, right along with the atheist, agnostic, secular, Buddhist, Hinduist, Native American, (or other) friends.

That we can agree on.

It is one thing to choose a religion for self. It is another to choose it for others by employing discrimination.

Judaism does not proselytize and insists the rightous of all nations have a portion in the world-to-come.

The person who returns from a place where they either enjoyed religious freedom or were repulsed by the discrimination they experienced there, would be a hypocrite upon 'return' if they support discrimination into where they immigrate to. Do you see how that works? This discriminatory LINE for the right of return or law of return can be revealed as unjust per the Golden rule.

I've never said there shouldn't be a right of return. There should be. All I stated is that there should be a law of return. And there should be. As I said before, Israel could not possibly welcome all people as openly as it welcomes Jews. By focusing, it is able to help some people in need. Denying them is not going to benefit other people and opening the same immigration laws for everyone in the world is not feasible.

btw the Golden Rule is a wonderful concept but there are generally other matter that come into play when we get beyond direct interpersonal contact, and sometimes within that there are other matters also. If you have a good sense that the person you help is going to bite the hand that feeds them, it's best to exercise caution.

Something as seemingly harmless as offering a special daycare for Christians is discriminating... offering daycare with a Christian focus for anyone who wishes to attend it is not.

What about situations like support groups for battered women? Should they also be open to people who regularly abuse their spouse? What about classes that teach erotic dance to women in a safe and nurturing environment? Should they also be open to men? What about elementary schools? Should they also be open to adult pedophiles? What about aid for a suffering religious minority in a country? Should the same aid also be given to the persecutors of that minority?

The discrimination occurs when someone has to determine what religion someone already has... as Israel in fact does.

A question you have repeatedly dodged: do you apply the same thinking to matters of age, sex, gender identity, location, ethnicity, mental illness, mental handicap, physical handicap, nationality, wealth, education, title, IQ and criminal record?

Dauer

[enlightenment]

YouTube - Not so cool facts about Israel

[enlightenment]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="<A href="http://www.youtube.com/v/lEuwhW5t5e8"></param><param">http://www.youtube.com/v/lEuwhW5t5e8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lEuwhW5t5e8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you Enlightment, the clip does give a good fast overview of what is happening in Palestine. Whoever would have imagined we would see a fascist Jewish state so soon after the Holocaust.

TE

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Thank you Enlightment, the clip does give a good fast overview of what is happening in Palestine. Whoever would have imagined we would see a fascist Jewish state so soon after the Holocaust.

TE

Ah, well you see, there is the rub.

Watch this one, it will help you understand the whole 'holocaust' and Israel thing....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb4_NeY-8iU

[Muslimwoman]

I know it is a bit late in the discussion but I thought I would put a few statistics on the death toll for WWII.

Russia 25 million
Poland 6 million (of which 50% were Jewish also see bottom)
Germany 6 million
Yugoslavia 1.7 million
Greece 0.5 million
France 0.6 million
Great Britain 0.3 million
Italy 0.3 million
USA 0.3 million
Hungary 0.15 million
Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, India, Holland, New Zealand, Romania, South Africa all lost thousands.

Add to this the 6 million Jews that died as a result of the final solution (ie the concentration camps) - sorry I don't know if this 6 million includes the Polish Jews. Also I can't find figures for China and Japan but I do know 17 million died after WWII in Japan, as a result of the post war policies.

I think sometimes we forget the enormity and forgetting may lead humanity to commit the same attrocities again in the future.

I also get upset when I hear the Brits and Yanks arguing about which of us won the war (and many of my family died fighting this war). Look at the numbers dead for Russia, had Russia not held Stalingrad virtually nothing would have stopped Nazi Germany, the sheer number of Russians that would have been forced to fight for the Nazi's would have demolished the Allied forces. I think Russia's contribution is more often than not forgotten.

Salaam

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I know it is a bit late in the discussion but I thought I would put a few statistics on the death toll for WWII.

Russia 25 million
Poland 6 million (of which 50% were Jewish also see bottom)
Germany 6 million
Yugoslavia 1.7 million
Greece 0.5 million
France 0.6 million
Great Britain 0.3 million
Italy 0.3 million
USA 0.3 million
Hungary 0.15 million
Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, India, Holland, New Zealand, Romania, South Africa all lost thousands.

Add to this the 6 million Jews that died as a result of the final solution (ie the concentration camps) - sorry I don't know if this 6 million includes the Polish Jews. Also I can't find figures for China and Japan but I do know 17 million died after WWII in Japan, as a result of the post war policies.

I think sometimes we forget the enormity and forgetting may lead humanity to commit the same attrocities again in the future.

I also get upset when I hear the Brits and Yanks arguing about which of us won the war (and many of my family died fighting this war). Look at the numbers dead for Russia, had Russia not held Stalingrad virtually nothing would have stopped Nazi Germany, the sheer number of Russians that would have been forced to fight for the Nazi's would have demolished the Allied forces. I think Russia's contribution is more often than not forgotten.

Salaam

Some interesting points

The so called Final Solution was not about killing 6 million Jews, that is a common mistake.

The figure of 6 million cannot be verified.

And even if it could, who bothers to remember those others that died, the Russians, and the Germans, or is it a case that everything that happens to Jews and Zionists is somehow 'special'..?

Just asking.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by enlightenment

Some interesting points

The so called Final Solution was not about killing 6 million Jews, that is a common mistake.

The figure of 6 million cannot be verified.

And even if it could, who bothers to remember those others that died, the Russians, and the Germans, or is it a case that everything that happens to Jews and Zionists is somehow 'special'..?

Just asking.

As I said the final solution was the concentration camps, the plan was to ship all 'undesirables' to death camps rather than segregate them from soiety and then remove them to other countries, which had been the plan until that point. The people that died in the camps included Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. The final solution was designed to eliminate any groups in society deemed to be 'detrimental'.

I think you will find that I just did remember them, including the germans. Perhaps the Jews are remembered in particular because they were persecuted for no other reason than religious belief?

[enlightenment]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

As I said the final solution was the concentration camps, the plan was to ship all 'undesirables' to death camps rather than segregate them from soiety and then remove them to other countries, which had been the plan until that point. The people that died in the camps included Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. The final solution was designed to eliminate any groups in society deemed to be 'detrimental'.

I think you will find that I just did remember them, including the germans. Perhaps the Jews are remembered in particular because they were persecuted for no other reason than religious belief?

The Jewish Question.



The Jewish question was 'What was to be done with an ethnic minority with no homeland of its own which refuses to assimilate into the dominant German culture?'.

What was 'the final solution to the Jewish question' if it was not extermination?
A) The Wannsee Protocol states the following: The primary responsibility for the administrative handling of the Final Solution of the Jewish Problem will rest with the Reich Leader SS and the Chief of the German Police-regardless of geographic boundaries.[...] The most important aspects are-
a. Forcing the Jews out of the various fields of the community life of the German people.
b. Forcing the Jews out of the living space of the German people. In execution of these efforts there was undertaken - as the only possible provisional solution - the acceleration of the emigration of the Jews from Reich territory on an intensified and methodical scale.
The emigration program has now been replaced by the evacuation of the Jews to the East as a further solution possibility, in accordance with previous authorization by the Fuehrer.
Because the retreating Soviets had depopulated areas later captured by the advancing Nazis in 1941 by as much as a third, or twenty-two million people, the Nazis leadership decided to expel the Jews under their control to ghettos and labor camps in the east as a step toward a final expulsion to a Jewish homeland/reservation/ghetto-nation which was to be set up outside Europe after the war. The final solution was the expulsion of all Jews from Europe, not their murder. Even so, it did not matter to the Nazis if people died in the process. The Nazis believed such a move was needed because Jews were viewed as a threat to national morale and security during the war.


The Six Million Issue



What is the origin of the six million figure?




a) The six million figure is not based on any body count, records, or census. The number came into use during the war in Zionist propaganda and appears to have symbolic numerological significance. When the digits in six million are summed they add up to six. Six million is six times ten raised to the sixth power. In numerology the number six is considered 'perfect'. Six is the number of days God used to create the earth in the story of creation in the book of Genesis. It holds a special significance for the Jews who use the hexagram as their symbol. In the Holocaust itself, the six million figure was used in propaganda emanating from Zionist and Jewish organizations as early as 1941. Before the Russian Bolshevic revolution, anti-Czarist propaganda generated by Jews used the six million figure in describing the magnitude of the plight of Russian Jews under the Czar. The chief rabbi of Britain recently called for the re-examination of the six million figure which he considered totally arbitrary in nature.


13) Where did the six million Jews go if they were not killed?
a)Since the six million number is not based on a census or survey or any other type of documentation, this question cannot be answered in an accounting 'balance sheet' type manner. However, a general explanation is possible. There are several circumstances one has to keep in mind when considering what happened to the Jews of Europe between 1939 and 1948. Before the outbreak of the war, the Jews of Europe were concentrated in the east. Poland, The Soviet Union, Hungary, and other countries that fell into the Soviet sphere of influence after the war contained the bulk of the population in question. Since the very definition of Jew changed with the governments, no accounting of how many Jews remained in these areas after the defeat of Nazi Germany is possible, but everything indicates a large Jewish population remained after the end of the war. During the war, populations in eastern Europe shifted several times. In 1939, Nazi Germany invaded Poland and occupied the western half. Stalin's U.S.S.R. occupied the eastern half. During the period that followed, many Jews shifted to the Soviet half. The Russians deported millions of people into the Russian interior ahead of the German invasion. When Nazi Germany attacked The U.S.S.R. in 1941, the German army found that the areas they were to occupied had been depopulated by the Soviets of a third of its people. The Germans estimate 22 million people were moved eastward into the Soviet interior from Poland, Ukraine, White Russia, the Baltic States and other regions the Germans were to temporarily take from the Soviets. As the Communists retreated, the Soviet secret police, known under the acronyms NKVD and OGPU, murdered thousands of political prisoners in Poland, the Baltic states, and Ukraine. In reaction to these murders the local populations killed many Jews because the Jews were viewed as collaborators in the Communist occupation and the suppression of nationalist organizations. In late 1941, the Nazis began deporting Jews from central and eastern Europe into the areas captured from the Soviets. These were generally concentrated into Ghettos and labor camps. The conditions under which these expulsions took place were far from ideal and many thousands died in the process. In addition, over one million Jews are believed to be serving in the Red Army during the time with over one hundred thousand dying while in uniform. As the Germans retreated in 1944 and 1945, millions of people from the east came with them. Some came willingly in order to avoid the Red Army. Others, mostly conscripted for labor, were forcibly evacuated. Millions of people, mostly ethnic Germans, died during this collapse of Nazi Germany through expulsions that came during and after the defeat as part of the brutal occupation of the Allies. Germany lost a fourth of its territory. Poland was shifted westward. The Baltic countries would not regain their independence for decades. After Germany's surrender, Europe was a chaotic mess with millions of refugees from scattered communities wandering in all directions. There was no way to determine how many Jews had died at that point despite the fact that the six million figure had been part of the anti-German propaganda long before the war was over. During the war years and the first years after the war, millions of people--Jews included--left Europe for other parts of the world including the U.S., the Middle East, Australia, Canada, South America, and South Africa. In the case of the Jews, there were organizations assisting their relocation, particularly to British- controlled Palestine. It is very easy to claim a European Jewish population on eleven million in 1939 and a Jewish population of five million in 1945, but there is no way to verify either number. Nevertheless, simply due the fact that there were massive shifts in population in the areas where Jews were most concentrated and much of the most ruthless and destructive warfare was practiced in eastern Europe, it is very likely Jewish casualties were heavy and may have exceeded one million dead. The remainder of the 'missing' were absorbed into the U.S.S.R. or moved to The U.S., Palestine/Israel, Argentina, South Africa and other countries.


*Personally, even though I do not allign myself to anyone, I am pretty annoyed that here in the West, the media portray the Muslims as some sort of threat, when in fact the biggest threat of all comes from the so called country of Israel*