Another Lib Dem anti-Semite

[littlebabyjesus]

Yet, interestingly, the obligation to condemn the Holocaust is subject to legal enforcement in some countries.

so you also think that there was an obligation on Muslims to condemn 9/11?

 

[frogwoman]

whats the finklestein book on this frog? the recent one about some american jews becoming less supportive of Israel?

I think it's called "knowing too much"

 

[littlebabyjesus]

TBH, this ground underneath you is starting to give way, Falcon. You need to rethink the way you categorise the world, I think.

 

[DotCommunist]

is it an obligation to condemn it or a legal restriction against denying it happened?

 

[frogwoman]

Yet, interestingly, the obligation to condemn the Holocaust is subject to legal enforcement in some countries. I hastily point out that I do not question condemnation of the Holocaust, merely the supposition that there is some basis for special distinction in law.

There are laws about denying the armenian genocide too in some european countries.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In Germany there's a legal restriction against denying the Holocaust. Bit different. And they have a rather specific reason to have that law.

 

[frogwoman]

We need a solution to this.

 

[butchersapron]

In Germany there's a legal restriction against denying the Holocaust. Bit different. And they have a rather specific reason to have that law.

Only in public. Often missed out.

 

[Falcon]

This is dangerous ground you're on here. You do appear to be holding people to different standards depending on nothing other than their Jewishness.

Given the special treatment afforded Jews in Law, that is an especially true statement. I'm not holding anyone to any particular standard. But I think the statement that someone has no obligation to oppose the actions of a state others associate them with, but deserves protection from that association, is problematic. It is made more problematic when that person benefits (voluntarily or not) from the actions of that state.

 

[frogwoman]

Given the special treatment afforded Jews in Law, that is an especially true statement. I'm not holding anyone to any particular standard. But I think the statement that someone has no obligation to oppose the actions others associate them with, but deserves protection from that association, is problematic. It is made more problematic when that person benefits (voluntarily or not) from actions of that state.

Presumably Armenians are also given special treatment in law as well in France and Germany at least.

There are very sound reasons why the German state decided to ban expressions of holocaust denial. I wonder why that is?

 

[J Ed]

Given the special treatment afforded Jews in Law, that is an especially true statement. I'm not holding anyone to any particular standard. But I think the statement that someone has no obligation to oppose the actions of a state others associate them with, but deserves protection from that association, is problematic. It is made more problematic when that person benefits (voluntarily or not) from the actions of that state.

Holocaust denial isn't illegal in most countries, even if your warped logic had any basis in reality it wouldn't apply to, for example, American or British Jews.

 

[frogwoman]

Given the special treatment afforded Jews in Law, that is an especially true statement. I'm not holding anyone to any particular standard. But I think the statement that someone has no obligation to oppose the actions of a state others associate them with, but deserves protection from that association, is problematic. It is made more problematic when that person benefits (voluntarily or not) from the actions of that state.

What has banning holocaust denial got to do with Israel?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Given the special treatment afforded Jews in Law, that is an especially true statement. I'm not holding anyone to any particular standard. But I think the statement that someone has no obligation to oppose the actions of a state others associate them with, but deserves protection from that association, is problematic. It is made more problematic when that person benefits (voluntarily or not) from the actions of that state.

Hang on, are you talking about Jewish courts in the UK?

You do know the history of those things, don't you? They're a hangover from the time when the mainstream courts were more explicitly Christian in character - a recognition that not all people are Christian and that in certain areas of the law, they should be allowed to have judgements made from within their own tradition. Now I favour the abolition of these courts that would be made possible by the full secularisation of the mainstream British constitution. But I can understand why they exist, and it isn't really 'special treatment'; it's an attempt at equal treatment under a set of specific - and now rather outdated - assumptions.

ETA: Oh, you didn't mean that. I've typed it out now, though, so I'll leave it.

 

[Falcon]

TBH, this ground underneath you is starting to give way, Falcon. You need to rethink the way you categorise the world, I think.

Is there simply no possibility of discussing anything around here? Must everything resolve within two paragraphs to "This is what I think and you are a twat?" Is it not possible to explore coloration, shade, ambiguity, implication, novelty and possibility, and just fucking learn something without all this tediousness?

 

[butchersapron]

Note also, all jews benefit from the actions of the state of Israel.

 

[DotCommunist]

say more stuff about the jews falcon.

 

[butchersapron]

Is there simply no possibility of discussing anything around here? Must everything resolve within two paragraphs to "This is what I think and you are a twat?" Is it not possible to explore coloration, shade, ambiguity, implication, novelty and possibility?

Or to use them to try and foreground something that would not be acceptable if stated bluntly and honestly.

 

[frogwoman]

if you start banging on about the holocaust, a group of "powerful jews" with a "jewish agenda" then ... well ... no

 

[J Ed]

Is there simply no possibility of discussing anything around here? Must everything resolve within two paragraphs to "This is what I think and you are a twat?" Is it not possible to explore coloration, shade, ambiguity, implication, novelty and possibility?

How do you think this would have been going if you'd been writing stuff like "the blacks and I" as if all black people were one monolithic homogeneous hive-mind mass?

 

[Falcon]

How do you think this would have been going if you'd been writing stuff like "the blacks and I" as if all black people were one monolithic homogeneous hive-mind mass?

How do you think this will go if I simply conclude that you are all too prickly and I might as well conclude that my assumptions are correct? Is this really your model for how anti-Semitism is to be resolved?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is there simply no possibility of discussing anything around here? Must everything resolve within two paragraphs to "This is what I think and you are a twat?" Is it not possible to explore coloration, shade, ambiguity, implication, novelty and possibility, and just fucking learn something without all this tediousness?

I said that you were on shaky ground by talking about the responsibilities of all Jews wrt Israel. You compounded that by continuing to talk in this way and even to suggest that you might also support the proposition that all Muslims should feel accountable for 9/11. That made the ground shakier.

And imo one reason your ground is so shaky is the way you categorise things. That's a blunt criticism of your position, nothing more.

Plus, you keep saying things that need explanation to give clarity to what you mean. You did it again by talking about the special treatment afforded to Jews by the law. Which law, where, and in what way?

 

[Falcon]

and even to suggest that you might also support the proposition that all Muslims should feel accountable for 9/11.

Pardon? Suggest, might, proposition, Muslims?

How about we stick to what is said, about anti-Semitism.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Pardon?

Ok, so you don't agree with that proposition? Good. Now why do you agree with a very similar proposition wrt Jews across the world and their silence over the actions of Israel?

 

[Falcon]

And imo one reason your ground is so shaky is the way you categorise things. That's a blunt criticism of your position, nothing more.

I love how your statement that I have ground is a categorisation.

I have no ground I'm defending. I certainly have ground I'm exploring which, by definition, is shaky.

 

[DotCommunist]

How do you think this will go if I simply conclude that you are all too prickly and I might as well conclude that my assumptions are correct? Is this really your model for how anti-Semitism is to be resolved?

uncomfortable truths defense

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I love how your statement that I have ground is a categorisation.

Of course it is. I'm not having a go at you for having categories. I'm having a go at you for having the wrong categories - specifically one called 'the Jews'. It's a useless category to think about this stuff with. Throw it away.

 

[frogwoman]

How do you think this will go if I simply conclude that you are all too prickly and I might as well conclude that my assumptions are correct? Is this really your model for how anti-Semitism is to be resolved?

What is your model for how it is to be resolved? We need a solution to resolve this problem once and for all.

 

[Belushi]

Jews and their prickliness

 

[frogwoman]

Jews and their prickliness

Always whining about something, when they've got all these protections under the law. Something must be done. How long must we tolerate this state of affairs?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm off to do something else. This post from page 1 says it all for me, anyway.

Blaming "the Jews" for Zionist atrocities is no different to blaming "the Muslims" for the crimes of Islamists. Apart from the fact that such remarks are offensively stereotypical and generalising, they actually play into the narrative of Zionists and Islamists because it is they who claim to speak for all Jews or all Muslims. It is they who clothe their politics in the language of religion. It is important not to play into their narrative.