4 ms·
Not to take any sides, but you're wrong on two counts. First, Talmud itself may well be anti-Semitic in this sense, only this is irrelevant. For example, the B
by asdflkj 16y ago
Not to take any sides, but you're wrong on two counts.
First, Talmud itself may well be anti-Semitic in this sense, only this is irrelevant. For example, the Bible says, quite clearly and redundantly, many things that Christians reject. Bible doesn't matter--Christians and their actions do. Likewise, Judaists matter and not the Talmud.
Second, Jews, in the sense of targets of most anti-Semitism beyond the troglodytic variety, are not a religious, but rather a social construct. Hitler wrote this in Mein Kampf, and this is why it's not okay to talk about anymore. The thing that makes it tricky is that while the racial aspect is relevant, it is not relevant in the way that makes criticizing Jews racist. That would have been Jew-by-culture <=> Jew-by-race. Instead, we have Jew-by-culture => Jew-by-race.
- joe_the_user 16y agoHuh? "Talmud itself may well be anti-Semitic in this sense" In what sense? In the sense of attacking speculation since it's been pre-decided that all attacks on financial speculation are anti-semitic going back to Roman times?? The possibility of the Talmud being anti-semitic was simply assumed and implicitly rejected by parent as a standard rhetorical device so I'm not sure what you're driving at here. (and while usual the homily about actions mattering more than words is appropriate in some context, here it's apropo of nothing given that the overall discussion concerns the origin and implications of various criticisms). Modern antisemitism may indeed involve the cultural racial equation you describe but this doesn't demonstrate that either modern finance theory and early Jewish scripture, the criticisms of finance mentioned by parent, have any relation to modern antisemitism.
- asdflkj 16y agoI don't understand your question. Edit: I see that you've edited your post. _delirium's post had two things in it that are incorrect. It was highly rated, so many other people are presumably wrong in the same way. I pointed out why they're wrong. On most other topics, it wouldn't occur to anyone to object to my pointing out why some things are wrong, just because it wasn't apropo [sic] the origin of the thread. This is why I don't talk about this and a few other topics publicly unless I'm anonymous, and mostly even then. People just tell me to shut up, in so many words (and that's if I'm lucky).
- joe_the_user 16y agoThe two main point's of Delirium earlier post were: * Critiques of financial speculation go back to times before modern antisemitism. * Modern quantitative critiques of speculation aren't connected modern antisemitism. When I described your points as "Apropo of nothing" I meant related neither to the thread's topic nor Delirium's post. You should be able to read above why.