4 ms·

1) This article has very little to do with anti-Semitism, other than arguably pointing out that a subset of trolls are also anti-Semites. That doesn't distingui

1) This article has very little to do with anti-Semitism, other than arguably pointing out that a subset of trolls are also anti-Semites. That doesn't distinguish trolls from any other population group however. Additionally, posting a random quote with no context or argument doesn't really bring much of anything to a discussion. 2) Are Semites above criticism? Quotes like this seem to shut down even the possibility of criticism of a large collection of valid commentary.

pjc50 4y ago
re: 2, criticism based purely on ethnicity is off limits. You have to stick to either individual malfeasance with evidence, or specific criticism of actions of the government of Israel. This is important to get right if you have valid criticisms of Zionism that you don't want to have dismissed as mere racism.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  Your short post brings up a lot of potential questions, but I'll just throw 2 of them out there to the void. 1) Why is criticism based on ethnicity off limits? If I expressed that say Scandinavians were repugnant for generally not wanting to feed their house guests, would this be an unconscionable sin? Why should criticizing some group, while still recognizing that its members are individuals and may have their own differing views on feeding guests, be forbidden? 2) Is it possible for bad intentioned people to falsely conflate criticism of some group or even country's politics with racism? In American politics for instance, we all know what sort of name-calling happens to politicians that express a little too harsh opinions on a certain country, right?
jfengel 4y ago
That quote happened to be written in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, and so it focused on anti-semitism. But it's really about the behavior in general, which today we call "trolling". Obviously Jews aren't above criticism. But there's a kind of insincere criticism that can't be answered because that's not it's goal. The goal is to waste time and make people angry. It's worth citing the quote because it calls out that behavior nearly 80 years ago, and it's still recognizable today. At the time the author referred to it as "bad faith", and it's just as applicable now.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > But there's a kind of insincere criticism that can't be answered because that's not it's goal. The goal is to waste time and make people angry. You might suspect that somebody does X for Y reason or is not sincere, but it should clearly be stated that mind-reading never has been and never will be a thing. Speaking of bad faith arguments, imagine trying to discuss with somebody who literally invents their opponents thoughts out of thin air and then impugns their motives based on those invented thoughts.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    You are, of course, correct. It can be difficult to tell when somebody is stupid, or an asshole, or merely pretending to be a stupid asshole. It's all the same to the person on the receiving end. It's not worth engaging with people who don't listen. Whether they are deliberately trying to aggravate, or are merely too stupid to know that their arguments are tedious.
    - logicalmonster 4y ago
      > You are, of course, correct. It can be difficult to tell when somebody is stupid, or an asshole, or merely pretending to be a stupid asshole. It could be the case that somebody is stupid or an asshole. But you've left out one of the most important possibilities: maybe the other person is dead right about something that you're dead wrong about. > It's all the same to the person on the receiving end. It's not worth engaging with people who don't listen. Whether they are deliberately trying to aggravate, or are merely too stupid to know that their arguments are tedious. Using a phrase like "people who don't listen" seems a little problematic to me. That's not the kind of phrase that somebody who is a genuine knowledge seeker who is willing to consider the full diversity of human ideas would ever consider.

pjc50 4y ago

re: 2, criticism based purely on ethnicity is off limits. You have to stick to either individual malfeasance with evidence, or specific criticism of actions of the government of Israel. This is important to get right if you have valid criticisms of Zionism that you don't want to have dismissed as mere racism.

logicalmonster 4y ago
Your short post brings up a lot of potential questions, but I'll just throw 2 of them out there to the void. 1) Why is criticism based on ethnicity off limits? If I expressed that say Scandinavians were repugnant for generally not wanting to feed their house guests, would this be an unconscionable sin? Why should criticizing some group, while still recognizing that its members are individuals and may have their own differing views on feeding guests, be forbidden? 2) Is it possible for bad intentioned people to falsely conflate criticism of some group or even country's politics with racism? In American politics for instance, we all know what sort of name-calling happens to politicians that express a little too harsh opinions on a certain country, right?

jfengel 4y ago

That quote happened to be written in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, and so it focused on anti-semitism. But it's really about the behavior in general, which today we call "trolling". Obviously Jews aren't above criticism. But there's a kind of insincere criticism that can't be answered because that's not it's goal. The goal is to waste time and make people angry. It's worth citing the quote because it calls out that behavior nearly 80 years ago, and it's still recognizable today. At the time the author referred to it as "bad faith", and it's just as applicable now.

logicalmonster 4y ago
> But there's a kind of insincere criticism that can't be answered because that's not it's goal. The goal is to waste time and make people angry. You might suspect that somebody does X for Y reason or is not sincere, but it should clearly be stated that mind-reading never has been and never will be a thing. Speaking of bad faith arguments, imagine trying to discuss with somebody who literally invents their opponents thoughts out of thin air and then impugns their motives based on those invented thoughts.
- jfengel 4y ago
  You are, of course, correct. It can be difficult to tell when somebody is stupid, or an asshole, or merely pretending to be a stupid asshole. It's all the same to the person on the receiving end. It's not worth engaging with people who don't listen. Whether they are deliberately trying to aggravate, or are merely too stupid to know that their arguments are tedious.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    > You are, of course, correct. It can be difficult to tell when somebody is stupid, or an asshole, or merely pretending to be a stupid asshole. It could be the case that somebody is stupid or an asshole. But you've left out one of the most important possibilities: maybe the other person is dead right about something that you're dead wrong about. > It's all the same to the person on the receiving end. It's not worth engaging with people who don't listen. Whether they are deliberately trying to aggravate, or are merely too stupid to know that their arguments are tedious. Using a phrase like "people who don't listen" seems a little problematic to me. That's not the kind of phrase that somebody who is a genuine knowledge seeker who is willing to consider the full diversity of human ideas would ever consider.