Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/sam-kriss-the-right-has-an-anti-semitism-problem

Sorry it's vice news, but it's an interesting perspective.

My views on this (and this is the party I am a member of, and I am defo a Corbynite!):

1) People often share things on social media. Shah's post from four years ago was a bit silly but wasn't anti-semitic. It was anti-Israeli, which is not the same thing. Regardless, she apologised, very well I thought, and we should move on.

2) There was a very good discussion on The Today Programme about anti-semitism vs anti-Israel. The poin was made that robust, strong, highly critical commens about Israels foreign and internal policies are fine and must be defended.

3) Ken Livingstone hasn't said something stupd in too long. What an idiot. Pointless comments coming at a itme when the right wing is looking to have a go at Labour and Corbyn is like walking into a bear pit. You might be technically right, you might me technically on the moral high ground, but it's still going to snap you.

4) The reaction has been over the top but ber in mind there are elections next week. Everyone is nervous.

5) Cameron and the Tories have been running a racist party for years. They have been running a racist, Islamophobic campaign for the mayor of London. The real racism in this issue is the Israeli backed apartheid in Palestine and the anti-Muslim rhetoric in the right wing papers. But that has been lost because of Livingstone's daft comments.

Ffyllotek wrote:
The real racism in this issue is the Israeli backed apartheid in Palestine...

Is this your opinion or something you are quoting?

Mdlbuildr wrote:
In your opinion should it matter whether some one is "mildly" or "severely" anti-semitic? Does it make them less of a despicable human being if they only display mild racism as opposed to severe racism?

If there are degrees of racism, it follows that there are degrees of despicability

Amazing how hung up people are getting on an adjective.

 LordofHats wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:
In your opinion should it matter whether some one is "mildly" or "severely" anti-semitic? Does it make them less of a despicable human being if they only display mild racism as opposed to severe racism?

If there are degrees of racism, it follows that there are degrees of despicability

Amazing how hung up people are getting on an adjective.

My point is that there are no degrees. You either are or aren't. If you are an Anti-Semite, you are an Anti-Semite. Call it what it is and don't sugar coat it.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Ffyllotek wrote:
The real racism in this issue is the Israeli backed apartheid in Palestine...

Is this your opinion or something you are quoting?

I prefaced the bullet points with 'my views on this'

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/725749508051709953 Hopefully I would try to do this...

Mdlbuildr wrote:
In your opinion should it matter whether some one is "mildly" or "severely" anti-semitic? Does it make them less of a despicable human being if they only display mild racism as opposed to severe racism?

It would depend on where that anti-semitism was derived from, naturally.

You used a very specific adjective. You didn't just write anti-semitism. You wrote "mild" anti-semitism. Any particular reason for that?

Errr......because he's not goosestepping down the streets and taking crowbars to the head of anyone wearing a yarmulke? Or writing editorials about how Jews are subhuman scum, and Israel should be nuked off the face of the earth? That, (naturally) would be 'extreme' anti-semitism. In his case, his anti-semitism is more a number of racially motivated remarks over the years. Hence the word 'mild':-

mild
mʌɪld/Submit
adjective
1.
not severe, serious, or harsh.
"mild criticism"

I'm not entirely sure what you're fishing for here.

Ffyllotek wrote:

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Ffyllotek wrote:
The real racism in this issue is the Israeli backed apartheid in Palestine...

Is this your opinion or something you are quoting?

I prefaced the bullet points with 'my views on this'

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/725749508051709953 Hopefully I would try to do this...

Good god...

 Ketara wrote:

Errr......because he's not goosestepping down the streets and taking crowbars to the head of anyone wearing a yarmulke? Or writing editorials about how Jews are subhuman scum, and Israel should be nuked off the face of the earth? That, (naturally) would be 'extreme' anti-semitism. In his case, his anti-semitism is more a number of racially motivated remarks over the years. Hence the word 'mild':-

mild
mʌɪld/Submit
adjective
1.
not severe, serious, or harsh.
"mild criticism"

I'm not entirely sure what you're fishing for here.

I think he/she is suggesting that mild racism is still racism - true; and just as indefensible - true; so wondered why you said mild - suspect because there are heirarchies of bigory and racism, all bad, but some worse?

Does that mean you feel there are legitimate reasons for someone to be an anti-semite? I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


It would depend on where that anti-semitism was derived from, naturally.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

Does that mean you feel there are legitimate reasons for someone to be an anti-semite? I really have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Likewise.

You asked me whether it made somewhere more or less of a despicable person (in my eyes) if someone was mildly racist instead of severely. To which I responded that it depended upon where the racism derived (or originated from).

For example, if a Jew virulently hated Polish people because they butchered his entire family and left him in a burning building, I would regard that as unfortunate, but completely understandable. On the same side of the coin, if a 17 year old makes a comment about Jews all being greedy because he's listened to his parents espousing such things all his formative years, I would have the same reaction.

On the flip side of the coin, if you have a man who hates the Jews because the Sun told him to, I'd think he was moronic. How despicably moronic would depend upon how far he took his racism (privately held views, or attacking Jews in the street). And so on.

You're asking very vague general questions, clearly in the hope of leading this discussion somewhere. I'd appreciate it if you'd outline exactly where though.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
a mild anti-semitism

"Mild"?

Does it matter to what degree you are an anti-semite?

Yes.


I had a co-worker who just generally didn't trust anyone who wasn't like him. (white hetero). It didn't really affect the job, we ha all kinds of guys on site and he would work with any of them. he was fine to have a pint with generally.

My friend's dad had a roommate who was a full on neo-nazi. skinhead, swastika tattoos, the whole nine. he had been to jail previously for assaulting immigrants because "jerbs".

One of those guys is more dangerous and despicable than the other.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Specifically because any Jew can set foot in Israel and become a citizen, so effectively every Jew can indeed be an Israeli citizen.

Oh, they do have to prove a few things first. And they might still be discriminated against by the whiter Jews. The Ethiopian Jewish community was granted the Right of Return, but they often had to reaffirm their Jewishness by doing a religious ritual. And they're still not seen as quite "Jewish" enough although things have improved as they learned Hebrew and youngsters have served in the IDF. Something like 85% of others would still find it bad to let their daughter marry an Ethiopian, and 39% wouldn't want their son to marry one.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


My point is that there are no degrees. You either are or aren't. If you are an Anti-Semite, you are an Anti-Semite. Call it what it is and don't sugar coat it.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
My point is that there are no degrees.

And yet, we have Hitler ("kill them all"), Dietrich ("Jews suck but I don't want them dead"), Mengle ("Jews are fascinating little animals, let me experiment on them"), and Henry Ford ("I published lots of antisemitic books but that's about it"). I can go on.

Honestly I think Mengle was probably the worst, but that'll come down to whether you think it's better to be horrifically maimed but alive, or just dead. And of course in Ford's credit, he supposedly had a stroke after being shown footage of the concentration camps so maybe he got some sense knocked into him (or biology picked an awkward time to be coincidental).

Call it what it is and don't sugar coat it.

Who's sugar coating? Like everything else in human behavior, hate is a range of things. Not one thing.

 feeder wrote:



I had a co-worker who just generally didn't trust anyone who wasn't like him. (white hetero).

Not trusting someone and being outspoken about your dislike for a certain group are two entirely different things.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

My point is that there are no degrees. You either are or aren't. If you are an Anti-Semite, you are an Anti-Semite. Call it what it is and don't sugar coat it.

If you're an anti-semite, you are an anti-semite. That's inherently contained in the description 'anti-semite'. Attaching the word 'mild' or 'extreme' to the words 'anti-semite' do not devalue or alter that fact or the phrase beyond its core meaning. It's a further specification/qualification, which is not uncommon within the English language. I can say that I am 'eating', or I can say I am 'eating a lot'. Adding 'a lot' does not alter the fact I am eating (and declaring that fact), the same way attesting the strength of opinion/action of the mentioned anti-semitism does not subtract/change it from being anti-semitism.

 LordofHats wrote:


Who's sugar coating? Like everything else in human behavior, hate is a range of things. Not one thing.

"Mildly Anti-Semitic" is sugar coating. You are trying to minimize the fact that this Politician doesn't like Jews. So he's only hates Jews a little. Really?


He's Anti-Semitic. Period.

Mdlbuildr wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:


Who's sugar coating? Like everything else in human behavior, hate is a range of things. Not one thing.

"Mildly Anti-Semitic" is sugar coating. He's Anti-Semitic. Period.

It's not sugar-coating. It's adding greater detail. I can point at a doughnut, and say it is a doughnut. If I say it is a sugar-coated doughnut, I am not saying it is not a doughnut. Adding the phrase'sugar-coated' does not stop it being a doughnut, and it does not mean that I am sugar-coating the fact I am talking about a doughnut!

Mdlbuildr wrote:
"Mildly Anti-Semitic" is sugar coating.

Only if you ignore that there are degrees of hate, and that some are less extreme than others.

You are trying to minimize the fact that this Politician doesn't like Jews.

No, that's just you putting words in people's mouths while playing semantics.

 Ketara wrote:
If you're an anti-semite, you are an anti-semite. That's inherently contained in the description 'anti-semite'.

It would ofc also be fascinating to know why there is a term like anti-semite. Is it somehow a worse thing than good old-fashioned racism or hatred of a religion or people? Is it worse to hate Jews than it is to hate different-colored people, Icelanders or Christians?

Spetulhu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
If you're an anti-semite, you are an anti-semite. That's inherently contained in the description 'anti-semite'.

It would ofc also be fascinating to know why there is a term like anti-semite. Is it somehow a worse thing than good old-fashioned racism or hatred of a religion or people? Is it worse to hate Jews than it is to hate different-colored people, Icelanders or Christians?

I think it comes down to the fact that a Jew is a weird mix of a culture, a religion, a genetic type, and a nation all in one. It doesn't quite fit into any of the social constructs 'race', 'ethnicity', 'nationality', or 'religion', but rather all of them at the same time. There aren't many (or indeed, any that I can think of) other groups which manage to quite do that.

Spetulhu wrote:
It would ofc also be fascinating to know why there is a term like anti-semite. Is it somehow a worse thing than good old-fashioned racism or hatred of a religion or people? Is it worse to hate Jews than it is to hate different-colored people, Icelanders or Christians?

The term originates in the early 19th century from Moritz Steinschneider when he used the phrase to describe the prejudices of another Orientalist, Ernest Renan. As to why it continues to be used, probably because antisemitism is so distinctly identifiable among all the kinds of racism in the world (or Ethnocism? Is that even a word? w/e it is now ).

Spetulhu wrote:


It would ofc also be fascinating to know why there is a term like anti-semite. Is it somehow a worse thing than good old-fashioned racism or hatred of a religion or people? Is it worse to hate Jews than it is to hate different-colored people, Icelanders or Christians?

Anti-Semite means to hate Jews. It is a descriptor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

Racism is wrong. Towards any group. The fact that some people can't see it for what it is and condemn it as such is tragic.

 Ketara wrote:
There aren't many (or indeed, any that I can think of) other groups which manage to quite do that.

Hindus are another. You won't find very many outside of the Indian ethnic group (to the point that 'Indian' and 'Hindu' get used interchangably), for a number of reasons. Of course, far as I know there aren't any conspiracy theories that Hindus secretly control the world and all its money

 Ketara wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
If you're an anti-semite, you are an anti-semite. That's inherently contained in the description 'anti-semite'.

It would ofc also be fascinating to know why there is a term like anti-semite. Is it somehow a worse thing than good old-fashioned racism or hatred of a religion or people? Is it worse to hate Jews than it is to hate different-colored people, Icelanders or Christians?

I think it comes down to the fact that a Jew is a weird mix of a culture, a religion, a genetic type, and a nation all in one. It doesn't quite fit into any of the social constructs 'race', 'ethnicity', 'nationality', or 'religion', but rather all of them at the same time. There aren't many (or indeed, any that I can think of) other groups which manage to quite do that.

Romani, perhaps?

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
There aren't many (or indeed, any that I can think of) other groups which manage to quite do that.

Hindus are another. You won't find very many outside of the Indian ethnic group (to the point that 'Indian' and 'Hindu' get used interchangably), for a number of reasons. Of course, far as I know there aren't any conspiracy theories that Hindus secretly control the world and all its money

Do Hindus have the same genetic similarities as Jews? And is there a separate 'Hindu' culture beyond that dictated by the religion? (so separate music, eating habits, and so on from their neighbours). If so, I'd love to know!

Yes. Romani would be another good example, and one that gets discriminated against a lot.

 Ketara wrote:

I think it comes down to the fact that a Jew is a weird mix of a culture, a religion, a genetic type, and a nation all in one.

What genetic type exactly?

 feeder wrote:


Romani, perhaps?

There's no shared religious aspect to being a Roma I'm aware of.

I'd say it is tragic that people cannot fathom that there are degrees of awful behaviour and that the world is not black and white.

As a side-note, there are certainly other peoples that have historically been persecuted in similar manners. For example, prejudice against Romani is called Antiziganism.