Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!


From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Talk:Anti-Semitism)
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)


Using the antisemitism article as a rather extensive anti-Israel hit-piece. Congrats, you sank to a new low.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 12:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 12:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Naah. It was inevitable since Israeli apologists sought to co-opt the idea of antisemitism and redefine it in ways that have nothing to do with Jewishness per se. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
More like recognizing the use of dog-whistles.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 18:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly SoT. Their preferred definition of "antisemtism" has been deployed by the Israel Lobby as a weapon. It's a politically driven definition that has resulted in, among other things, criminalizing BDS activism in France -- where "hate speech" is illegal. A similar push is going on in Canada.

Further, the Israel Lobby has for so long promiscuously hurled that accusation of "antisemtism" at people who criticize the policies of a country -- Israel -- and its supporters, that the term has lost a lot of power to shame or sting. Greenwald put it well:

But smearing those with policy disagreements as anti-Semites has become a leading tactic in these precincts. And the prime purveyors are those who have anointed themselves as the guardians and arbiters of the term, and have thus done more to dilute and trivialize it than any actual anti-Semites could ever dream of achieving. It’s the classic Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome: if you scream “anti-Semite” in order to prohibit perfectly valid ideas from being expressed, then nobody will listen or care when you scream it in order to highlight its genuine manifestations.

Yes, and this is dangerous. I've been accused-- yes, me! -- by actually antisemitic anti-Zionists of abusing the term when I denounce their vile statements as what they are: antisemitic. People like me retain some moral authority to make the accusation and have it hold some power. But the potency of the charge is declining from misuse and abuse by Zionists.---Mona- (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You are antisemitic, and should be called out for it.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

States and their right to exist[edit]

So... we're pretty big on enlightenment era bullshit here. I'd like to suggest that there are philosophical arguments for the right of states to exist: notably Hobbesian(for the good of the people, whatever they may think) and neo-democratic(at the will of the people), ignoring terrible ones like divine right. Simply dismissing the "right" of a state to exist outright misses the opportunity to highlight how Israel isn't necessarily earning that right. 2 cents stuff there. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Well ikanread, for one thing, rights are not "earned." Not those that are inherent in human beings. Moreover, I am not "dismissing" that states have a right to exist; I'm stating the fact that there is no such right at international law. I also linked to an excerpt from a book that examines the questions that would have to be answered to coherently maintain that it should.---Mona- (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Rights inherent in human beings? Any kinda rights are a human invention. A very good one, BTW.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 18:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I contest your assertion that rights are not earned. Certainly inviolable human rights are deserved just through sentience, but complex aggregate rights can be a systemic construction. Property rights are an obvious example, you earn your property, not gain it implicitly through life. There indeed isn't a right under international law, but there is the related concept of "sovereignty" that dictates that other governments can't (they do though) meddle in the purely internal affairs of other nations.
Gross simplification does us no favors. (e.c. yeah, rights are derived) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
ikanred, yes, "rights" have different" contexts and meanings, as you properly note. Property rights accrue, they don't inhere. But I submit -- and tho it isn't the crux of the problem -- those promoting the the 3D test mean the inherent kind of right. You say: "There indeed isn't a right [for a state to exist] under international law." And that's my point. The 3D definition includes a non-existent "right." Those arguing that it ought to have to address the incoherence such a right would entail.---Mona- (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Right, and I'd say it's a good idea to contest that in the context of people who have seriously argued for a state's right to exist, rather than through those who simply assert there is none. If I'm going to argue against a fetus' right to life(at least with precedence over the freedom of the mother), I'm going to start with the philosophical arguments that suggest that all people deserve a right to life, and how that's derived, and how, it turn, differs for a fetus. Just my two cents though. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
You keep ignoring a fact: I do not merely "assert" there exists no tight for a state to exist. There. Is. None. The burden is on those arguing that this non-existent thing exists, or that it ought to. And they must do so by answering, among other things, the problems with such an asserted right for states as detailed in the article I have repeatedly linked.---Mona- (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Does the state "United States of America" Have a right to exist? Pizzameister (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

We certainly have not proceeded as if we believe in such a thing:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.


We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved....
---Mona- (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for slapping people with a red herring, Mona.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 19:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
People may or may not have inherent rights; but the right to form a government and rule a territory seems a stretch in any case. As to whether any government is 'legitimate' or not, I'd say that's something akin to having the Mandate of Heaven. A government is legitimate if it is acceptable to, and enjoys the reasonable support of, the people it governs; which is somewhat broader than the Declaration of Independence's 'consent of the governed'. If your world accepts that a watery tart lobbing swords at people makes a ruler legitimate, consent is irrelevant. The United States government is legitimate by most measures, but its claim to the mandate of heaven may be slipping after several generations of neoliberal attacks on its institutions. It isn't a binary thing, IOW. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 19:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
SoT, that's all cogent thinking, but nevertheless, for those who do use rights talk, they should have to show where this right is codified and upheld at law. In this case, international law.---Mona- (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
So rights don't exist unless it's codified and upheld in international law? When the US rebelled (against Britain and itself) there was no right codified in international law against slavery or the right to self rule. There was no real international law either. So far the justification seems to be might makes right. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Emerald, your histroy of rights language and law is essentially true. However, in our era, the people of the world have subscribed to an evolving body of international law. Perhaps there should be a nation's "right to exist." But there is not now, and if there is to be, the burden is on those arguing for it. And they have to address some serious problems with the concept, such as those raised here. Certainly, to make a definition of antisemitism hinge on this non-existent, not defended, alleged right is a very far reach, which in itself merits a defense.---Mona- (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Do states have rights? Well, no, they are a concept...a thing. They are on the other hand ideological representations of groups of people with a mostly common purpose which self govern (in an ideal world) and can hopefully can function self sufficiently. Saying an individual person has inalienable rights but a group of people doesn't seems odd. Rights can differ, like right to life for a person is different in comparison to a right to life for a country, but rights can't be without doubt for a unit where it's certainly not for the group of those units. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
"Saying an individual person has inalienable rights but a group of people doesn't seems odd." Ah, but I did not make that claim. The UN has recognized "people's rights" such as these. And these collective rights are generally held as against nation-states. But there has been no recognized right for a "state to exist," and there are myriad problematic issues if such a "right" were to be recognized.---Mona- (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to quote SG Collins: "When we speak of rights, we're really expressing feelings about what we, and each other, "deserve". In essence we're interpreting our moralities, telling each other what we think is right. But it's wishful thinking. The observable truth is that people don't get what they deserve. They get what they get. Because we're trying to get along, and may even feel an affinity for each other, we often grant each other benefits that we may or may not have the power to ensure. As moral creatures, we may even become righteously angry over insults to the rights of people we'll never meet, in lands we'll never visit. When we give thought to the fate of others in the world, we may wish rights for our fellows that they do not in fact enjoy. We begin to conceive of human rights that transcend those of polities. We put forth ideas about what rights everyone everywhere should have. But none of these assertions has any palpable substance, beyond our agreement to observe them. I can show you a sheet of paper saying I have a right to something, and you can light a match to the paper. There is simply no such thing as a freestanding right we have, apart from our mutual will to grant it to each other. It's that intricate web of mutual will that keeps us afloat — not the paper. All we really have is each other, and the possibility of good will. Once we realize that, we can begin to act like grownups."

This is a pretty good approximation of my view on the whole subject. It's important to distinguish my personal morality from what I actually think should happen, as they're 2 different things. I can say we should all just be happy and love each other, but that's not gonna happen. Not here, and not in Israel/Palestine. Which is why my actual view on the subject must borrow the concept of national rights to bolster my argument. A nation is built by its people, united in a common cause. A common language can unify us, ethnicity might bolster us, and religion may temper us into a single mold not easily broken. This is the case with Israel, and it can be the case for Palestine. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing issue[edit]

Arisboch/Kugel just added a huge "History" section. The problem is, it is replete with fact claims that are: 1. Unsourced, or, 2. in he least few paragraphs, simply refer to the reader to "see" various WP entries. That's not really proper. Specific claims should not generally, through-out an article, simply refer to another wiki. Arisboch has always refused to "do sourcing," but if that is how he wishes to operate, then he shouldn't be drafting significant amounts of text.

Some if not most of this material is, as far as I know, accurate and relevant. I'm not arguing it's all necessarily something that needs to go. Just that it really does need sourcing, as well as proper sourcing.---Mona- (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't write resp author it, I re-inserted it after you or PB (too lazy to look at the page history) deleted it. You give me credit for things I didn't do, again (but now, strangely, for something positive instead for the deeds of some morons vandalizing the RW).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 02:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, right, a BoN edited it in, Pb3 reverted for lack of sourcing, and u reverted Pb3. Sorry for the misstatement. SoT: yeah, as I say, this all seems familiar and echoes my general understanding. It's just very poor form not to source any of it, and/or to rely so extensively on WP.---Mona- (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I never understood the prejudice against linking to Wikipedia. It's usually the easy way to provide context for subjects that will never be missional here. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 05:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Most of the section seems reasonably accurate to me and free of obvious fanaticisms. I had not heard of the blood libel existing before the Middle Ages, though. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
AFAIK the Christian blood libel has it's precursors among similar nasty shit thrown around by the Ancient Greek (Joseph wrote in Against Apion about it).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 02:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 02:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

A notice to this page's antisemitic editors[edit]

You are welcome to continue to post your appalling and racist whitewash of Muslim and Arab antisemitism. I will continue to erase it, as any decent person would do. That is all.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


Well, you could just file everything the antisemitic cheerleader mona posts under antisemitism. Like suggesting that jews were not expelled in hundreds of thousands from the Arabic countries even though compelling evidence suggests otherwise. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. CowHouse (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Jewish lobby[edit]

Under "Left wing antisemitism", there is this claim: "Talk of a "Jewish lobby" and its supposed or real influence on the governments of the West is also a frequent antisemitic trope employed by leftists." So does even the mention of such a lobby itself become antisemitic? Jewish and pro-Israel lobby groups do exist (at least in the US, but probably other Western countries too, I'm not familiar). I realize of course that this can be pushed into antisemitic territory (such as in the Zionist Occupied Government canard), but this seems like a bit of an overreach.Mcc1789 (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

If there is a lobby supporting the interests of Israel seeking economic and military aid and it seems to call attention to the interests of American Jews, and is open about its composition, then it is a Jewish lobby. Such a phrase is thus neutral. This is as neutral as calling a group such as the National Rifle Association a "gun lobby". Pbrower2a (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)