Antisemitic incidents in the United States rose by about 400% in slightly over two weeks since war broke out in the Middle East after Palestinian Islamist group Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, advocacy group Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said Wednesday. Read more at straitstimes.com.
One thing I’ve learned in the last two weeks is just what a dishonest actor the ADL is. They have almost no credibility as far as I’m concerned anymore. What a disservice to Jewish people.
yeah. Used to be way less likely people would actually notice. You could sneak in a “maybe we shouldn’t be so blind to what’s going on” kind of argument edgewise. now the ADL has trolls out on social media pushing their narrative. well. maybe it’s not the ADL, per se.
Yeah I can’t even look at that word without asking myself ‘well whose definition are you using?’ It’s alreay a deflated term, too much more and it will mean about as much as the word ‘woke’ does these days.
It’s akin to US politicians passing some draconian/authoritarian law “for the children” and then accusing anyone who speaks against it as someone who hates children, is a predator, or someone who supports child trafficking. Like them uttering their magic phrase suddenly makes any opposition indefensible.
Among examples cited by ADL were alleged physical assault; violent online messages, especially on messaging platform Telegram; and rallies where "ADL found explicit or strong implicit support for Hamas and/or violence against Jews in Israel."
I guess if you're going to count every rally protesting the siege of Gaza as "implicit support for Hamas", the spike would correlate pretty closely with... you know, the siege of Gaza.
But I do not doubt that genuine attacks are also on the rise. This issue is assholes all the way down, honestly.
I'm going to be very blunt here and repeat something that was once said to me regarding the Palestinians: "They breed like animals."
As racist and dehumanizing as that is, I'm repeating it because it's an explanation for why a single state solution (absorbing the Palestinian population and granting them Israeli citizenship) is never going to be an option. If Arab citizens outnumber Jews, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state.
That means that any solution acceptable to Israel must require that the Palestinians either eke out a living on their designated reservations and shut the fuck up, or leave. A third option involving partial integration might look like apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, but that probably looks like a 'slippery slope' given how that situation in SA turned out.
As long as I'm repeating nasty things people have told me, I'll repeat something else that seems analogous to me. A coworker who was a Hungarian immigrant to North America once explained to me that in the 1930s Hungary repeatedly asked their Jewish population (nicely) to get the fuck out of their country. By her account, the Hungarians didn't care where they went. They didn't even want anything bad to happen to the Jews. They simply didn't want them there and they gave them ample opportunity to go away on their own. Again, by her account.
It was a terrible dilemma until the Germans came in and solved their problem. She said it was a great thing that the Germans did for her country.
That was the day I learned I was carpooling with a fucking Nazi. In Canada. In 2004. Those were more innocent days for me.
It’s funny you say that the palestinians breed like animals. Yet that’s the same phrase I’ve heard regarding the Jewish. “Be fruitful and multiply” is literally the first command/mitzvah of the Torah. A local Rabbi that I know has 10 children and he’s in his early 30s! To which he believes he’s faithfully upholding the commands.
I think all humans have same desire when it comes to breeding. I don’t think the core instinct that made humans over such long period of time in evolution is going to particularly differ based on last few thousand years of separation. They will make more kids when they feel that the conditions seem favorable to have more kids, combined with the social constructs in which you are surrounded by. For example, during covid, birth rates declined because people were increasingly uncertain about the future. And even within Jewish subset, we can see that orthodox Jewish have nearly double the amount of kids versus non-orthodox. Use and availability of contraception also obviously plays a huge role, and if they were not available in the west, I think the west’s population would be ever increasing as well.
Palestinians likely lack access to contraception, and therefore, will have higher rate of birth rate than Israelis who do have access to contraception.
So I do not quite agree with your original premise of why unification of the states is not a great forecast. But I still do agree that the idea of unification is pretty much screwed. There’s far too much hate and strife between them at this point. I believe every such scenarios of the past ended in one way: extreme violence. If it ever gets to the stage of ethnic cleansing, certainly Israel will win with the overwhelming superiority in military power. But we’re stuck despite that because the world is watching which prevents Israel from doing just that. We’re at a unique impasse with no solutions.
It’s possible legitimate attacks are on the rise but how is this group able to track them with such precision to know of every event occurring on a daily basis across the country/world?
oof, that is a cringeworthy “ackchually” take, bro.
While jews and arabs are both semitic, the term Anti-Semitic was specifically coined as part of anti-Jewish campaigns in Germany in an attempt to give scientific-sounding credibility to their bigotry. Nobody actually uses “anti-semitic” to mean anti-arabic. Get real.
Antisemitism is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews.
Criticism of the Israeli government is not antisemitism. The Israeli government is not a race anymore than Hamas is.
However… if you need a specific “line” because you’re an asshole, in the us, the “legal line”… is pretty easy to find. the FBI defines a hate crime as:
The UCR Program defines hate crime as a committed criminal offense which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias(es) against a:
race religion disability sexual orientation ethnicity gender gender identity
Seems pretty easy to say “don’t commit hate crimes against Jews”, right? Or, any one else for that matter.
Nazis are not a race either. They are generally the ones pushing hate crimes, though, and yes, I can have me feeling that punching a Nazis is a good thing while recognizing it’s also assault.
As for whose a Nazi… when they admit to it, or do and say things that are blatantly Nazi-things. Interesting, that Einstein and other jews called Herut (political party that came from the Irgun paramilitary group during the Palestine Mandate) a bunch of Nazis. (This is why I added the antisemitism stuff and hate crime stuff at the start.)
Punching anyone for murdering babies should just be the start of their treatment. Another reason we should literally eradicate Hamas and it’s supporters completely. Which I’m judging from your anti-baby killing stance is something you agree with.
Yes Judaism is a religion but being “Jewish” isn’t. It’s an ethno-religion. There are actually quite a few atheist Jews in the world.
Being Jewish doesn’t actually necessitate you practicing Judaism. You can actually take a DNA test and prove if you are Jewish, but no DNA test can prove if you go to Temple.
So to answer you question. Yes and no, depending on what you’re asking.
Nope. Anarchism has nothing to “dissent” to - no authority, no hierarchy, no state. Please read more before speaking on things of which you have no understanding.
Interesting. What stuff? Food, house, shiny car? Be more precise.
If food or housing - why does he not already have access to these? This is allegedly an anarchist society, which would offer these things freely to people who need them. Why has this person not been given them? Your story is inconsistent.
2.because most people don’t want to take the risk
Are you sure about that? Do you have a source proving that most people don’t want to help people because of risk, inherently, as a part of human nature itself, rather than as a result of our hyper individualist and hierarchical society that operates on zero-sum rules - helping others means you lose something of your own.
3.because it is above people fighting each other. That guy could have called his gang and impose himself over the rest
A state is not “above people fighting each other”. States are the entities which enact the most violence in this world, and have been for all of history. States rely on violence - at the local level with police, to keep citizens in line, and on the world stage using wars to get what they want.
You cannot say states are above violence with a straight face if you have any knowledge of history and society.
1.“If I make up an utopia he’d have whatever he likes”
Easy to say I “just made it up”. Try actually reading anarchist theory, please - this is directly in line with any libertarian socialist society. Now please acknowledge it instead of just saying I dreamed it after smoking pot, thanks.
Why would he be trying to steal things from me that he already has? Answer this.
2.Yes, self-preservation is the most natural instinct
“The most natural instinct” is a complete hodgepodge of words. There is nothing that is “most natural”. If we are going to appeal to human nature, though, what about empathy and co-operation? Things we see crop up time and again when people are in times of crisis, or are left to their own devices. Humans are social, and this cannot be denied. Seeing others in pain triggers our empathic response to help. Not doing so simply means there are barriers to our helping them, like the aforementioned hyperindividualism and zero-sum economics.
3.if the state (that has been chosen by voters) uses violence against you, you might be worth the effort
Now you’re showing your true authoritarian colours. You simply agree with what the people with the most guns say. At the risk of falling into Godwin’s Law, you literally would side with Nazis if you lived in Nazi Germany and they came and took your neighbour away.
Also - remember that you said the state “is above violence”? Because I do.
1.You didn’t make it up, obviously. It was 19th century idealists that did
2.Self-preservation is literally what makes the world go round. Preys run from predators out of self-preservation, survival instincts exist out of self-preservation…
3.this is just full of slandering, strawmen and accusations
Again, please do your research. These were not idealists theorising out of thin air. These ideas have been put into practice, studied and expanded upon.
But you’re still not answering the question.
Why would he be robbing you for things he already has?
I can easily pluck examples of cooperation making the world go round, and in far greater numbers than selfish self preservation. Mutual aid is a factor of evolution; survival of the fittest operates on a species level, and species that cooperate survive better than those that don’t. Darwin himself noted this in his research.
Please point out the alleged slander, instead of just claiming it with no evidence.
You are not arguing in good faith. You are providing no reasoning, just statements. Give me one good reason not to block you right now for wasting my time.
I see you’ve given up even trying to respond, so you’re resorted to vague pseudo-intellectualism devoid of any concrete substance.
What assumptions? And, indeed, what ideology? You have no idea what ideology I identify with, if any at all, and thus, you have no idea what “assumptions” I may have made, if any. I have only provided you with reasoning, and you have failed to engage with any of it. I gave you a challenge - give me absolutely any reason to take you seriously on this topic. You have failed to do so.
Let’s say I’m actually an anarchist - I’d hesitate to pin myself down so concretely, as I’m more of a socialist, but I have my problems with the notion of a state. But let’s say I am. What assumptions are questionable? You haven’t stated any, or why they are questionable.
How are we to move forward from that statement? Am I to say, “Oh, indeed, those assumptions you didn’t mention are, as you said, questionable, in quite the way you haven’t described. How fascinating.”
Absolute psuedo-intellectual trash. You have, instead of making a point, cowardly disguised your lack of one as a rebuttal of mine.
But, I’m feeling charitable. Once again:
Why would he be robbing you for things he already has?
I can easily pluck examples of cooperation making the world go round, and in far greater numbers than selfish self preservation. Mutual aid is a factor of evolution; survival of the fittest operates on a species level, and species that cooperate survive better than those that don’t. Darwin himself noted this in his research.
Please point out the alleged slander, instead of just claiming it with no evidence.
Are you fucking trolling or are you just an imbecile? “Wall of text”? It’s a few fucking paragraphs. I’m not trying to overwhelm you, and I’m sorry if I have, but yes, it does take a few sentences to make multiple points. It takes words to form arguments, and words construct sentences, and sentences lead to paragraphs. Don’t fucking try and TL;DR me and pretend it’s an argument.
Sure, more words doesn’t necessarily mean more points. But on the other hand, fewer words doesn’t necessarily guarantee a concise point; it can just as well be a pointless pithy remark such as your own. You imply I’m just waffling - where are your reasons for your claim? Prove your point, you coward. Or, let’s get back on topic.
Why do you call it “my” system? Do you think I invented it?
Also - why would he not have it? Remember, we’re talking about an anarchist society. What exactly do you think is preventing him from going to the nearest community store and getting it?
I have to ask this: what exactly do you think anarchism is?
Money would likely be abolished. He’d freely take it from a communuty store. It would have been produced by free workers working where and how they wanted for the good of society.
You’re just never gonna stop asking stupid questions are you?
Secure them from what? Theft? That’s no longer an issue, like I already said. And I’ve already stated twice how things would be distributed. You’re just not listening. You have no real objections at this point, and are just being stubborn.
SO…, back on topic.
Why is he trying to steal things he already has?
Why would nobody else help?
Why is a state needed here? Wouldn’t diffuse sanctions work?
Does saying something sarcastically count as a rebuttal? Are you completely unaware of volunteer work, FOSS, mutual aid communities, and the plethora of unpaid labour people do for family, friends and community every day?
My dude, if people couldn’t work together, explain the fact civilisation ever emerged.
The question is too dumb to deserve an answer. People will work for the same reason we have always worked, long before capitalism. Just because you’re too lazy to be motivated by anything other than money doesn’t mean everyone else is.
Necessity and incentive both exist in anarchism. The necessity for work to keep society running never goes away under any system. The incentive is either:
Boredom. When all necessities are provided, you just want something to do.
Inspiration. Again, when you’fe comfy, you’re able to think clearly and creatively, and will want to build what you’ve imagined.
Altruism. To help the community that has given you what you need.
A basic sense of duty to keep the machinery of society moving.
I’d like to hear you attemot to explain your position instead of just saying I’m wrong. I’ve been more than patient with your whining.
No, I’m not saying anarchism wouldn’t work, I’m just saying it’s impossible to keep our current technology (again, how do you fucking keep production lines?)
You also trust too much on humanity
Anarcho-primitivists are the only honest anarchists
I’m just saying it’s impossible to keep our current technology
Why?
(again, how do you fucking keep production lines?)
I’ve already answered that. Now explain why my answer is insufficient - you haven’t. All you’ve done is say I’m wrong, without telling me what the actual answer is. This tells me you don’t have an answer.
What would stop people working on the production of society?
You also trust too much on humanity
Lol, nope. I have little faith in humanity. But I’ve seen enough evidence to understand that humans placed in a society where they have to fight to survive, will only be motivated by survival.
Oh right - that’s our current society.
However, placed in an environment when their survival is already taken care of, they will instead prioritise what they actually want to do. Ever met a person who said “I wanna be a doctor”? How about “I wanna be a vet”? These desires already exist, but they are not catered to.
What speaks to me of “too much trust” is you, expecting our competitive, capitalist market economy to give people what they need, and present them with the opportunities they want. That’s fucking magical thinking.
Anarcho-primitivists are the only honest anarchists
Oh, please, Tyler Durden. Anarcho-primitivism is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The technology and infrastructure for feeding and powering the world already exists - we use it every day! The only problem is that this infrastructure is in private hands. If it were managed by the people directly, it would be far more efficient, instead of being weighed down by the bureaucracy of marketisation.
Now, please. This is your final chance to have an honest conversation with me. Actually respond to my points or I sincerely promise, I will block you. You ave, up to this point, ignored everything I’ve said to simply talk over me and say I’m wrong with no explanations, sources, or reasons why. This is not debate, this is you waiting to be called correct, or for me to give up.
SO… back on topic.
Why is he trying to steal things he already has?
Why would nobody else help?
Why is a state needed here? Wouldn’t diffuse sanctions work?
I already told you I’m not an anarchist. Try paying attention.
Also, what happened to your horseshoe theory? Remember that you said anarchists are just like Nazis? Why are you now saying it’s just a “wonderland” with nothing holding people down? Can’t you be consistent with the reason you’re against it?
The same thing happened that always happens:
A: Leftism doesn’t work! It’s too authoritarian!!
B: Actually, it requires zero authority.
A: Leftism is too soft! It has no authority! It will never work!
So - which one is it? Gangs of thugs beating people up a la Nazis, or is it too diffuse and has too little authority?
So, if it’s like religion, tell me - what are its doctrines? What are the commandments, what is the dogma?
This is getting so annoying. You make a point, I respond to it, then you ignore my response and say something irrelevant. Why should I take you seriously at all?
For fuck’s sake. Do I have to DRAG you every step of the way, here? You invoked horseshoe theory, and said anarchism and fascism both rely on “gangs of thugs” to keep people in line and quell dissent. So I can concede you didn’t use the word authoritarian, but you described it the way anyone would. You implied anarchism has to use force. What else do I need?
Which is why socialism is based on materialism, not idealism. You got dangerously close to making a point. Are you feeling okay? Still wasn’t relevant to what I said, though - how do you reconcile your view of anarchists as violent thugs, with the view of them as soft pushovers with no backbone?
Let me give you a hint - this specific contradictory view of leftists has its roots in fascist ideology:
“Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as “at the same time too strong and too weak”. On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation.”
This only tells me you haven’t bothered to read any socialist theory - even a skim of a youtube video could tell you that all socialist claims are about material reality. Material conditions are central to socialist philosophy. Have you never heard of historical materialism, or dialectical materialism?
And to suggest that it boils reality down to a battle of good and evil is… just baffling. Socialism relies on no moral claims whatsoever. Capitalism is simply irrational. Its mechanism just don’t work. Morality doesn’t even need to come up in discussion.
Yes, it’s all simplified to a battle between good workers and evil exploiters, and a messianic prophecy of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the stablishment of communism
You just flip flopping don’t you? I thought you didn’t like moralising between good and evil? The sympathy is becuse capitalists must exploit in order to make a living, and if they’re a good person, it must be a hard thing to have to do.
Yes, I get it’s a metaphor and doesn’t literally mean a song of God leading people to tge promised land. But the metaphor means a hero or liberator at the very least: an individual leading their people out of oppression into freedom. Socialists don’t think like this. It should be a democratic, popular, grssroots movement not led by any individual.
Where does it say it has to be an individual? Workers could be the messiah
Lmao no. Not how messiah narratives work lad. Messiahs are heroic individuals. Stories about groups overcoming oppression are called revolutions or rebellions. Read a fucking book, mate.
you don’t “empathise with the capitalist” don’t lie to yourselves
Yes, yes I do. Because I know if I were in that position, I’d feel pretty damn awful about it. It’s hard enough just giving orders to begin with. It’s not a position that should exist. We seem to intuitively understand this with kings, but somehow capitalists is too far for people these day.
Nope, they would be working class getting what they deserve. Also, no one overthrew capitalism is Russia. They didn’t have capitalism to begin with. Learn your history. They also never ended up with communism, if that’s what you’re gonna say. They had a state capitalism. And the veneration of individuals ia another clue we’re not dealing with a system about the people.
I just love how you keep trying to prove me wrong, but can only find examples that prove me right. It’s beautiful.
Is a fly a real kangaroo? Definitions exist for a reason. Communism is stateless - the USSR had a state. Communism is moneyless - but they still used money. Communism erases class distinctions - guess what else? The USSR had class distinctions. Sorry buddy. You can tell me you have a car, but if it only has two wheels and no motor, it’s probably just a bicycle.
Yes, because it wasn’t flying! To fly, a human needs tools, like a plane, helicopter or hang glider. Then you can achieve real flight. Just like real communism requires class consciousness and a proletariat willing to lead themselves in revolution to abolish capitalism, the state and class.
I see no possible way to interpret your statements as anything other than proving my point that things can only be achieved a certain way.
Again, I claim I will fly without a tool, I don’t, then I claim it wasn’t real flight to shift the blame away from the fact that it’s impossible for a human to fly without tools
…ok? So, you haven’t managed to prove a state is necessary to protect yourself. You haven’t even proved that “raiders” even exist outside of a Civilization game.
Do you want me to show you written accounts of prehistoric settlements? Well, worry not, that problem persisted well into the invention of writing, as there are mesopotamian accounts of either mountain or desert nomadic raiders
This coming from someone who thinks “pronoun usage is BS,” who thinks American natives are “white people cosplaying” and thinks Mexican natives don’t exist and are all of Spanish decent.
My “shit fascists say” detector is off the charts right now.
It's also counting shit like protests against Israel. The ADL is a Zionist organization through and through, so they shouldn't be considered a reliable source on this.
Add comment