Pittsburgh for the rest of us

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

@McGentrix,
Yes, these people need to denounce and distance themselves from Farrakhan because he's an anti-Semite.

"Denouncing" and "distancing" are terms that sow seeds of hate and control that spawn violence. Maybe if you would say something like,"people should engage Farrakhan in a dialogue about anti-Semitism," that would encourage more democratic/dialogical approaches to addressing things like anti-Semitism. You might find out that Farrakhan doesn't really mean to be anti-Semitic, but that he just associates some problems with activities that happen to involve Jewish people.

I came across an article about how former presidents addressed anti-Semitism, and I found this quote from Lincoln particularly good:

Quote:

Most notably, Lincoln condemned anti-Semitism within his own army during the Civil War. In 1862, Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant ordered the expulsion of all Jews from parts of Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi regarding his generalized suspicions that they were responsible for the black market cotton trade. Lincoln, upon word from outraged Jews, immediately revoked the order. “I do not like to hear a class or nationality condemned on account of a few sinners,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/29/washington-nixon-how-some-presidents-have-dealt-with-anti-semitism/?utm_term=.d8f30a861612

In this way, Lincoln was able to address Grant's issue with the black market cotton trade without validating his extension of the blame to all Jews. It has to be possible to address individual and even sub-cultural problems while avoiding racist/collectivist thinking more generally. Doing that, however, means that people shouldn't complain that it's racist to police crime in ethnic neighborhoods, for example.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Oh, Farrakhan is an inveterate anti-Semite. It would be like engaging in a dialogue with David Duke, a futile endeavor.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Oh, Farrakhan is an inveterate anti-Semite. It would be like engaging in a dialogue with David Duke, a futile endeavor.

Maybe, but isn't speaking truth to power ultimately the correct approach?

Whenever you give up on someone as being unsalvageable, you legitimate their absolute oppression. After all, how can you tolerate a perpetrator who is never going to reach a legitimate stance?

We have to assume that people can and should ultimately be reasonable. In practice, they may continue to resist indefinitely, but if we give up on them, and condemn them, then we become as bad as anti-Semites who decided that Jews were unsalvageable by virtue of their race and decided they just needed to be eliminated from the human species.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

One thing is presenting arguments that counter anti-Semitism. Another thing is tolerating anti-Semites who refuse to recognize the arguments and the erroneousness of their assumptions.

How can we tolerate a perpetrator who is never going to reach a legitimate stance? We don't tolerate these perpetrators. Why should we?

The views and actions therefrom of anti-Semites should not be tolerated. This intolerance towards anti-Semites is not equatable to the elimination of Jews. Anti-Semites should not be eliminated.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

One thing is presenting arguments that counter anti-Semitism. Another thing is tolerating anti-Semites who refuse to recognize the arguments and the erroneousness of their assumptions.

How can we tolerate a perpetrator who is never going to reach a legitimate stance? We don't tolerate these perpetrators. Why should we?

The views and actions therefrom of anti-Semites should not be tolerated. This intolerance towards anti-Semites is not equatable to the elimination of Jews. Anti-Semites should not be eliminated.

If not elimination, what are you suggesting when you say they shouldn't be tolerated? If you give up hope that they can reach a stance that is tolerable, how do you propose dealing with them?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

One thing is presenting arguments that counter anti-Semitism. Another thing is tolerating anti-Semites who refuse to recognize the arguments and the erroneousness of their assumptions.

How can we tolerate a perpetrator who is never going to reach a legitimate stance? We don't tolerate these perpetrators. Why should we?

The views and actions therefrom of anti-Semites should not be tolerated. This intolerance towards anti-Semites is not equatable to the elimination of Jews. Anti-Semites should not be eliminated.

If not elimination, what are you suggesting when you say they shouldn't be tolerated? If you give up hope that they can reach a stance that is tolerable, how do you propose dealing with them?

Denounce them. Distance oneself from them. Do not allow them to hold positions of power over others.

3 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Good luck with that one in Trumps world.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Denounce them. Distance oneself from them. Do not allow them to hold positions of power over others.

Best response in this thread.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Denounce them. Distance oneself from them. Do not allow them to hold positions of power over others.

If shunning and oppression were that easy, there wouldn't be so many social justice warriors rising up against the establishment and otherwise performing their resistance narratives, would there be?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Do you have any examples of this?

Bernie Sanders has made horrible false accusations against Israel and called on people to harm Israel over their imaginary crimes.

http://cnn.com/2016/04/16/politics/bernie-sanders-israel-democratic-politics/index.html

1 Reply

@oralloy,

they say th first steps in convrting to fascism is "Diversion" . Seems the Plumpies have been trained well.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Opposition to neo-nazis like Sanders is hardly fascism.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Denounce them. Distance oneself from them. Do not allow them to hold positions of power over others.

If shunning and oppression were that easy, there wouldn't be so many social justice warriors rising up against the establishment and otherwise performing their resistance narratives, would there be?

This post wasn't meant to sound supportive of past shunning and oppression of present day social-justice warriors; it was meant to show that if shunning and oppression were truly effective responses to any opposition group, then there would be no left wing because they would all be shunned and oppressed out of existence.

The fact that there are social justice warriors today fighting against past oppression and shunning shows that these are bad and ineffective tactics for reforming culture. If the people fighting against oppression and shunning in the past use the same tactics against others that were used against them, they are just perpetuating a cycle that will come around and repeat itself in the future.

There can be no 'final solution' in the sense of absolute oppression and shunning (to death) of others who dissent from your views. Ultimately, you have to try to understand people whose views offend you and look for versions of their beliefs that you can deal with, so that civil discourse can move in the direction of open disagreement and reasoning instead of toward repressive violence.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Tiny aside. The term ‘social justice warrior’ is now considered a pejorative.

Thanks, nutty college kids and your safe spaces.

My students opted for ‘social justice advocate’.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=Social%2bJustice%2bWarrior&amp=true

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

Tiny aside. The term ‘social justice warrior’ is now considered a pejorative.

I never liked it because I considered it pejorative from the moment I first heard it. That said, I realized quickly that it describes the attitude of people (like myself) who have a will to fight for social justice. Maybe I am able to distance myself more from the label, though, because I see how most SJWs are just socialists who see social justice as a method for stimulating more monetary transfers to 'the oppressed.'

Anyway, my only point was that when you're talking about shunning and discriminating against people you consider oppressive, you should realize that's exactly how people viewed the oppressed when they started shunning them and discriminating against them. So if it was an effective repressive tactic, there would be no uprising against oppression.

The only way current SJWs would not be rising up and clamouring for justice is if they had been engaged in constructive dialogue from the beginning instead of oppression so that solutions to problems had been implemented and thus everyone satisfied that justice had already been achieved.

0 Replies

Pittsburgh for the rest of us

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know