161–170 of 370 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you believe boycotting is protected speech? Do you believe American citizens should be allowed to choose who they boycott?
I do. But I don't if it's anti-Semitic. And that's the whole question. Seems like many agree it's the latter.
And it cant be decided by the majority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do. But I don't if it's anti-Semitic. And that's the whole question. Seems like many agree it's the latter.
Who decides what is antisemitic? It seems to me that based on your logic all speech can be prevented assuming some arbiter declares it antisemitic Boycotting can hardly be considered protected speech if that's all it takes to silence it
"Boycott Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians." A perfectly acceptable political statement.
"Boycott Israel because they are a bunch of greedy Jews." An obviously anti-Semitic statement.
The problem is that people who believe the latter will often say the former. This causes opponents of the latter to doubt the authenticity of people who say the former. Some people who oppose the former might also accuse people of the latter to discredit them. It becomes can quickly become confusing, but it should be clear that a boycott can clearly have both appropriate and inappropriate motivations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Israel is the 3rd largest recipient of US foreign aid receiving 3.2 Billion in US tax dollars in 2017 with only Iraq and Afghanistan receiving more. Reducing foreign aid while America is floundering would be a small step to the road of recovery.
That $3.2 billion works out to roughly 0.01% of the federal budget. Plus much of that money just comes right back to the US economy when it is used to purchase American military equipment. Israeli aid has nothing to do with why the US is "floundering". If anything, bickering over small potatoes like our foreign military aid budget instead of focusing on larger issues like the necessity of our own military budget like…
The rhetorical tactic of citing some much larger number to justify a misuse of funds is meant to obfuscate and confuse, and it's not a good faith argument. It's like a mayor saying "yes, this program is wasteful and corrupt, but look at how big our military spending is! Why aren't you talking about that?!". Or "Yes, I may have created a made up job for my brother, but look at the trillions we spent in Afghanistan! Why aren't you talking about that?!"
We should not be falling for that type of rhetoric when calling out government waste and abuse.
There is no reason that the U.S. should be sending any aid to Israel (or, for that matter, Egypt), it's not a poor country, there are many more countries deserving of the aid, and the aid is being used to increase the militarization of a region that has already had too much military conflict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who decides what is antisemitic? It seems to me that based on your logic all speech can be prevented assuming some arbiter declares it antisemitic Boycotting can hardly be considered protected speech if that's all it takes to silence it
It depends on the motives and not the actions. "Boycott Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians." A perfectly acceptable political statement. "Boycott Israel because they are a bunch of greedy Jews." An obviously anti-Semitic statement. The problem is that people who believe the latter will often say the former. This causes opponents of the latter to doubt the authenticity of people who say the former. Some…
I don't believe fairly arbitrating expression based on beliefs is feasible, and I do believe it is actively harmful
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who decides what is antisemitic? It seems to me that based on your logic all speech can be prevented assuming some arbiter declares it antisemitic Boycotting can hardly be considered protected speech if that's all it takes to silence it
It depends on the motives and not the actions. "Boycott Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians." A perfectly acceptable political statement. "Boycott Israel because they are a bunch of greedy Jews." An obviously anti-Semitic statement. The problem is that people who believe the latter will often say the former. This causes opponents of the latter to doubt the authenticity of people who say the former. Some…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That $3.2 billion works out to roughly 0.01% of the federal budget. Plus much of that money just comes right back to the US economy when it is used to purchase American military equipment. Israeli aid has nothing to do with why the US is "floundering". If anything, bickering over small potatoes like our foreign military aid budget instead of focusing on larger issues like the necessity of our own military budget like…
That $3.2 billion would be enough to pay for 23,000 Americans' college education. Is that more valuable than giving weapons to Israel? Of course it is. Even a single college education is a better use of the money. The rhetorical tactic of citing some much larger number to justify a misuse of funds is meant to obfuscate and confuse, and it's not a good faith argument. It's like a mayor saying "yes, this program is was…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is ignoring some minor details, like that Israel had to fight some real frigging wars over its bare existence, and is still facing a regional power that calls for its extinction. Looks like Israel isn't getting too much love, at least not here at HN. I maintain that we in Israel are still a very normal, western type society, if you take all these rather extreme circumstances into consideration (and, in addition,…
Your justification is fully compatible with the observed phenomenon as described. The comment didn’t criticize Israel, although the possible criticism so obviously follows from the description that your mind added it all by itself. That, in a way, is also quite telling. I’m not sure if the definition of democracy is flexible enough to include non-democracies as long as they bring a note to class giving a good reason.…
... or because "the good ones" have a guilt conscience with regards to Israel, especially the European ones. Nothing better than shaming your victims to wash your conscience.
Israel is its own nation and it isn't America's business what it does to its own citizens. However, their tools are used on American without warrants. It would be in our interests as citizens to flag all employees of NSO as spies and try them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he is not being malinformed, what other reason does he have to spread lies about Israel?
Can residents of Gaza and the occupied West Bank vote in Israeli elections, when they are under Israeli rule? If the answer is no, then that's apartheid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on the motives and not the actions. "Boycott Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians." A perfectly acceptable political statement. "Boycott Israel because they are a bunch of greedy Jews." An obviously anti-Semitic statement. The problem is that people who believe the latter will often say the former. This causes opponents of the latter to doubt the authenticity of people who say the former. Some…
Should all opinions based on bad reasons be banned? Should people be compelled to explain their beliefs? Who decides if these opinions are good or illegal? I don't believe fairly arbitrating expression based on beliefs is feasible, and I do believe it is actively harmful