How so? I just gave the gist of the term Zionism, as described by Theodore Herzl, the father of the movement. The demonization of this innocent ideology is by itself a form of anti-Semitism, a modern one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Do all Jews want to live in their historic homeland?
Of course not, only those who choose to adopt this ideology, I didn't assume anything about ALL Jews. But that's not the point, my point is that those who identify as anti-Zionists either do not understand what Zionism means, or they are plain modern anti-Semites in a poor disguise.
It's universally acknowledged that men are more violent than women.
It is not universally acknowledged. Case in point, during the 2016 campaign, people asked if a woman could be trusted with the nuclear codes, but no one questioned whether a man could be trusted with them.
> people asked if a woman could be trusted with the nuclear codes
Who?
> no one questioned whether a man could be trusted with them.
You say yes, but can you explain how it is different? As far as I can tell it's the same as it was a century ago. The only change is the subject matter. Do you think you'd keep your job after saying something anti-Christian in the 1950s? Look at what happened to Sinead O'Connor in the early 90s after she spoke out against child abuse in the Catholic church. Maybe the biggest difference is that now we write when we co…
No I'm not saying the mechanism has changed, mob rule has probably been a thing since humans organised in groups larger than 5, but the scale and level of scrutiny definitely have. I'm not familiar with the case of celebrities or Sinead O'Connor specifically, but no celebrity in my lifetime before the advent of this new wave of cancel culture has been completely cancelled the way they are today (even Michael Jackson,…
"No celebrity in my lifetime before the advent of this new wave of cancel culture has been completely cancelled the way they are today"
I think people would be blacklisted in exactly the same way in the 50s; this is all fairly well documented in relevant writings from the period.
I think we're in agreement that social media and specifically giving people access to publishing has changed the duration and discoverability of the speech.
Here is a classic case of someone conflating the state of Israel and Jewish people and lumping it all together. Plenty of Jewish people that live both inside and outside of Israel are critical of the state. People can be critical of the state of Israel, but they should not be antisemitic. His comments are offensive for this reason.
Being Jewish is also multi-tiered because it's associated with both a religion and an ethnicity. I'd love to popularize being thought of Ashkenazi and not Jewish. I don't have a familial bond with Israel for probably 17 centuries and I don't really care if I ever did. My culture is more strongly associated with Eastern Europe and we were run out of town on a rail 100 years ago.
>I'd love to popularize being thought of Ashkenazi and not Jewish.
If you were your ancestors who were "run out of town on a rail" you would care very, very deeply about your familial bond to Israel. Like yours, my family was run out of town. Unlike yours, many in my family did not run fast enough. If only there was a place they could run to either as first resort or when quota had been reached in other places. If only there was a place that could make running a specific people out…
That's the argument certain Native Americans use to say that they are the only ones whose home is America. Do you see how this argument makes you look?
>That's the argument certain Native Americans use to say that they are the only ones whose home is America.
I was quite under the impression that the canonical stance of progressive politics was that they're right about that!
> colonial A colony of what empire exactly? Jews were a group of massacred refugees. > massive support from the United States There is no massive support from the United States actually, at least not monetary. There is military help that is needed because Israel's enemies want to destroy it, still to this day. And it's not that big compared to Israel's gdp (4 billion to 400 gdp = 1%) and is completely meaningless to…
Land in the US is slowly being returned to native American groups.
Yes, which is precisely the rationale for the State of Israel.
How so? The norm in human society is to accept that people can grow and learn with time. The fact someone can be fired or shifted because of something like this said 14 years ago speaks volumes of the power of cancel culture and says nothing about antisemitism.
The fact that he felt qualified to lead a diversity team (whatever that might mean), with the knowledge that he authored such an article speaks volumes about his moral compass and lack of conscience.
It is incomprehensible to me how anyone could judge someone on something they said 14 years ago when it would likely instantly be explained today that that wasn't what he meant and isn't his opinion today anyways. This is a perfect example of people wanting to ruin other people's lives without so much as listening for one minute to what the victim have to say - because yes, this is making him a victim, persecuted for something that might very well be a misunderstanding.
It's one thing the we see persecution by anti-Semitic people against jews -we are used to that sadly- but that it equally often happens the other way around from people who surely knows better is mind-blowing.
Just to remind you that your binary, i.e. inhumane, way of thinking is permanently documented here as well. I hope you regret this comment one day when the same binary approach is applied to you as well. People are expected to change today - and that's why people go in and out of jail. But in the liberal world view, everybody (except the oppressed) is evil! Even when the oppressed is a cold blooded killer, it's an ex…
> Just to remind you that your binary, i.e. inhumane, way of thinking is permanently documented here as well. I hope you regret this comment one day when the same binary approach is applied to you as well. People are expected to change today - and that's why people go in and out of jail. But in the liberal world view, everybody (except the oppressed) is evil! Even when the oppressed is a cold blooded killer, it's an…
Yes, if you sentence people as bad, because they've done something bad 15 years ago, and are binary in your judgements (people are they "good" or "bad" in certain aspects and can't transition between these two options), then, by all morals and definitions, you're inhumane not giving a chance and not willing to reassess. Everybody deserves a second chance, everybody has the right to have been wrong, and you should not judge and sentence with a bullet, but talk and see if they are the same person they presented themselves as decades ago.
> All we have is other people apologizing on their behalf with speculative redemption Yup, I'm a little disturbed that people jump to defending him to a degree that borders on reinterpreting history. Eg: > Someone who wrote a racist or anti-Semitic comment in 2007 could have evolved to deeper understanding Ok. Is there any evidence this specific person did? Did he apologize? Did his public writing change substantiall…
My friend, it is not about _this_ person specifically, but an attitude to everybody. Maybe this person did not change, maybe they did. But we need to assume good faith when we can, else we do nothing but divide people even further. Imagine yourself in a situation where you’ve probably done something stupid, realise that it is stupid and wish to be forgiven. Wouldn’t you like that someone asks you first “have you unde…
I think you are coming at this with the judgment that his statements are malicious as opposed to honest reflections of how he perceives the world. I was educated at a Hebrew Day School and I found his consideration of “self-righteous impunity” of Israel state violence to be thought provoking, given the traditions dogmatic belief in its elected grace. Yet such opinions are muffled because? Oh that’s right, the majority of people cannot handle deep thought and get scared weighing ideas which are not the consensus. This Nietzsche called the “herd morality”; to censor is practically totalitarian and inimical to the American Founding Republic which savors self-independence which breeds liberty of conscience to promote the conscience liberty in others. It’s a shame people are not educated in this country to handle ideas and therefore liberty.
>will be reassigned to a STEM research role Not fired, just reassigned. I'm ok with that as a policy. Presumably he isn't ok with those old statements and can move on. At the same time the folks who need to post some general statements about a whole group of people, religion, or whatever ... As far as I can remember I've never felt a reason to talk about a whole category of people and "insatiable appetite for war and…
Have you people ever met a Jew? They literally idolized "never again" which is what this guy's is talking about. They literally live by the principal that this guy was removed from his position over. And questioning any Jewish philosophy is labeled anti-Semitic and condemned. Write a story about being "God's chosen people" doesn't make you righteous, it just makes you last to do it.
You can't make inflammatory generalizations about ethnic groups on HN.
Also, "Have you people ever met a Jew" followed by weird grievances and generalizations is enough over the line that I'm banning this account. We don't need this here—as evidenced by the flamewar that it started.