I just don't get anti-Semitism. [Archive]

UnrepentantSinner

11th October 2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
well, Maybe someone would reply if your post was a bit more understandable? I don't think I have yet been branded "Anti-Semitic" by the usual crowd of bigots that are selectively blind to Israels contribution to the continuing list of atrocities in the middle east. I don't see you as a member of the "All XXXXXXX are XXXXXXX" brigade of bigots that regularly attend the racist threads they take it in turns to start...so whats your particular point?

To my knowledge, no one has accused me of anti-Semitism. I was just cruising a board full of Jew haters and some of their comments were eerily reminiscent of some of the ones I've seen here. If anyone on this board does consider themselves anti-Semetic, I figured I could get a more rational explaination from a JREF forum member than from the other board.

I personally don't understand anti-Semitism, at least not since the advent of things like widespread literacy and cross-cultural understanding.

UnrepentantSinner

11th October 2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by Aoidoi
btw, does anyone else get kind of annoyed with the term "anti-semitism?" I mean, the Palestinians are semitic people... so at least in the middle east the term is misleading.

Me too, but it seemed like the easiest word to use. I normally use Jew Hater to differentiate then from bigots who hate both Jews and Arabs. I figured anti-Semitism would be better for the topic line than Jew Haters.

Aoidoi

11th October 2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Me too, but it seemed like the easiest word to use. I normally use Jew Hater to differentiate then from bigots who hate both Jews and Arabs. I figured anti-Semitism would be better for the topic line than Jew Haters. As in to many other things it's the worst term to use... except all the others. Just figured I'd mention it. :)

EvilYeti

11th October 2003, 10:09 PM

Probably that whole "Jews killed Jesus" thing.

Those wacky Jews, they are always up to something!

Mycroft

11th October 2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Aoidoi
As in to many other things it's the worst term to use... except all the others. Just figured I'd mention it. :)

I personally prefer the terms racist or bigot to describe these people, but anti-Semite is the more common term so I use that as well.

Oddly enough, the term was coined by a racist named Wilhelm Marr, who felt that the term sounded scientific, thus enabling him to discuss his racist views in genteel company. Very much in the same way modern anti-Semites use the term anti-Zionist.

Check out the following article:

Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904) was a German agitator and theorist, who coined the term "anti-Semitism" as a euphemism for the German Judenhass, or "Jew-hate".
Marr was an unemployed journalist, who claimed that he had lost his job due to Jewish interference. A political conservative, he was influenced by the conservative pan-German movement, as expounded by Johann Gottfried von Herder, who developed the idea of the Volk, and the Burschenschaft movement of the early nineteenth century, which developed out of frustration among German students at the failure of the Congress of Vienna to create a unified state out of all the territories inhabited by the Volk. The latter rejected the participation of Jewish and other non-German minorities as members, "unless they prove that they are anxious to develop within themselves a Christian-German spirit" (a decision of the "Burschenschaft Congress of 1818"). While they were opposed to the participation of Jews in their movement, like Heinrich von Treitschke later, they did allow for the possibility of the Jewish (and other) minorities participating in the German state if they were to abandon all signs of ethnic and religious distinctiveness and assimilate completely into German Volk.

And the complete areticle can be found here:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Marr

Cain

11th October 2003, 10:32 PM

Main Entry: Sem·ite
Pronunciation: 'se-"mIt, esp British 'sE-"mIt
Function: noun
Etymology: French sémite, from Semitic Shem, from Late Latin, from Greek SEm, from Hebrew ShEm
Date: 1848
1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples
2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language

The monopolization of the word Semite mildly bothers me. Why are there so many self-hating Arabs?

originalgagster

12th October 2003, 01:31 AM

How can anyone have trouble understanding the concept of anti-semitism?

As the right wing posters on this forum regularly make clear, an anti-semite is a person who disagress with the Israeli policy of severe repression of Arabs in the occupied territories :rolleyes:

Cleopatra

12th October 2003, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Cain

The monopolization of the word Semite mildly bothers me. Why are there so many self-hating Arabs?

We have been explained this many times. Funny that somebody who uses a photo of Chomsky as avatar doesn't know why the word antisemite doesn't concern the Arabs...

JamesM

12th October 2003, 03:24 AM

Originally posted by Cain
The monopolization of the word Semite mildly bothers me. Why are there so many self-hating Arabs?
I pointed out your error the last time you (and Mr Manifesto) made this statement. I also asked you to provide evidence that anti-semitism was a word coined to mean hatred of all 'semites' and not hatred of Jews, and then to show further that Jews had 'hijacked' its meaning for their own political ends. I am still waiting.

Why do you continue to make these insulting and false suggestions about Jews after being corrected?

a_unique_person

12th October 2003, 03:33 AM

Just because someone calls you an anti-semite doesn't necessarily make it so.

Nikk

12th October 2003, 03:57 AM

Well Christians disliked the Jews because they were different, but they disliked Muslims much more because until 1700 or so they were both different and very successful politically. Then of course the Jews were collectively responsible for the death of Jesus ( we can all see the logical problem there can't we ). Plus Jews were financiers and money lenders - they were often prohibited from holding large quantities of land so this wasn't entirely a matter of choice.

But to be fair Christians hated Christians who held a different view of Christianity even more than they hated Muslims and Jews and killed many more of them. Oh, and lets not forget the witches of course. So the hatred was pretty even handed.

In the 19th century Jews in Central and Eastern Europe fell foul of a version of Nationalism which attempted to replce the old empires and confederations with "modern" states unified on a racial/ethnic basis. As Central/Eastern Europe and the Ottoman Empire were a mosaic of cultures, "races", and religions this objective could only be achieved either by population transfer or by imposing one culture upon another. Sadly no matter which way you shook the box containing the nationalist puzzle the piece marked Jews wouldnt fit anywhere.

Zionism, at least the dominant version, was an attempt to create this type of 19th century state i.e. one dominated by a specific race/ethnic group in an alien environment - the muslim, arabic speaking Near East. Oddly enough the people living there, generally known as the Palestinians, were and continue to be quite miffed by the idea.

ed. sp.

UnrepentantSinner

12th October 2003, 07:07 AM

Nikk, great response, but stuff I'm already familiar with. My question is why anti-Semitism today? I really just don't get it beyond being a conspiracy kook who unquestioningly accepts the "international banker" b***s***.

I disagree with the policies of Isreael regarding the Palestinians, but that would never make me ascribe all of the historical conspiracies that the Jew Haters are willing to accept whole cloth and without question.

I can understand the brainwashed and superstitious Arab world believing the "Jews warned of 9/11" lie because of their irrational hatred, but I just cannot understand the persistance of irrational hatred of Jews in the West.

I ascribe to plenty of social and racial stereotypes, but they are so predicated on individuality that I might as well just laugh at my own prejudices instead of giving them the slightest iota of credence. I really cannot fathom having such an irrational hatred of such an innocuous (and actually benificial) religious minority in 2003.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

12th October 2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Aoidoi

btw, does anyone else get kind of annoyed with the term "anti-semitism?"

Yep.

And when people say I am cuturally insensitive and I don't know what its like to live as a minority in a WASP dominated world.

I'd say I am cultually ignorant. I try and consider other perspectives, and try to remember that cliche "until you walk a day in my shoes".

I try and not make broad generalisations of groups and about conflicts in parts of the world where I don't understand the complicated dynamics historically, culturally, economically, and politically. Sometimes I do not catch myself in time, and speak or interupt without first listening and considering the arguments of the other side, and that is when I get jumped on and labelled racist, anti-semetic, propagator of WASP ideals, and an a$$h0le.

The last label applies to me, so I never argue with people that label me that.

:D

Skeptic

12th October 2003, 09:08 AM

The monopolization of the word Semite mildly bothers me. Why are there so many self-hating Arabs?

Actually, the word "antisemitism" was coined by a German anti-semite at the end of the 19th century as a "Scientific" term for hating jews. He was mildly bothered by the contemporary term--jew-baiter ("judenfresser"), and wanted to replace it with an "objective" term.

No doubt, however, he was part of the evil jewish plot to "monopolize the term semite" to apply to themselves.

Anyway, "antisemitism" always meant simply "hatered of jews". It never meant "hatered of semites" (whoever the 'semites' might be). If you are "mildly bothered" by it, you can always call Arab antisemites--or antisemites in general--by the more accurate terms "jew haters", "bigots", or "jew-baiters".

AmateurScientist

12th October 2003, 09:10 AM

This is a bit of a tangent, but what the hey?

One of my favorite recent quips came from Brad Garrett, the 6' 8 1/2 " tall brother on "Everybody Loves Raymond" and a Jew himself. During his recent acceptance speech for receiving an Emmy, he said something to this effect.

"I just hope that this will break down all the past barriers and finally allow Jews to break into show business."

ROTFLMAO. He's one funny Jew. Do Jews have a special comedy gene?

:D

AS

12th October 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Can some of you explain yourselves to me?

Stanley Motss: Why the Jews?
Conrad 'Connie' Brean: Why not?
Stanley Motss: What have they done to us?
Conrad 'Connie' Brean: What have they done FOR us? What do you know about them?
Stanley Motss: Nothing.
Conrad 'Connie' Brean: See? They keep to themselves. Shifty. Untrustable.

IMDB (one edit on my part)

Cain

12th October 2003, 10:16 AM

I pointed out your error the last time you (and Mr Manifesto) made this statement. I also asked you to provide evidence that anti-semitism was a word coined to mean hatred of all 'semites' and not hatred of Jews, and then to show further that Jews had 'hijacked' its meaning for their own political ends. I am still waiting.

Why do you continue to make these insulting and false suggestions about Jews after being corrected?

If so, I never saw your post.

The term anti-Semite, as used in popular political discourse, is monopolized by apologists of Israel to slime others. Moreover, we're not beholden to the demonstrably incorrect usage of a 19th century racist.

We have been explained this many times. Funny that somebody who uses a photo of Chomsky as avatar doesn't know why the word antisemite doesn't concern the Arabs...

It's funny how most of you regularly fail to capitalize Semite. And no, I've never seen this pointed out. Of course I realize the word, as it's used now, does not concern Arabs. That's because it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities. (My avatar of Chomsky has nothing to do with nothing.)

JamesM

12th October 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Cain
If so, I never saw your post.
Fair enough.

The term anti-Semite, as used in popular political discourse, is monopolized by apologists of Israel to slime others.
If you're saying that the word anti-semite is thrown about as a smear tactic with tedious regularity as a way of squelching debate, we are in agreement. But that is irrelevant to the current discussion, let's stick to the subject, shall we? To wit: your currently unsubstantiated claim that anti-semite used to mean pan-semitic hatred, but was monopolised by Jews for their own political ends.

Moreover, we're not beholden to the demonstrably incorrect usage of a 19th century racist.
He invented the word. Just because the words 'anti' and 'semite' mean one lot of things, it does not mean that putting the two together defines the meaning of 'anti-semite'.

You are of course welcome to redefine any word you feel like. But when everyone is using the definition that its had since it was coined and which is found in all dictionaries I've ever seen (and I just checked as many as I could on-line, ten definitions, all of which mention only Jews), it is rather confusing.

Of course I realize the word, as it's used now, does not concern Arabs. That's because it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.
No matter how often you repeat this, it remains entirely wrong. It has never meant anything except 'anti-Jew'. Ever. That's what the word was invented to mean, that's all it has ever meant. No-one has monopolised it or changed the meaning, certainly not Israeli atrocity apologists. If you have evidence to the contrary, once again, I request you present it.

Cleopatra

12th October 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Cain

If so, I never saw your post.

The term anti-Semite, as used in popular political discourse, is monopolized by apologists of Israel to slime others. Moreover, we're not beholden to the demonstrably incorrect usage of a 19th century racist.

It's funny how most of you regularly fail to capitalize Semite. And no, I've never seen this pointed out. Of course I realize the word, as it's used now, does not concern Arabs. That's because it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities. (My avatar of Chomsky has nothing to do with nothing.)

Of course I don't believe that you didn't see James post because I have caught you many times being dishonest to your criticism towards Jews.

Arabs and Jews are both Semites because both speak a semitic language. Arabs are semites only in terms of language that's why the word antisemites doesn't concern them.

Did you see that now? Do you understand it?

Mike B.

12th October 2003, 11:22 AM

I don't get it.

Someone invents a term to make hating Jews more "scientific," and people are mad that they "stole" the term?

Isn't that patently absurd?

BTW,
I am mad that Native Americans sometimes use the word Indian. I mean how dare they steal that term that was invented for them. It is very bigoted of them considering all the people on the Sub-Continent.
;)

Mycroft

12th October 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Cain
The term anti-Semite, as used in popular political discourse, is monopolized by apologists of Israel to slime others. Moreover, we're not beholden to the demonstrably incorrect usage of a 19th century racist.

It's funny how most of you regularly fail to capitalize Semite. And no, I've never seen this pointed out. Of course I realize the word, as it's used now, does not concern Arabs. That's because it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities. (My avatar of Chomsky has nothing to do with nothing.)

Astonishing.

The word was coined by a non-Jew to smear Jews, it’s meaning determined by that same non-Jew. Yet, more than a hundred years later, the existence of the word and it etymological incorrectness is somehow turned around into a criticism of Jews.

A perfect demonstration of the irrationality of racism.

JamesM

12th October 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
the existence of the word and it entomological incorrectness
Psst... it's 'etymological'.

Mycroft

12th October 2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by JamesM

Psst... it's 'etymological'.

Thanks for the correction. I had a feeling I had that one wrong, but I went with it anyway out of laziness. ;)

Cleopatra

12th October 2003, 11:47 AM

Come-on James, don't be so harsh on us :)

Cain

12th October 2003, 11:56 AM

To wit: your currently unsubstantiated claim that anti-semite used to mean pan-semitic hatred, but was monopolised by Jews for their own political ends.

Of course I realize the word, as it's used now, does not concern Arabs. That's because it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.

Let me clarify: The word is used nearly exclusively by Jews (as opposed to once being used by anti-Jews). I did not intend to suggest that Arabs were an intended target, even though they're undeniably Semites.

He invented the word. Just because the words 'anti' and 'semite' mean one lot of things, it does not mean that putting the two together defines the meaning of 'anti-semite'.

In which case it is a misnomer.

Of course I don't believe that you didn't see James post because I have caught you many times being dishonest to your criticism towards Jews.

Oh, okay. Thanks! I must have seen it because of I've been "dishonest" in criticisms of Israel.

Arabs and Jews are both Semites because both speak a semitic language. Arabs are semites only in terms of language that's why the word antisemites doesn't concern them.

Which makes it a misnomer.

Did you see that now? Do you understand it?

It's a politicized word to demonize critics of Israel as racists. Or, in the case of my avatar (since you brought it up), there's a well-known contingent of "self-hating Jews."

Cleopatra

12th October 2003, 12:02 PM

Cain

You are a clever boy don't devaluate your intelligence by insisting on things you obviously don't know.

JamesM

12th October 2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Cain
Of course I realize the word, as it's used now, does not concern Arabs.
I'm with you so far...

That's because it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.
So, are you saying that I misunderstood you, and that you never claimed that the word used to refer to all 'semites' but Jews monopolised the term?

And are you now suggesting that what you really meant was that the word would have naturally evolved to take its 'true' meaning as referring to Arabs also, except Jews won't let it? Do you have any evidence for any similar change in meaning for any other word in history to back up this absurd claim?

Let me clarify: The word is used nearly exclusively by Jews (as opposed to once being used by anti-Jews).
Are 'Jews' synonymous with 'apologists for Israeli atrocities' in your eyes? Or do you claim that only the Jews that are 'apologists for Israeli atrocities' use the term?

In which case it is a misnomer.
You don't say. Who has claimed otherwise?

It's a politicized word to demonize critics of Israel as racists.
It's a word used to describe people who hate Jews. Many people who criticise Israel also hate Jews, so if the cap (or yarmulke) fits etc. etc. Many anti-Zionists may be incorrectly tarred with the anti-semite brush, but that is not its primary meaning, even in political discourse, as can be revealed by a cursory glance at a dictionary. Unless of course, you can produce evidence to the contrary.

Cain

12th October 2003, 02:03 PM

And are you now suggesting that what you really meant was that the word would have naturally evolved to take its 'true' meaning as referring to Arabs also, except Jews won't let it? Do you have any evidence for any similar change in meaning for any other word in history to back up this absurd claim?

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat myself. The term, as far as I know from reading magazines, newspapers and the Internet, is no longer in fashion for anti-Jewish racists. It's a knee-jerk slime tactic employed by apologists for the state of Israel.

Are 'Jews' synonymous with 'apologists for Israeli atrocities' in your eyes?

Definitely not. Christian conservatives and other non-religious right-wingers vehemently support the actions of Israel (sometimes even more so). Not to mention some of the most outspoken critics of Israel hapen to be Jewish (Finkelstein leaps to mind).

A thread above started by "Jar" -- if it's serious, and I have my doubts -- equates leftism with anti-Semitism.

It's a word used to describe people who hate Jews. Many people who criticise Israel also hate Jews, so if the cap (or yarmulke) fits etc. etc. Many anti-Zionists may be incorrectly tarred with the anti-semite brush, but that is not its primary meaning, even in political discourse, as can be revealed by a cursory glance at a dictionary. Unless of course, you can produce evidence to the contrary.

I never disputed the popular meaning. I dispute the logic of the popular meaning. It's a misnomer.

And Cleopatra, spare me your never-ending theatrical ********. How do you know I read that post (where-ever it appeared)? Maybe I'll ask your collegue, Sylvia.

Nikk

12th October 2003, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
. My question is why anti-Semitism today? I really just don't get it beyond being a conspiracy kook who unquestioningly accepts the "international banker" b***s***.

I can understand the brainwashed and superstitious Arab world believing the "Jews warned of 9/11" lie because of their irrational hatred, but I just cannot understand the persistance of irrational hatred of Jews in the West.

I really cannot fathom having such an irrational hatred of such an innocuous (and actually benificial) religious minority in 2003.

But do you think there is much irrational hatred of Jews in the West? I exclude of course Muslim groups who are in the West but not of it.

I don't see much sign of it in Britain, North and Western Europe or the US. There are always groups who hate this or that minority but Jews seem to have largely disappeared from the scene as hate objects in the West. Do you have some particular example in mind?

renata

12th October 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Can some of you explain yourselves to me?

I have yet to see an anti-Semite declare him/herself as such, and I have encountered some seriously rabid anti-Semites in my life, growing up in USSR. The problem is that genuine anti-Semites (and they do exist, of course) almost never criticize Jews as a whole, or give a racial basis for the hatred. They use code words, like all bigots and racists do. So they criticize Israel, Zionists, and media control, and bankers and such. The problem is, that many criticize all those things and are not anti Semites at all! They genuinely disagree with Israeli policies, believe that there is a strong Jewish pro Israel lobby, etc. Therefore it is nearly impossible to determine one's true views merely from a political stance. You look for clues. If they always only sympathize with one side. If they bend over backwards, to the point of using questionable sources. If they slip up and use Jews in their criticism of Israelis, assigning fault to all Jews instead of Israeli government. Even then, anti Semitism card is a serious one and should not be played lightly, if at all. For one thing, I am not sure if it is possible to reform a racist or an anti-Semite. WHat is the point of an accusation? An anti-Semite will deny it, so will an innocent person, and the discussion will just get inflamed.

When Syrian posters came on this board, and claimed protocols of elders of Zion were real, Jews used blood in matzo, talmud was the most racist book in history, Jews crucified Jesus, and Judaism was an invention of Persians in 5th century(they did not see the contradiction inthe last two) , their dream was to wipe out Israel, Jews controlled the media, they still did consider themselves anti Semites. They said they did not hate Jews, they just hated Israelis, and their goal was to destroy Israel and send Jews where they came from : Poland, Greece, Damascus. They did not consider themselves anti-Semitic, although their views certainly were quite extreme. Would you consider them anti-Semites?

reprise

12th October 2003, 04:50 PM

Does it seem to anyone else that there's a tendency to label anyone who is critical of Israel's policies and actions as "anti-Semetic" just as people who are critical of US policies and actions are labelled "anti-American"? Offhand, I can't think of other nations which have the tendency to perceive and label their critics to the same extent.

Mr Manifesto

12th October 2003, 04:59 PM

Mr Manifesto

12th October 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Can some of you explain yourselves to me?

Maybe you should list the Anti-Semites on this forum. We don't all realise we're Jew-haters.

Lyle Beaudoin

12th October 2003, 05:12 PM

renata

12th October 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by reprise
Does it seem to anyone else that there's a tendency to label anyone who is critical of Israel's policies and actions as "anti-Semetic" just as people who are critical of US policies and actions are labelled "anti-American"? Offhand, I can't think of other nations which have the tendency to perceive and label their critics to the same extent.

It depends. I think labeling anyone anti-Semitic is counter productive as I mentioned previously. However, I do think, there are some people who really are anti Semitic, or who really are anti American. I think I suspect those people as such when they predictably fall in the same side of the issue. In other words no matter the situation, America or Israel is always wrong. They have not met a conspiracy theory they have not loved, a discredited source they have not embraced, as long as it criticizes their target. They may not admit it to themselves, but it happens. Of course, there are people on the other side as well. But I think you are wrong to say there are no other group it happens to. I have been accused of being a racist quite a bit when arguing about African American issues. That accusation gets dropped very quickly. I do not recall accusing someone of being anti-Semite, but I did get accused of being an Israeli apologist, or a nationalist, or an American..what is the word...close minded nationalist?

And that is true within Americans also- there are Republicans and Democrats like that, who jump on a story if it supports their beliefs and disavow it if it does not. For example, when Clinton was accused of groping Kathleen Wiley, Republicans screamed, Democrats defended him. Now Arnold was accused of the same thing, and Democrats screamed, Republicans defended. Hypocrisy is not an international trademark.

On this board you will find posters who will defend America and Israel no matter what they do. You will find posters who will condemn and attack them no mattter what they do. And the best conversation, as always is with the people who are in between.

Mycroft

12th October 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Maybe you should list the Anti-Semites on this forum. We don't all realise we're Jew-haters.

How can you be so sure your name would be on the list?

UnrepentantSinner

12th October 2003, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Maybe you should list the Anti-Semites on this forum. We don't all realise we're Jew-haters.

I figured the responses would bring them out in the open without naming names.

Checkmite

12th October 2003, 09:09 PM

Racism - including against Jews - in and of itself doesn't bother me. If someone identifies themselves as shamelessly racist, and indicates he doesn't care whether you like it or not, I'm forced to admit that I could respect him for his honesty.

What does piss me off is somebody who feels compelled to explain his racism as a "logical decision" reached after considering certain "evidence", and then (like you cared or something) proceeds to try and outline his case, most of which consists of out-of-context quotes, statistics, and data from sites like the Council of Conservative Citizens or World Church of the Creator, and other entities with names that make them sound like rational (or faithful) or impartial purveyors of truth when they are, in fact, cesspools of hate. Racism is illogical, plain and simple. Anybody who tries to "make a case" for it already realizes he's beaten and for some reason wants as few other people to realize it as possible.

For don't-we-all-just-hate-the-Jews types, a major stone in the non-existent foundation of their "reasoning" is the aforementioned Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a cheap forged remake of a plagiarism of a work of fiction that was originally about Napoleon Bonaparte. The freaks usually don't get around to the Protocols until after they've joined a local club and read The Turner Diaries, which is only slightly more pathetic than the Protocols themselves. But as more than one web site I've looked up will tell you, once somebody decides to believe in the legitimacy of the Protocols, there is no way you can convince him otherwise. Once you recognize that sort of mindset in somebody, you realize that you're not dealing with an intelligent person capable of making the decisions they claim to have made, but rather are dealing with one of Pavlov's dogs.

Cleopatra

12th October 2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by Cain

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat myself. The term, as far as I know from reading magazines, newspapers and the Internet, is no longer in fashion for anti-Jewish racists. It's a knee-jerk slime tactic employed by apologists for the state of Israel.

Tell me my boy how the magazines and the newpapers you read describe those that burn synagogues? How do they describe such acts?

A thread above started by "Jar" -- if it's serious, and I have my doubts -- equates leftism with anti-Semitism.

Equating leftism with antisemitism no it's wrong but it's a fact that the left has double standards when it criticises the implicated parts in the Middle Eastern conflict.

And Cleopatra, spare me your never-ending theatrical ********. How do you know I read that post (where-ever it appeared)? Maybe I'll ask your collegue, Sylvia.

Little Cain, the post appeared as an answer to a dictionary reference about the same issue you have posted a couple of months ago and because of your post we have started a long discussion on the topic.

Maybe you had too much homework for school and you missed the thread.

Cain

12th October 2003, 10:02 PM

Tell me my boy how the magazines and the newpapers you read describe those that burn synagogues? How do they describe such acts?

I dunno, hate crimes?

Are you purposely trying to miss the point here?

Equating leftism with antisemitism no it's wrong but it's a fact that the left has double standards when it criticises the implicated parts in the Middle Eastern conflict.

:rolleyes:

Little Cain, the post appeared as an answer to a dictionary reference about the same issue you have posted a couple of months ago and because of your post we have started a long discussion on the topic.

Maybe you had too much homework for school and you missed the thread.

Well, unlike you, I actually bothered looking up the thread in question:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23591&perpage=40&highlight=antisemitism&pagenumber=1

I'm not sure how to prove I didn't a reply to this post three months ago. You accuse me of lying based on what? My post appeared on the first page; a reply appeared on the next page. The thread doesn't look very interesting either, which is probably why I didn't see it. Just to be safe, I checked my posting history around the time. It looks as though I averaged about one post every two days.

On that day I posted a definition, saw a response and simply ignored it. Today I posted similar thoughts (in nearly identical words), saw a reply, and bothered responding. Why didn't I reply the first time? Obviously, it couldn't have been because I didn't actually see it -- we all know how "dishonest" I've been in the past. It was because, well, I'm sure there was some kind of underhanded motive (probably anti-Semitic in nature, right?).

You're a joke.

EDIT to add: Ms. Cleo, I was just thinking about your remarks here -- basically accusing me of lying -- in comparison to your thoughts on the charges against Alan Dershowitz -- a plagiarist caught red-handed. It's an interesting contrast: I wonder what major difference could possibly warrant the completely different type of responses. Hmmm...

See the bottom of Cockburn's latest article for a response to Dershowitz's latest lies: http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10112003.html

reprise

12th October 2003, 10:25 PM

A friend of mine who believes just about any conspiracy theory going once lent me The Protocols - what a lot of horsecrap.

Whatever issues I might have with the some of Israel's policies, the whole "Zionist conspiracy" thing makes my blood boil.

Cleopatra

12th October 2003, 11:01 PM

Cain

You are an antisemite like demon.I don't understand why you are ashamed to admit it.

Cain

13th October 2003, 12:28 AM

I'm not ashamed to admit it. First, though, I decided to tell my Jewish girlfriend (sorry, I need to confess to real-life friends and acquaintances before my e-buddies).

She was washing my dishes (as all good women should do on the weekend -- after cleaning and folding their boyfriend's laundry).

I'm lounging on a couch in the living room with my feet up on the coffee table.

Me to her: Are you almost done? I want to tell you something.

Her to me: Whaaat?

Me to her: I want to tell you something.

Her to me: (talking over the water) I can't hear you. I'm almost done.

Me to myself: Why can I hear her and she can't hear me?

Me to myself again: Dude, why are you talking to yourself?

Me to myself a final time: Shut up! I'm not.... Shut up.

She now enters into the main room, which I already called "the living room."

Her: Now what were you saying?

I'm nibbling on a cracker and lackadaisically flipping through channels. Inbetween bites, and without turning my head, I say, "I'm an anti-Semite."

Her: What?

Me: (staring forward) I'm an anti-Semite.

Her: That's not funny.

Me: I'm not trying to be funny. Someone told me so, just, like, five minutes ago.

I already know her next question, and a wry smile creeps across my face in giddy anticipation.

Her: Who?

Me: (enunciating clearly) Cleopatra. :)

Her: Who??

Me: Cleopatra.... She's one of the people I talk to on the Internet. Well, I don't really *talk* to her. She writes these hysterical messages and I imagine her lunatic voice screeching through my head. Remember that time I asked if you could score some Vicodin from your Mom's medicine cabinet?

Her: :confused:

Me: ... Yeah, I had just read a message by her. Cleopatra.

Her: Whatever.

Me: Don't you care?

Her: Care about what?

Me: Care that I'm an anti-Semite?

Her: Are you serious?

Me: ... I think so.

Her: This isn't funny.

Me: Au contraire, you should see how it looks on the Internet. This will be f*cking hilarious.

Her: It's pronounced "Au contraire."

Me: Au contraire, on the Internet people will hear it in their heads correctly.

Her: :rolleyes:

Me: ...

Ignoring the past two minutes she sits on the couch next to me. Fifteen seconds of silence pass.

Her: (feigning interest) So what are you watching?

Me: ... (blank stare)

Her: What?

Me: ... (blank stare)

Her: What?!

Me: I find your careless disregard for my heartfelt confession rather bewildering.

Her: Since when do you use the word "bewildering" in a sentence?

Me: Well, I'm making all this up. My character should be smart -- bookish in a sense -- but sorta clueless. So he uses words like "bewildering" but isn't sure if he's being serious. He also mispronounces French words and wonders why a person doing dishes can't hear him.

Her: What????

Me: And you. I made you up too.

Her: Say it ain't so.

Me: It ain't so.

Her: lol

Me: See, nobody laughs at that joke, or "lol"s, as it were. But you just did; ergo, you're made up. Fiction.

Her: Oh, my... **Vanishes**

Me: Argh, so I don't really have a Jewish girlfriend that does my laundry and dishes. *sigh* I pictured you as being hot, too.

______________________________

Me to Cleopatra: Thanks for finally coming out and calling me an anti-Semite! I always thought I'd feel outraged at being accused of racism, but my response so far has consisted of three parts laughter, one part not giving a sh*t what you think. I'm glad, though. First, you knew I had read that post that I didn't know I read. Now you catch me being an anti-Semite -- and I had no idea! Great.

Cleopatra

13th October 2003, 12:37 AM

Are you after the language award Cain ? ;)

I sympathize with your girlfriend. You see, I was married to an antisemite. I just hope you don't poison her life with your subtle antisemitic remarks.

JamesM

13th October 2003, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Cain
I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat myself.
If you repeat it, I will call you on it. It's not enough to repeat a claim to make it true. But I think we're getting somewhere. There appear to be two parts to your claim:

1. The term 'anti-semite' is used exclusively by apologists for Israel to describe all critics of Israel.

2a. Words have a 'logical' meaning, separate from their 'popular' meaning.

2b. The term 'anti-semite' would take on its 'logical' meaning, were it not due to the above mentioned atrocity apologists.

Let's take these one at a time.

The term, as far as I know from reading magazines, newspapers and the Internet, is no longer in fashion for anti-Jewish racists. It's a knee-jerk slime tactic employed by apologists for the state of Israel.
This is claim 1. I just looked up a load of stories about attacks on Jews, synagogues, Jewish cemetries etc. via the BBC news website. Nothing to do with Israel, beyond the rise in violence being connected with Intifada 2. This may surprise you, but the word 'anti-semitic' is used to describe these crimes. Go take a look, just type something like 'synagogue' into the search engine.

Again, I repeat, present your evidence.

I never disputed the popular meaning. I dispute the logic of the popular meaning. It's a misnomer.
Claim 2. We all know what the words 'anti' and 'semite' mean. That does not mean the word 'anti-semite' is logically equal to the sum of those definitions, any more than the meaning of the word 'anti' is logically the sum of the definitions of the words 'ant' and 'I'. The popular meaning is the meaning, there is no other definition. In the case of 'anti-semite', that's all it's ever meant.

If you have evidence for any other word starting off with one meaning and then changing over time to take a 'logical' meaning (not merely changing in meaning), please show this evidence.

Furthermore, please show evidence that word meanings are prevented from taking on their putative 'logical' meanings by political action.

I'm sorry, Cain, I think that's ridiculous. It's not the fault of Jews if someone hated them enough to invent a word that exclusively refers to hating them. And yet, when Jews use it in the way in which it was intended to be used, you find fault with the Jews!

Skeptic

13th October 2003, 08:36 AM

It's funny how most of you regularly fail to capitalize Semite.

It's part of the evil conspiracy by us jews to "monopolize the term semite (ARRRRRRRRRGHH!!! NOT CAPITALIZED!!!! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!--Sk.)", as you put it in a previous post, of course.

That's because it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.

Yes, especially by such "apologists for israeli atrocities" such as the 19th-century antisemite who coined the term, or Adolf Hitler, or Streicher, or Goebbles, or most jew-haters for the last 100 years, all of whom proudly called themselves "antisemites" despite the fact that the vast majority of them couldn't care less either way about arabs...

But, strictly for the sake of the argument, let's assume you're right and "antisemite" means "hater of semites" and not "hater of jews". Let's just suppose, OK? Your argument then is, more or less:

It's horrible, the way these jews misuse words, isn't it? Someone says he wants them all dead, while SPECIFICALLY SAYING he mean ONLY dead jews and NOT dead arabs or ethiopians, or other semites (OH MY GOD!!! I DIDN'T CAPITALIZE IT!!!-Sk.) What do those nasty jews do? , and the next thing you know, that person is called an "antisemite", as if he hates ALL semites and not only jews! How unfair! How nasty of those jews!

Well, Cain, it's only a WORD. If you are SO offended by the evil misuse of the word "antisemitism" by the jews to--horrors!--designate someone who ONLY wants the jews dead but DOESN'T want ALL semites (ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHH!!!! DIDN'T CAPITALIZE!!!! CONSPIRACY, CONSPIRACY!!!-Sk.) dead , it's quite possible to go back to the original, non-"scientific" terms the word replaced. Would you prefer "jew-baiter", "bigot", "hater of jews" or just the original "judgenfresser" when you describe Arabs (or anybody) who "isn't an antisemite" because he only hates jews and not other semites?

Skeptic

13th October 2003, 08:37 AM

P.S.

UnrependentSinner: your previous avatar was far more civilized and less shocking.

demon

13th October 2003, 10:42 AM

"You see, I was married to an antisemite"
No prizes for who drove him to it, poor guy:roll:

"Cain
You are an antisemite like demon.I don't understand why you are ashamed to admit it."

As I said before, the moment Zionists set right - to the degree that they can - the problems they have caused Palestinians, is the moment 99 out of 100 people who have opposed this apartheid darling of the western world will blissfully switch off from them.
I for one couldn't care to focus on Israel another moment, but will because we in the west support fascism and apartheid through them to a degree unknown of compared to our other crummy little fascist clients.

Now, being called an anti-Semite for that by an Israeli apolgist is par for the course. It`s totally predictable and I`d expect no less.

Cain

13th October 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
If you repeat it, I will call you on it. It's not enough to repeat a claim to make it true.

How many times do people need to repeat this silly rejoinder? It's not truth by repetition; rather, I have to repeat it because you keep ignoring it.

But I think we're getting somewhere. There appear to be two parts to your claim:

1. The term 'anti-semite' is used exclusively by apologists for Israel to describe all critics of Israel.

This is claim 1. I just looked up a load of stories about attacks on Jews, synagogues, Jewish cemetries etc. via the BBC news website. Nothing to do with Israel, beyond the rise in violence being connected with Intifada 2. This may surprise you, but the word 'anti-semitic' is used to describe these crimes. Go take a look, just type something like 'synagogue' into the search engine.

Again, I repeat, present your evidence.

A straw man if I ever saw one. Of course people will describe comments by, say, Al Sharpton as anti-Semitic even if they have nothing to do with Israel. I wondered what the hell Cleopatra was blathering about when she talked about stories on the BBC.

I do not regard that as a politicized meaning. If a man in southern California attacks Jews while they're leaving a synogogue, fine, he'll probably be called an anti-Semite. A problem arises when defenders of Israel call Desmond Tutu an anti-Semite for mentioning crimes against Palestinians.

2a. Words have a 'logical' meaning, separate from their 'popular' meaning.

2b. The term 'anti-semite' would take on its 'logical' meaning, were it not due to the above mentioned atrocity apologists.

Where did I come close to saying 2b? I said the term "mildly bothers" me, because it's wrong. I'm not suggesting that one day -- bam -- people will come to their senses and the meaning will change. I suggest we drop it entirely. Do you really think I believe that if anti-Semite took on a more consistent meaning that Israeli apologists would not call their critics racists? Of course they would. People can be called "Jew-haters" or something. I don't know.

_______________________________

Cleopatra to Me: I sympathize with your girlfriend. You see, I was blah blah blah blah **vanishes**

Me: :cool:

Cleopatra

13th October 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by demon
"You see, I was married to an antisemite"
No prizes for who drove him to it, poor guy:roll:

"Cain
You are an antisemite like demon.I don't understand why you are ashamed to admit it."

As I said before, the moment Zionists set right - to the degree that they can - the problems they have caused Palestinians, is the moment 99 out of 100 people who have opposed this apartheid darling of the western world will blissfully switch off from them.
I for one couldn't care to focus on Israel another moment, but will because we in the west support fascism and apartheid through them to a degree unknown of compared to our other crummy little fascist clients.

Now, being called an anti-Semite for that by an Israeli apolgist is par for the course. It`s totally predictable and I`d expect no less.

demon

I respected the Palestinian tradition and I left you laugh for some time without interrupting you but allow me to remark that you are doing a lousy job for a terrorism apologist. You know, here you can't wear a jacket with explosives and resolve your difference with those you disagree with violence, you have to debate.

You left some issues unanswered here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870127790#post1870127790)

JamesM

13th October 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Cain
How many times do people need to repeat this silly rejoinder? It's not truth by repetition; rather, I have to repeat it because you keep ignoring it.
It's up in bold in all my posts, I'm not ignoring it. I'm waiting to see evidence for your claims.
A straw man if I ever saw one. Of course people will describe comments by, say, Al Sharpton as anti-Semitic even if they have nothing to do with Israel.
[...]
I do not regard that as a politicized meaning.
Nor do I. Let me remind you why I mentioned attacks on synagogues. You said, in a previous post:
The term, as far as I know from reading magazines, newspapers and the Internet, is no longer in fashion for anti-Jewish racists.
Are you now acknowledging that it has a widespread non-political usage, so you were wrong to say that?
Where did I come close to saying 2b?
As a reminder, claim 2b (as paraphrased by me) is:
2b. The term 'anti-semite' would take on its 'logical' meaning, were it not due to the above mentioned atrocity apologists.
Now, why would I think you were saying that? Could it be because of the following statement, that you saw fit to repeat twice:
Of course I realize the word, as it's used now, does not concern Arabs.
So you said that the word 'anti-semite' does not now concern Arabs. That's now, as in the present, with the implication that it either meant something else in the past, or it might do in the future. As far as I can see the implication was that you thought it used to mean something different, as confirmed by:
the term has been monpolized by Jews, mostly for political purposes.
Remind me who said that again? Oh, it was you, in yet another post. No qualification about apologists there, I notice.

Nonetheless, you have insisted that that's not what you meant. But then we are left with the only other alternative, that you think the word could come to take a more logical (or, in your own words "consistent") meaning in the future.

Your next sentence gives the reasons why you think the word anti-semite means what it does now:
That's because it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.
An abundantly clear assertion, that the word anti-semite has the meaning it does now because of Israeli apologists. Taken together with the previous sentence, that's where you "came close" to making claim 2b. Would you like to provide evidence for this assertion now?
I said the term "mildly bothers" me, because it's wrong. And no-one disagrees with you. What they do disagree with you about is the other stuff you said.

Skeptic

13th October 2003, 11:58 AM

"You see, I was married to an antisemite"
No prizes for who drove him to it, poor guy

Of course not; if somebody hates jews, after all, it MUST be because of something the jews did to THEM. Cleo's husband was an antisemite? It's her fault, naturally.

I think this "joke" is quite revealing of your way of thinking, demon--if somebody hates jews, it's because they had it coming.

DanishDynamite

13th October 2003, 12:21 PM

It's odd how the people who are so busy trying to pin a label of "anti-semite" onto others, don't raise an eyebrow at declaring the Palestinians bloodthirsty bastards or worse. Trully amazing.

Cain

13th October 2003, 02:43 PM

These shameful meanderings probably do not warrant yet another response.

Originally posted by JamesM

Let me remind you why I mentioned attacks on synagogues. You said, in a previous post:

The term, as far as I know from reading magazines, newspapers and the Internet, is no longer in fashion for anti-Jewish racists.

Are you now acknowledging that it has a widespread non-political usage, so you were wrong to say that?

The quote is a stand alone and doesn't mean anything more than it says: People who hate Jews no longer use the term (as far as I know from reading newspapers, magazines, and the Internet.

This goes hand-in-hand with the next claim:

Of course I realize the word, as it's used now, does not concern Arabs.

So you said that the word 'anti-semite' does not now concern Arabs.

Because it doesn't. Semite is associated exclusively with Jews. That is to say popularly, it has a singular meaning; that is to say, Jews have a monopoly on the word.

That's now, as in the present, with the implication that it either meant something else in the past, or it might do in the future. As far as I can see the implication was that you thought it used to mean something different, as confirmed by:

As the dictionary definition recited points out, Semite refers to Arabs as well.

An abundantly clear assertion, that the word anti-semite has the meaning it does now because of Israeli apologists. Taken together with the previous sentence, that's where you "came close" to making claim 2b. Would you like to provide evidence for this assertion now?

The word is a misnomer. Calling Arabs anti-Semites makes no sense. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

Irregardless, I'm happy to contribute to such a thread -- an instant classic for the JREF-- and this post is my unbelievable free gift to everybody.

Checkmite

13th October 2003, 03:07 PM

I concur with others who specify that the term "anti-semite" refers to those whose hatred is directed at "the Jews" in general. When discussing antisemitism, I'm not talking about those who dislike the state of Israel, its actions, alleged atrocities, etc.

Nikk

13th October 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

I figured the responses would bring them out in the open without naming names.

US I posted the question below 24 hours ago.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

. My question is why anti-Semitism today? I really just don't get it beyond being a conspiracy kook who unquestioningly accepts the "international banker" b***s***.

I can understand the brainwashed and superstitious Arab world believing the "Jews warned of 9/11" lie because of their irrational hatred, but I just cannot understand the persistance of irrational hatred of Jews in the West.

I really cannot fathom having such an irrational hatred of such an innocuous (and actually benificial) religious minority in 2003.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

..................................reply from nikk.................................

But do you think there is much irrational hatred of Jews in the West? I exclude of course Muslim groups who are in the West but not of it.

I don't see much sign of it in Britain, North and Western Europe or the US. There are always groups who hate this or that minority but Jews seem to have largely disappeared from the scene as hate objects in the West. Do you have some particular example in mind?

So, any response?

Mycroft

13th October 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Cain
The word is a misnomer. Calling Arabs anti-Semites makes no sense. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

Did you know that hundreds of years ago, the word "awful" meant "that which inspires awe" much the same way we use the word "awesome" today.

Language is filled with words that have meanings other than what the actual word itself would suggest. That's why we need to look at the usage of the word to determine it's meaning.

We have already discussed the origin of the word. If you don’t dispute the origin, why should you dispute that the usage has not changed?

It’s rare to coin words to describe concepts that don’t exist in the real world. If prejudice against all Semitic peoples were common, I’m sure we would need a word to describe it, and perhaps anti-Semite would be that word. Under those circumstances, we might need a new word to describe prejudice targets specifically against Jewish people.

Mycroft

13th October 2003, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Nikk

I don't see much sign of it in Britain, North and Western Europe or the US. There are always groups who hate this or that minority but Jews seem to have largely disappeared from the scene as hate objects in the West. Do you have some particular example in mind?

So, any response?

I see it in the U.S. People who don’t like to do business with Jews, vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, people who slander the Jewish religion and build complicated conspiracy theories involving the Jews. Even attacks against Jewish community centers.

renata

13th October 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I see it in the U.S. People who don’t like to do business with Jews, vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, people who slander the Jewish religion and build complicated conspiracy theories involving the Jews. Even attacks against Jewish community centers.

I can't find the link now, so take it with a grain of salt. In 2002 there was a hate crime report on incidents in the US- beatings, cross burnings, vandals. The big news at the times was that hate crimes increased against Muslims quite dramatically after 9/11. However, the not big news was that most hate crimes was against Blacks, and I think Jews were on second place for sheer numbers. In LA in the last 3 years we had 2 synagogues and a children's school decorated with swastikas, not to mention the attack against El Al at LAX and the gunman who attacked the Jewish community school shooting it up. All of the attackers were loner nuts, and I do not build my life around them.

Why has nobody answered my question whether the Syrian posters who held rather astonishing views about Jews but did not consider themselves anti-Semites were such?

Malachi151

13th October 2003, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Can some of you explain yourselves to me?

For the best explanation of anti-Semitism read Heny Ford's The International Jew

http://www.ety.com/berlin/ford1.htm

Also try The Jews and Their Lies:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html

And of course Mein Kampf:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/kampf.html

Nikk

13th October 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by renata

I can't find the link now, so take it with a grain of salt. In 2002 there was a hate crime report on incidents in the US- beatings, cross burnings, vandals. The big news at the times was that hate crimes increased against Muslims quite dramatically after 9/11. However, the not big news was that most hate crimes was against Blacks, and I think Jews were on second place for sheer numbers. In LA in the last 3 years we had 2 synagogues and a children's school decorated with swastikas, not to mention the attack against El Al at LAX and the gunman who attacked the Jewish community school shooting it up. All of the attackers were loner nuts, and I do not build my life around them.

Why has nobody answered my question whether the Syrian posters who held rather astonishing views about Jews but did not consider themselves anti-Semites were such?

Seems to support the point I made in my question to US, i.e. that there isn't much anti semitism about these days.

Regarding the Syrians. I wondered at the time if they were genuine. When I tried to get them off Israel and on to the question of how the Arab world was going to move towards some sort of representative democracy they didn't want to play. Their english was or appeared to be lousy and it really wasn't possible to debate with them.

renata

13th October 2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Nikk

Seems to support the point I made in my question to US, i.e. that there isn't much anti semitism about these days.

Depends on the definition of "much" I guess :)

I thought two attacks on Jewish targets with guns and three desecrations in one city in three years shows there is "some". But no, it does not compare to the daily levels in Russia, of course. The fact that it is an aberration is a wonderful thing, and the fact that it is abhorred is as well. But it is naive to think it is gone. There are many layers of it. There is the loner nut type, described above. There are the white supremacists in Montana and Idaho, multiplying over internet sites, using message boards and disaffected kids, they are the ones who do most petty vandalising. There is Christian snobbery, who try to convert Jews. There are the classic very rich WASPs, although very few left. There is the daily little comments- sheesh, those Jews complaining again- I mean they control Hollywood, isn't that enough! That is just in the States. I wish I could find the report to tell you the number of attacks on Jewish targets. If my memory is correct, and it was second after blacks, then it is a high number- there are many more blacks in US than Jews. However, of course, I do not expect you to accept my very fuzzy recollection of an article I read a very long time ago.

Regarding the Syrians. I wondered at the time if they were genuine. When I tried to get them off Israel and on to the question of how the Arab world was going to move towards some sort of representative democracy they didn't want to play. Their english was or appeared to be lousy and it really wasn't possible to debate with them.

You are right, they would not play. There were about 4-6 of them, some had good English. I think 2 of them were students in Europe, one was studying to take TOEFL. One did condemn Syrian government, but it ended up back in - when Syrian people got the government they wanted, they would eliminate Israel and all their problems would be solved. I attempted a debate in this thread, and for a little bit we got somewhere, but unfortunately as these things go, enough. Partially, it was my fault because I lost my patience very quickly as they did not understand my questions and made rather inflammatory announcements. It is still a rather good thread, as most poster tried to keep to some ground rules.
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18464

However, if one is to assume those people are real, given that they proclaimed rather radical beliefs about Jews (see my prior list), but claimed they only wanted to destroy Israel and send Jews where they came from, were they anti-Semites?

UnrepentantSinner

13th October 2003, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Nikk
But do you think there is much irrational hatred of Jews in the West? I exclude of course Muslim groups who are in the West but not of it.

I don't see much sign of it in Britain, North and Western Europe or the US. There are always groups who hate this or that minority but Jews seem to have largely disappeared from the scene as hate objects in the West. Do you have some particular example in mind?

So, any response?

Sorry about the oversight.

I don't think there is as much overt anti-Semitism as there was years ago. For example the Dearborn Ledger couldn't run the The Protocals today. I also don't see any Kristalnachts occuring any time soon in the Western world. I do see overt anti-Semitism on message boards from posters who are in the West.

A lot of it is about the Palestinian issue, but then they start ranting about the ADL, the power of the Jewish Lobby in Washington, then they move on to Hollywood, and the last stop on the woowoo express is Warburgville. It's clearly the same irrational hatred of the conspiratorial Jew who poisons wells and puts babies blood in matzos.

These aren't the same superstitious uneducated Arabs who "know" that 4,000 Jews stayed away from the WTC on 9/11, these are Physiologists in New York and IT professionals in England. And I personally am astounded every time I read their vitriolic tirades.

- edit here's an example from the board that inspired this thread.
http://www.boottotheskull.com/mb/viewthread.php?tid=8750

Cleopatra

13th October 2003, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Nikk

Regarding the Syrians. I wondered at the time if they were genuine. When I tried to get them off Israel and on to the question of how the Arab world was going to move towards some sort of representative democracy they didn't want to play. Their english was or appeared to be lousy and it really wasn't possible to debate with them.

I have mentioned to another thread that when I welcomed thw Syrians in Arabic and they saw my nick-name and the place where I am supposed to be posting from ( They didn't notice that I say " House of the Prolemies-Alexandria" but not Egypt) they took me for an Arab and AN@S sent me a PM asking me an e-mail address to communicate with me in Arabic so as "we" organise our defense better :)

Of course, I explained him immediately that he made a terrible mistake.

I am almost certain that they were real, of course AN@S didn't post stupidities about the Protocols and Blood Libels and he was more willing to debate, also he was very polite. I think that his English didn't help him a lot.

Cain

13th October 2003, 11:37 PM

It’s rare to coin words to describe concepts that don’t exist in the real world. If prejudice against all Semitic peoples were common, I’m sure we would need a word to describe it, and perhaps anti-Semite would be that word. Under those circumstances, we might need a new word to describe prejudice targets specifically against Jewish people.

I am indifferent to the word "awful." I bet few people are indifferent to the word "anti-Semite." If we look up "atheist" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, we find "one who denies the existence of God." I take offense at that definition, and always clarify the term (as it applies to me, at least) before entering what's certain to be a prolonged discussion. If people absolute ly insist that "atheist" has evil connotations, or explicitly denies the existence of "God," or whatever, I'll sometimes just make up a nonsense word, say, "Cainsyian" to describe my position. (A "Cainsyian" lacks a belief in a god or gods.) Usually, however, it's not completely impossible to find agreeable terms.

I have a Palestinian friend that I've known since kindergarten. His family's land was stolen, but his parents emigrated to the United States. In a heated conversation I suggested one of his comments were "anti-Semitic" and he took great umbrage at the term. "Wait a minute, I'm a Semite." It wasn't difficult for me to surrender the nonsense word and find something more appropriate.

Then again, few people are as clever, brilliant and generous as yours truly.

Unfortunately, people like Cleopatra gilbly invoke "anti-Semite", the equivalent of mudslinging. Stalinist.

Cleopatra

14th October 2003, 12:53 AM

You see Cain apart from demon who is a troll I have never accused anybody of antisemitism before. In fact, I have defended a couple of people here from such accusations so, I do not accuse people of antisemitism easily.

I have been observing your posts for quite some time now and since you are not an idiot I have to attribute malice to your writing.

You are a racist of the worst kind.

JamesM

14th October 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Cain
These shameful meanderings probably do not warrant yet another response.If you would only provide evidence for your claims, I would leave you alone.

Now you seem intent making the definition of the word 'semite' the focus of your argument again. It has been pointed out to you many times that no-one disputes the definition of 'semite'. No-one disputes the etymological illogicality of the word 'anti-semite' referring only to Jews.

What I do dispute is your claim that Jews have monopolised the term. Your last quote indicated a subtle shift in position:
Jews have a monopoly on the word.
That is true. But that is not the same thing as saying that Jews have monopolised the word, which you have claimed several times. Someone else did the monopolising for them.
People who hate Jews no longer use the term (as far as I know from reading newspapers, magazines, and the Internet.
Ah ha! Here we may have a simple misunderstanding. This is your original quote:
The term [...] is no longer in fashion for anti-Jewish racists.
Due to your clarification, I can see that this quote could refer to what anti-Jewish racists would call themselves. However, an equally valid interpretation would be to what other people would call anti-Jewish racists. That was what I thought you meant. If that is not the case, then please accept my apologies for wasting your time with this point.
Semite is associated exclusively with Jews.
Correct. But we're talking about the word 'anti-semite', not 'semite'. It is the word 'anti-semite' that you claimed was monopolised by Israeli apologists (or Jews, depending on the quote).
The word is a misnomer. Calling Arabs anti-Semites makes no sense. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.
Because you're wrong. 'anti-semite' doesn't mean to dislike semites, whether you think it is a misnomer or not. And as you know, the meaning of the word is not why I'm on your case.

So here is your quote yet again:

Of course I realize the word, as it's used now, does not concern Arabs.
It's that word now with its implications. Look at these two sentences:
1. The word 'banana' refers to a curved yellow fruit.
2. The word 'banana', as it's used now, refers to a curved yellow fruit.
Can you see a difference? The first sentence is a statement of fact, the second is a statement of fact with the implication that either the word 'banana' used to mean something different, or it could do in the future.
Please stop avoiding the question: what do you mean, did the word 'anti-semite' mean something different in the past, or could it mean something else in the future?

UnrepentantSinner

14th October 2003, 01:30 AM

Here's a bit paraphrased from the Dallas Morning News.

Holocaust suvivor Lou Akop had a swastika and the words "Die Jew Die" written on his car while it was parked at Dallas Farmers Market. "Mr Akop, who is in his 60s, said he was shocked and saddened that 'something like this could happen in this day and age.'"

-----------------

Me too.

JamesM

14th October 2003, 01:48 AM

Whoever was responsible can use the Sideshow Bob excuse as a get-out.

UnrepentantSinner

14th October 2003, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
Whoever was responsible can use the Sideshow Bob excuse as a get-out.

;) :roll:

Cain

14th October 2003, 02:47 AM

It's difficult to follow through on a point-by-point reply because I have to scroll down and requote the original text.

Nonetheless, a few points of interest:

What I do dispute is your claim that Jews have monopolised the term. Your last quote indicated a subtle shift in position:

That is true. But that is not the same thing as saying that Jews have monopolised the word, which you have claimed several times. Someone else did the monopolising for them.

Fine, whatever.

Correct. But we're talking about the word 'anti-semite', not 'semite'. It is the word 'anti-semite' that you claimed was monopolised by Israeli apologists (or Jews, depending on the quote).

Relates to the above "fine, whatever" comment. I began both posts -- this one and the one that appeared some three months ago -- by defining "Semite" and disputing the general use of the word "anti-Semite."

And as you know, the meaning of the word is not why I'm on your case.

Oh, really? I never suspected ulterior motives. Like, for instancing, making a mountain of mole-hill, contextless quotes and deliberate misreading. I got so sick of saying -- and seeing repeated back to me -- "apologists for Israel" that I tried thinking of other synoymns ("defenders of Israel" doesn't really work), and one moment I used "Jews" (inclusive). Suddenly a hush of silence. "Ooh, maybe if we assault him with more nagging nonsense he'll slip up and say 'the Jews.'"

It's that word now with its implications. Look at these two sentences:

[banana something]

Can you see a difference? The first sentence is a statement of fact, the second is a statement of fact with the implication that either the word 'banana' used to mean something different, or it could do in the future.
Please stop avoiding the question: what do you mean, did the word 'anti-semite' mean something different in the past, or could it mean something else in the future?

Written earlier by me:
"I'm not suggesting that one day -- bam -- people will come to their senses and the meaning will change. I suggest we drop [the word] entirely."

It's not difficult. When a person accuses a Palestinian (say) of being an
"anti-Semite" she implies that that person is not a Semite. Maybe it's tilting a windmills, but I ask people to be a little more specific with their epithets.

______________________________

I have been observing your posts for quite some time now and since you are not an idiot I have to attribute malice to your writing.

There's a definite misanthropic streak through my writing. I had no idea I was anti-Semite, though!! Given the nature of the accusation, one would be inclined to see unambiguous supporting evidence. Oh, but wait, you detect "malice." Wonderful. You also knew I had read a previous post even though I didn't. Jesus Christ, you're a moron.

You are a racist of the worst kind.

Thanks. I always thought violent racists were the worst kind. But hey, you're probably already well aware of the acts of violence I commit against Jews daily. :rolleyes:

I guess I'm a vegan unwilling to discriminate on morally arbitrary classifications like species, but all too ready spew hatred based on "race."

(Pre-emptive reply: Hitler was not a moral vegeterian; he had tummy problems).

Cleopatra

14th October 2003, 03:23 AM

I take the opportunity to clarify the common misconception that antisemites have devil's tail, breath flames and commit racial crimes on a daily basis.

As you know from yourself antisemites are ordinary people, of course not as brilliant as you are but they are people that have the common sense for sure.

What distinguishes them is that they refuse that their beliefs and ideas promote hatred. Also, all of them believe that they have understood "a hidden truth" and they do not resemble to others who are in denial to see the obvious.

You for example think that you have discovered a conspiracy in the use of a word that the majority has failed to see. You perceive the majority as victims of those they have designed the conspiracy and that explains your slight arrogance towards the other posters.

The bias towards a specific group of people underlines all of your posts and affects your behavior in this forum.

Now, even your "humorous" remark about vegans reflects your attitude. You tend to stick on the few differences that can keep groups of people apart and not on the numerous similarities that demolish the boarders between them.

This is what racists do and you are a real macoy.

JamesM

14th October 2003, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by Cain
Fine, whatever.
Glad it's finally got through to you. But rest assured, the next time you incorrectly attribute the current meaning of the word 'anti-semite' to Jews, I shall pop up to remind you of your error. Something for you to look forward to.
defining "Semite" and disputing the general use of the word "anti-Semite."
If you don't want me to keep hounding you, stop repeating this nonsense. It's not the general use, it's the only use. Unless you can show otherwise.
Oh, really? I never suspected ulterior motives.
My only motive is to get you to clarify your comments, which are more easily interpreted as anti-Jewish than what you say was their real meaning.
contextless quotes
Heh, like this? I've tried to quote only as much of your posts as is necessary, to save on space. It's not been my intention to twist your meaning, you do a good enough job of that yourself. I'm not gunning for you as an exercise on picking on anti-Israel posters. I genuinely find your comments on anti-semitism troubling. When you clarify your comments, I back off. As you seem to prefer ambiguous "smart" one-liners on the subject, you are easily misinterpreted.
deliberate misreading.
None of it was deliberate. I've been perfectly happy to accept your explanations when you've been clearer about what you've meant.
one moment I used "Jews" (inclusive). Suddenly a hush of silence. "Ooh, maybe if we assault him with more nagging nonsense he'll slip up and say 'the Jews.'"
You eat one lousy foot and you're a cannibal. Yeah, well, you see, here comes the standard JREF board disclaimer - blah blah skeptics board blah evidence blah blah put up or shut up blah. Sorry you see that as "nagging nonsense". If you didn't mean "Jews", you shouldn't have typed "Jews", now should you? Otherwise you run the risk of looking like an, well, an anti-semite. If I point it out, that's your fault, not mine.

a_unique_person

14th October 2003, 04:52 AM

I was brought up a Catholic. As far as my wifes grandmother is concerned, Catholics are the greatest evil on earth. She is a "Holy Roller". Fundy to you Yankees. Her bookshelves were full of literature on why Catholics are so evil.

a_unique_person

14th October 2003, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
Whoever was responsible can use the Sideshow Bob excuse as a get-out.

I know that Crusty was Jewish, but I didn't know Sideshow Bob was.

Malachi151

14th October 2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I was brought up a Catholic. As far as my wifes grandmother is concerned, Catholics are the greatest evil on earth. She is a "Holy Roller". Fundy to you Yankees. Her bookshelves were full of literature on why Catholics are so evil.

Yes, but Catholics ARE the greatest evil on earth :D

BillyTK

14th October 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Malachi151

Yes, but Catholics ARE the greatest evil on earth :D

Damn! I knew I shouldn't've lapsed!

Cleopatra

15th October 2003, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I was brought up a Catholic. As far as my wifes grandmother is concerned, Catholics are the greatest evil on earth. She is a "Holy Roller". Fundy to you Yankees. Her bookshelves were full of literature on why Catholics are so evil.

I have been reading this over and over since yesterday that you posted it and still I do not understand what this has to do with antisemitism.

UnrepentantSinner

15th October 2003, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I know that Crusty was Jewish, but I didn't know Sideshow Bob was.

I'm not sure if you're being sardonic, but James is referring to an episode where Sideshow Bob has a certain phrase tattooed on his chest. He claims it's in German.

a_u_p, Anti-Catholicism is rampant amonst the fundies, though primarily though dinial of them being "real" Christians than through active persecution or discrimination. That wasn't the case back in the 60s when Kennedy was running for office. The Klan still mentions Catholics along with Blacks and Jews who are on "the list." Anti-Catholicism reached it's apex back around the turn of the 20th Century when there was a great influx of Irish and Italians.

JamesM

15th October 2003, 03:47 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Anti-Catholicism reached it's apex back around the turn of the 20th Century when there was a great influx of Irish and Italians.
I think it was in Fortean Times that I read an interesting overview of the anti-Catholic conspiracy literature. The idea of secret tunnels between monasteries and nunneries was a common motif.

UnrepentantSinner

15th October 2003, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by JamesM
I think it was in Fortean Times that I read an interesting overview of the anti-Catholic conspiracy literature. The idea of secret tunnels between monasteries and nunneries was a common motif.

Considering that anti-Catholicism and anti-Masonic sentiment generally went hand-in-hand for many people holding such senitments, such rumors would be right in line with their "thinking."

Regardless of the tunnels, I'm sure there were many many "Sister Agethas" over the centuries.

Shane Costello

15th October 2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner:
a_u_p, Anti-Catholicism is rampant amonst the fundies, though primarily though dinial of them being "real" Christians than through active persecution or discrimination.

Catholicism more than reciprocated by considering adherants to other faiths to be hell bound. That's given way in more recent years to a more benign, patronising attitude. Nowadays Catholicism merely considres other Christians to be mistaken.

Malachi151

15th October 2003, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by JamesM

I think it was in Fortean Times that I read an interesting overview of the anti-Catholic conspiracy literature. The idea of secret tunnels between monasteries and nunneries was a common motif.

There is a difference between the Catholic establishment and Catholic followers.

But in general I do consider Cathoicism to be one of the worst forces on earth.

What does it tkae to prove than an organization is horrible?

Let's see, they:

Promoted several Inquisitions agaions Jews and Muslims

Stole trillions of dollars worth fo gold from the Natives fo America

Intentionally destoyed Native cultures all over the world

Contribute to birth control and STD problems around the world and are part of the population and disease problem in 3rd world countries

They have harbored pedophiles and rapists for hundreds of years, have thwarted the law, and enabled the raping of children all over the world up to present day, and its still going on. Though the news is coming out in America first, this has been just as big and bigger in the 3rd world for centuries

They intentionally challenge state authority of a varitey of countries

They are one of the wealthiest orgnaizations in the world and a lot of that money just goes to self agrandizement and protectionism

They do have spies all over the world

The Church helped the Nazis prior, during, and after WWII. Not ALL Catholics did, but there was institutional help of the Nazis. The Vatican Ratline that helped Nazi war criminals escape Europe to get to South America is well documented

Convents have been used as places of torture for centuries. Go watch the Magdaline Sisters, true story about the Convents in Ireland

Catholocism is a menace to society and should be outlawed, or at least attacked as a terrorist organization just as Al-Queda is.

The Founding Fathers knew it, they hated it, they despised it, I hate, I despise it. Catholicism is the embodyment of institutionalized brain washing and religion, it is the symbol of everything wrong in this world.

UnrepentantSinner

15th October 2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Catholicism more than reciprocated by considering adherants to other faiths to be hell bound. That's given way in more recent years to a more benign, patronising attitude. Nowadays Catholicism merely considres other Christians to be mistaken.

Shane and Malachi,

I'm not an apologist for Catholicism nor it's crimes against humanity (IMO) past and present. I was replying to a_u_p within the context of U.S. history, which is the same context - primarily - with which I started this thread about anti-Semitism. The thread has since expanded to address anti-Semitism in other Western nations, and I will gladly expand the issue of anti-Catholicism in the U.S. to world-wide considerations of Catholics and their policies in general.

Nikk

15th October 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by renata

Depends on the definition of "much" I guess :)

I thought two attacks on Jewish targets with guns and three desecrations in one city in three years shows there is "some". But no, it does not compare to the daily levels in Russia, of course. The fact that it is an aberration is a wonderful thing, and the fact that it is abhorred is as well. But it is naive to think it is gone.

Well compared to Protestant/Catholic violence in Northern Ireland that doesnt even register!

However, if one is to assume those people are real, given that they proclaimed rather radical beliefs about Jews (see my prior list), but claimed they only wanted to destroy Israel and send Jews where they came from, were they anti-Semites?

I looked briefly at the thread but it is very long and I couldn't pin down anything that I regarded as anti-semitic i.e. against Jews as an ethnic group. That said at the back of my mind is the thought that some members of the group did make such statements.

Nikk

15th October 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

Sorry about the oversight.

I don't think there is as much overt anti-Semitism as there was years ago. For example the Dearborn Ledger couldn't run the The Protocals today. I also don't see any Kristalnachts occuring any time soon in the Western world. I do see overt anti-Semitism on message boards from posters who are in the West.

A lot of it is about the Palestinian issue, but then they start ranting about the ADL, the power of the Jewish Lobby in Washington, then they move on to Hollywood, and the last stop on the woowoo express is Warburgville. It's clearly the same irrational hatred of the conspiratorial Jew who poisons wells and puts babies blood in matzos.

These aren't the same superstitious uneducated Arabs who "know" that 4,000 Jews stayed away from the WTC on 9/11, these are Physiologists in New York and IT professionals in England. And I personally am astounded every time I read their vitriolic tirades.

- edit here's an example from the board that inspired this thread.
http://www.boottotheskull.com/mb/viewthread.php?tid=8750

I checked the link. They are rather odd but they still seem quite insignificant in terms of numbers. No more than a few strange people talking to each other. When anti semites even approach the numbers of those convinced they have been abducted by aliens then that is the time to worry!

Nikk

15th October 2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I have mentioned to another thread that when I welcomed thw Syrians in Arabic and they saw my nick-name and the place where I am supposed to be posting from ( They didn't notice that I say " House of the Prolemies-Alexandria" but not Egypt) they took me for an Arab and AN@S sent me a PM asking me an e-mail address to communicate with me in Arabic so as "we" organise our defense better :)

Of course, I explained him immediately that he made a terrible mistake.

I am almost certain that they were real, of course AN@S didn't post stupidities about the Protocols and Blood Libels and he was more willing to debate, also he was very polite. I think that his English didn't help him a lot.

In that case it certainly looks like they were the real thing.

Even apart from the language difficulty one has to be thick skinned to debate here and from a post I saw when I scanned the thread that was a problem for them.

renata

15th October 2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Nikk

Well compared to Protestant/Catholic violence in Northern Ireland that doesnt even register!

And I agree that compared to other regions and other violence it is small indeed, but hardly nonexistent. It all depends on the bankground noise, I suppose. When I was grew up in Russia, I was called a kike as a matter of course. Here I was not called a kike once. That is a wonderful thing :). Nonetheless, anti-Semitism in the US does exist, in some forms. I do not think anyone here would argue that it is overwhelming, or that Jews in the US encounter it in frequent basis. But denying it is naive and dangerous.

I looked briefly at the thread but it is very long and I couldn't pin down anything that I regarded as anti-semitic i.e. against Jews as an ethnic group. That said at the back of my mind is the thought that some members of the group did make such statements.

It is very long indeed. There were some specific statements, and not all members of the group made all of them- some were more militant, some more educated. My point was, that you could have a group of people who vehemently denied that they hated Jews, but who could and did state various comments about talmud being racist books, did not disagree with comments about blood used for matzo, Protocols, and advanced various other lovely theories of the way for deligitimazing Israelis (no native Israelis, no Jewish artifacts in Israel) and ways of destroying Israel. Yet if you would say- wow, you are anti-Semites- they would disagree- just because they think Jews control the media, crucified Jesus, etc, etc, etc does not make them anti-Semites, they would argue. So my whole point is- calling someone an anti-Semite is utterly pointless. No matter how radical their opinions, they will never admit it. They will always justify it. The Syrian posters justified their beliefs as well.

Cleopatra

15th October 2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Nikk

In that case it certainly looks like they were the real thing.

Even apart from the language difficulty one has to be thick skinned to debate here and from a post I saw when I scanned the thread that was a problem for them.

Oh yes I am certain that they are real.I know that it was very difficult for them and I admire their courage for participating in those discussions and I did my best to encourage them.In that PM I sent to AN@S I assured him that Americans are polite and they won't blame him for his language.

I really deslike unchallenged discussions, I wish we had in this forum a couple of Turks too :)

AN@S was reasonable but Broud and hisham weren't that serious because they defended this book-blood libel by a Syrian minister.
:rolleyes:

You know this is what makes Arabs sort of primitive in debates. They haven't learned yet that there are certain things you can't write however hard you believe in them, of course that makes them more honest :)

I really wish more Arabs participated even if they were to post angry messages. In the forum of Open Democracy ( you have to check this Nikk BTW) there is one who uses very good English and he composes long messages. His argumentation is predictable and propaganda -like but it's important that he participates to give the different tone.

JamesM

16th October 2003, 12:42 AM

Jews rule the world - Mahatir (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3196234.stm)
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has called on Muslims to use brains as well as brawn to fight Jews who "rule the world".
Ah, that evergreen classic...

a_unique_person

16th October 2003, 01:27 AM

At least it is a step in the right direction, not using brawn, that is.

Don't forget, though, that this is the guy who didn't like his deputy, who is a devout Muslim, so he had him stitched up with fake charges, crippled for life and sent to jail for as long as he pleases. He doesn't play favourites. Plus he doesn't act too nice to the ethnic Chinese in Malaysia either. And he hates Australia.

In fact, it's gets hard to know just who he does like. People that worship him unquestioningly, I think.

JamesM

16th October 2003, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
At least it is a step in the right direction, not using brawn, that is.
Yes, I suppose we should look on the bright side.

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by JamesM

Yes, I suppose we should look on the bright side.

Do you mean that he is an antisemite? But what do you imply here that he hates Arabs too? :p

a_unique_person

16th October 2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Do you mean that he is an antisemite? But what do you imply here that he hates Arabs too? :p

That he is thinking that maybe the use of violence is not desirable. As someone who has been prepared to use violence against his own chosen successor, who was also a Muslim, he must be mellowing in his old age.

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 02:02 AM

This is especially for Nikk who was wondering about the extent of antisemitism today.

http://www.greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/english/organizations/ghm_mrgg_antisemitism_2002.rtf

It's the report of the Greek Bureau of the Helsinki Watch regarding the Antisemitism in Greece for the year 2002.

Don't miss the "September 11 libel" on page 10... that became an issue in the Greek Parliament!!

Nikk, have you ever heard about the "Pacifico case" that dates back to 1850 ( approximately)?

Where is Capel Dodger with his interesting historical approaches to explain to us the "Pacifico Affair"...

Cain

16th October 2003, 02:41 AM

Cleopatra: I'm still patiently awaiting your evidence supporting charges of anti-Semitism. You know, because I'm an anti-Semite.

Please don't bring up the Al Franken thread, where someone asked if I was going to suck the comedian's cock. There I infamously replied, "That faggot Jew? No way." That one doesn't count because another person used it to determin I was a homophobe. (Hey, I don't make up the rules.)

Since you rarely accuse people of anti-Semitism, I know you have very compelling reasons for calling me a racist. That thread I started titled "The ability of Jews to express themselves politically" -- the one containing an article to a Jewish bombing -- just ignore that too. It doesn't count, either.

demon

16th October 2003, 03:22 AM

"Cleopatra: I'm still patiently awaiting your evidence supporting charges of anti-Semitism. You know, because I'm an anti-Semite."

So am I but don`t hold your breath.
I`m still waiting for the devastating "Shermer Weapon" to make it`s appearence.
It`s just the Greek chorus with prima donna pretensions.

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by Cain
Cleopatra: I'm still patiently awaiting your evidence supporting charges of anti-Semitism. You know, because I'm an anti-Semite.

Please don't bring up the Al Franken thread, where someone asked if I was going to suck the comedian's cock. There I infamously replied, "That faggot Jew? No way." That one doesn't count because another person used it to determin I was a homophobe. (Hey, I don't make up the rules.)

Since you rarely accuse people of anti-Semitism, I know you have very compelling reasons for calling me a racist. That thread I started titled "The ability of Jews to express themselves politically" -- the one containing an article to a Jewish bombing -- just ignore that too. It doesn't count, either.

Cain There is no way for me to persuade you that you are an antisemite. You will never admit it, it's an element that distinguishes antisemites, they never admit it.

Those that don't suffer from deficiencies in reading comprehension they will agree that you have a problem with Jews.

It's enough for somebody to read your dialogue with James...

Come-on Cain it's not the end of the world! Do you know how many people are antisemites? You are not alone in this world! :)

Cleon

16th October 2003, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Cain There is no way for me to persuade you that you are an antisemite. You will never admit it, it's an element that distinguishes antisemites, they never admit it.

Perhaps. But you can convince me that Cain's an anti-semite. I've seen no evidence of it. Maybe I've missed the relevant posts/threads. Maybe I just didn't tune into it the way you did.

I've seen a nasty trend here where the accusation of being anti-semitic is thrown around fairly liberally (heh). Yet racism, even when it's most obvious, is only mentioned as something of the past.

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

Perhaps. But you can convince me that Cain's an anti-semite. I've seen no evidence of it. Maybe I've missed the relevant posts/threads. Maybe I just didn't tune into it the way you did.

No I can't convince you, you can read his posts carefully and you might agree with me.

I've seen a nasty trend here where the accusation of being anti-semitic is thrown around fairly liberally (heh). Yet racism, even when it's most obvious, is only mentioned as something of the past.

Have you seen me accusing anybody else apart form demon and Cain for antisemitism ?

Have you seen me defending AUP every time somebody accuses him of antisemtism? Maybe you have observed that AUP and I do not agree practically on anything.

Cleon

16th October 2003, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

No I can't convince you, you can read his posts carefully and you might agree with me.

*sigh* So Cleo, basically you're telling me you have no evidence whatsoever that Cain is an anti-semite. I actually haven't seen any evidence that anyone here is an anti-semite. No accusations of Jewish control of media/government/<insert Jewish conspiracy here>, no blood libel, nothing derogatory or defamatory towards Jews in general.

a_unique_person

16th October 2003, 04:33 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Cain There is no way for me to persuade you that you are an antisemite. You will never admit it, it's an element that distinguishes antisemites, they never admit it.

Those that don't suffer from deficiencies in reading comprehension they will agree that you have a problem with Jews.

It's enough for somebody to read your dialogue with James...

Come-on Cain it's not the end of the world! Do you know how many people are antisemites? You are not alone in this world! :)

I'm afraid that sounds terribly like the way you decide if someone is a witch.

Flo

16th October 2003, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I'm afraid that sounds terribly like the way you decide if someone is a witch.

I told you you were too kind with Mrs Cleopatra ...

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 04:42 AM

Cleon and AUP

Don't ground everything to the same level ok? Especially you AUP you know very well that none here is in the position to accuse me of witch hunting.

What evidence you want Cleon? A written confession by Cain that he is an antisemite?

Could you please point out to me what constitutes a proof for antisemitism for you since I must conclude that the posts of Cain above are ok with you. You don't see any problem with them.

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Flo

I told you you were too kind with Mrs Cleopatra ...

Why don't you tell us your opinion about the burned Synagogues in France instead? :)

Flo

16th October 2003, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Why don't you tell us your opinion about the burned Synagogues in France instead? :)

I did already in another thread, but since you certainly have already decided I was a closet antisemite, like all Europeans, there is no point for me to repeat it.

Cain

16th October 2003, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Cain There is no way for me to persuade you that you are an antisemite. You will never admit it, it's an element that distinguishes antisemites, they never admit it.

link to picture with cuss word, link has cuss word too (http://www.tainted-reality.net/switch/********.jpg)

Well, that's just f*cking great.

Those that don't suffer from deficiencies in reading comprehension they will agree that you have a problem with Jews.

An interesting choice of words -- *you* saying something about reading comprehension -- that kills me. It does.

Of course, if you *read* my prior post, I asked that you produce the evidence -- incriminating quotes in this case -- that (mis)lead you to believe that I am an anti-Semite. You're required to support an accusation of that nature in some form, I would think, and deliberately vague references to a three page thread doesn't quite cut it.

C'mon, you've been reading my posts closely for "quite some time" and do not accuse others of anti-Semitism "easily."

And please, no more of this "you'll never admit it" nonsense. People are indeed strongly inclined to deny groundless allegations. So far you've only accused, without even pretending to offer so much as a shred of evidence.

You only need to do this once, and henceforth we can refer ourselves and others to your definitive post. I want tackle these accusations immediately, you see, because baseless slurs of this nature have a nasty habit of taking on a life of their own.

edited by hal due to picture with cuss word in it.

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 04:52 AM

Flo

Don't play the smart especially when you are clearly not in the position of doing so. Ok ? :)

a_unique_person

16th October 2003, 04:55 AM

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 04:55 AM

Cain

When you will prove that Jews usurped the term "antisemitism" I will admit that you are not an antisemite but you are just a stubborn idiot.

demon

16th October 2003, 04:56 AM

"Why don't you tell us your opinion about the burned Synagogues in France instead?"

Why don`t you tell us about how you really feel about Arab citizens having full voting rights in France?

"Ha! Do you know how many Arabs have the right to vote in France? This is Europe my friend... the hatred for Jews and Israelites is still alive."

What`s wrong with them having the right to vote?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870004881&highlight=france#post1870004881

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I was not accusing you of going on a witch hunt. Just that saying because an anti-semite will deny they are one just confirms that they are one. The logic of it bothers me.

I didn't say that when somebody denies that he is an antisemite that makes him automatically one. I said that one of the elements that dinstinguishes antisemites is denial.

It's only a couple of posts above, read it again, please.

Flo

16th October 2003, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Flo

Don't play the smart especially when you are clearly not in the position of doing so. Ok ? :)

I admire your dedication to democracy in the form of "one person, one vote, provided I'm the person" ...

a_unique_person

16th October 2003, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I didn't say that when somebody denies that he is an antisemite that makes him automatically one. I said that one of the elements that dinstinguishes antisemites is denial.

It's only a couple of posts above, read it again, please.

But if someone was not an anti-semite and denied being one when accused of it, then you could say that of course they would deny it.

Flo

16th October 2003, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

I've seen a nasty trend here where the accusation of being anti-semitic is thrown around fairly liberally (heh). Yet racism, even when it's most obvious, is only mentioned as something of the past.

or irrelevant, or not comparable, or somehow justified. Very worrying indeed.

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by demon
"Why don't you tell us your opinion about the burned Synagogues in France instead?"

Why don`t you tell us about how you really feel about Arab citizens having full voting rights in France?

"Ha! Do you know how many Arabs have the right to vote in France? This is Europe my friend... the hatred for Jews and Israelites is still alive."

What`s wrong with them having the right to vote?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870004881&highlight=france#post1870004881

demon

I didn't expect anything better from you but what so ever. Read the whole of my post. Is this what you understand that I don't want the Arabs to vote in France?

Or that the French politicians have to please their arabic clientele that's why they don't condemn incidents of antisemitic violence?

Idiot!

demon

16th October 2003, 05:03 AM

"idiot"

awww, I`m all disappointed...you left out anti-Semite.:confused:

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by demon
"idiot"

awww, I`m all disappointed...you left out anti-Semite.

You are right! Maybe of all of your titles I should have used only this one because it covers both.

Clever and antisemite don't go together!

Cleon

16th October 2003, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Cleon and AUP

Don't ground everything to the same level ok? Especially you AUP you know very well that none here is in the position to accuse me of witch hunting.

What evidence you want Cleon? A written confession by Cain that he is an antisemite?

Could you please point out to me what constitutes a proof for antisemitism for you since I must conclude that the posts of Cain above are ok with you. You don't see any problem with them.

I didn't say "proof." I said "evidence." This is JREF. We ought to be clear there's a difference. :)

Cain's posts above, and your responses, deal with a debate on the term "anti-semitism" that frankly I find less than fascinating and have no bearing on whether he's an anti-semite or not.

What do I want as evidence? Something he said derogatory towards Jews in general. Something indicating his belief in an insidious plot by world Jewry. I mean, he has to have said something genuinely anti-Semitic, no?

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Flo

or irrelevant, or not comparable, or somehow justified. Very worrying indeed.

You know what is worrying indeed Flo is you claimings in that other thread about the position that EU kept to the Road Map plan and your crap about the political wing of Hamas.

But I didn't call you a terrorism apologist did I?

You see, it's not only Unique that is kind! :)

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 05:14 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

What do I want as evidence? Something he said derogatory towards Jews in general. Something indicating his belief in an insidious plot by world Jewry. I mean, he has to have said something genuinely anti-Semitic, no?

His claims that Jews usurped the word antisemitism in order to blacklash those who oppose to the Israeli policy are clearly antisemitic. It contains everything! It's derogatory for the Jews and it implies a conspiracy from their part.

Cain has made this claim before and it was refuted but now he claims that he didn't see that thread after he posted his crap... Ok.

This time that he was shown that he was wrong he kept insisting on his claims.

demon

16th October 2003, 05:28 AM

"You are right! Maybe of all your titles I should have used only this one because it covers both.
Clever and antisemite don't go together!"

You have a penchant for calling people "idiots", "jerks", "anti-Semites", "fools", pontificating about posters being "wrong", telling them not to reply to certain posters, putting certain posters on your ignore list, demanding posters change their thread titles because they criticize a well known Israeli plagiarist apologist, and yet you stamp your feet constantly and tell others "how" to debate and how they are "failing" in debate.

"I am shocked when I read people declaring that they enjoy bashing others... ":rolleyes:

Flo

16th October 2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

You know what is worrying indeed Flo is you claimings in that other thread about the position that EU kept to the Road Map plan and your crap about the political wing of Hamas.

But I didn't call you a terrorism apologist did I?

You see, it's not only Unique that is kind! :)

Ah, yes. Yours versus Mine. Your royal and infaillible wisdom in interpreting other's words versus my "crap" ...

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Flo

Ah, yes. Yours versus Mine. Your royal and infaillible wisdom in interpreting other's words versus my "crap" ...

Nope! I asked you to explain to me who are the persons that form the Political Wing of Hams, who represents them and which is their agenda.

You haven't replied.

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by demon
"You are right! Maybe of all your titles I should have used only this one because it covers both.
Clever and antisemite don't go together!"

You have a penchant for calling people "idiots", "jerks", "anti-Semites", "fools", pontificating about posters being "wrong", telling them not to reply to certain posters, putting certain posters on your ignore list, demanding posters change their thread titles because they criticize a well known Israeli plagiarist apologist, and yet you stamp your feet constantly and tell others "how" to debate and how they are "failing" in debate.

"I am shocked when I read people declaring that they enjoy bashing others... ":rolleyes:

Do I accuse people is general? No.

Do I accuse you in particular? Yes indeed. :)

demon

16th October 2003, 05:49 AM

"Do I accuse people is general? No."

You accussed the whole of Europe of being anti-Semite a week or so ago so are you saying they are all idiots?;)

If you can`t differentiate between an individual and a continent then I suggest you step back for a moment and take stock.

I mean "stock" not as in gravy/recipe stuff ok.

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by demon

You accussed the whole of Europe of being anti-Semite a week or so ago so are you saying they are all idiots?;)

Again you misquote me!

I mean "stock" not as in gravy/recipe stuff ok.

:) Charming indeed!

demon

16th October 2003, 06:00 AM

Cain

16th October 2003, 12:23 PM

http://arcadion.homestead.com/files/tvdrama.jpg

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Cain

When you will prove that Jews usurped the term "antisemitism" I will admit that you are not an antisemite but you are just a stubborn idiot.

Nice try. First, you can always feel free to quote my position, repeated 10 or 12 times already in this thread. I mean, I literally had to clarify line by line for a stupid fishing expedition. Here I'm just asking that you re-post a quote demonstrating my anti-Semitism. It can be from this thread or any other.

I'll take those words, the sentences(s) that show I'm an anti-Semite, and include them in my signature for all to see, in effect informing the uninitiated and reminding regulars about my insidious, racist views.

Finally, in a prior post you said I fall under the worst category of racism. I promptly asked if a violent racist was worse, but you never replied. Another rhetrocial flourish on your part? Or maybe -- just maybe -- you're sliming the opposition in a manner described -- s**t, I dunno -- 100 posts above.

:rolleyes:

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 12:31 PM

Cain

Spare me the BS.

Prove that Jews usurped the term antisemitism in order to blacklash those who "dare" to criticize Israel and then come and accuse me for what every you wish.

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Cain
I promptly asked if a violent racist was worse, but you never replied. [/B]

I did reply, you must have missed it.

Cain

16th October 2003, 01:17 PM

Ms. Cleo, I completely missed that post! You mind if I bring it up again? (I'm sure you already know that I had in fact read it, and now I'm lying like I did earlier). In all fairness to myself, there's nothing here involving violent racists.

I take the opportunity to clarify the common misconception that antisemites have devil's tail, breath flames and commit racial crimes on a daily basis.

Good show. I'm not one of them, though. I'm worse. Much, much, much worse.

As you know from yourself antisemites are ordinary people, of course not as brilliant as you are but they are people that have the common sense for sure.

I agree -- they're not as brilliant as me.

What distinguishes them is that they refuse that their beliefs and ideas promote hatred.

Actually, that's not a distinguishing mark. The distinguishing mark of an anti-Semite is that they believe a group of people is inferior based on their "race." There are many unapologetic racists, even anti-Semites, particularly on the Internet.

Also, all of them believe that they have understood "a hidden truth" and they do not resemble to others who are in denial to see the obvious.

You for example think that you have discovered a conspiracy in the use of a word that the majority has failed to see.

Oh, yes, you're referring to the conspiracy I brought up earlier. It's not as though I claimed 1) anti-Semite, as it's used by Israeli apologists against Arabs, is a nonsense word. Or 2) it's a silencing technique used to discredit critics of Israel. I never said that. Instead I posited a nefarious Jewish conspiracy, in so many words, and, of course, you have the textual evidence to support that assertion. But you prefer not to because I'll simply deny, deny, deny -- the "distinguishing" mark of a well-known anti-Semite. Got it. And if I float that makes me a... oh, never mind.

You perceive the majority as victims of those they have designed the conspiracy and that explains your slight arrogance towards the other posters.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I wasn't quite sure if I believed that.

The bias towards a specific group of people underlines all of your posts and affects your behavior in this forum.

Now, even your "humorous" remark about vegans reflects your attitude. You tend to stick on the few differences that can keep groups of people apart and not on the numerous similarities that demolish the boarders between them.

I'm not so sure what's "humorous" about my comments on veganism, other than accusations of racism in light of my kindler, gentler outlook at non-humans. But you knew I was a vegan, inspired by the philosopher Peter Singer, an Australian who happens to be Jewish. You understand this because you've "closely read" my posts. Furthermore, we all know vegans doggedly try to construct imaginary differences, and fail to recognize similarities, in all species of animals, especially humans.

This is what racists do and you are a real macoy.

You mis-spelled "macoy." Do you think this is symptomatic of larger problems? I only ask because you're the psychologist who seems to know precisely what's going in my head at all times.

Skeptic

16th October 2003, 01:30 PM

I'll take those words, the sentences(s) that show I'm an anti-Semite, and include them in my signature for all to see, in effect informing the uninitiated and reminding regulars about my insidious, racist views.

Cain, here is the chronological history of the 'antisemitism" incident:

1). Antisemites--that is, jew-haters--invent the term "antisemite" to mean "jew hater" in the late 19th century, in an effort to look more "scientific" than plain ol' jew-haters.

2). The term is used to mean "jew hating" for the last 100 years, never having any other meaning.

3). Jews, as well, use the term to mean "jew hater", just like everybody else, including the jew haters.

4). You "discover" that "semite" is not the same as "jew" (duh! REALLY???), and wrongly conclude that "anti-semite" therefore is not the same as "anti-jews".

So much for history. Now, was your next step:

a). Realizing your mistake, because you realized that English is not a formal language, and that "antisemite" doesn't mean "hates semites in general" for the same reason that "con-gress" isn't the opposite of "pro-gress"?

Nope.

b). Realizing that "antisemite" means "hater of jews" because it was ANTISEMITES who invented the term "antisemite" in the first place as a replacement for "jew-hater", so that, if anybody is to blame for it being "misleading", it's the inventors of the term, not the jews?

Nope.

c). Insist that the word "antisemite" DOES TOO mean "hater of semites" because you say so, and then insist that the evil jews are perverting its "real meaning" (which you have just discovered, and which was NEVER the way the word was used) for their nefarious pruposes?

Yup! BING BING BING BING BING!!!! That's it!

In other words, you latched onto the wrong idea that "antisemite" means "hater of semites". Then, you had two options to get out of that mess:

1). Admit (or at least realize) that you were wrong about the meaning of a word; or

2). Blame the jews for "perverting the meaning of the word" because they say it means something else than what you say.

...and guess which one did you choose?

That's right, Mr. Antisemite. You can't be wrong: it's all the jews' fault!

Cleopatra

16th October 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Cain

The monopolization of the word Semite mildly bothers me. Why are there so many self-hating Arabs?

Do you take that back, Cain?

Do you admit that you were wrong to post this crap twice in this forum and to stick on that for a couple of days?

Cain

16th October 2003, 05:19 PM

"Skeptic"-- let me say again that your screen name is a misnomer.

4). You "discover" that "semite" is not the same as "jew" (duh! REALLY???), and wrongly conclude that "anti-semite" therefore is not the same as "anti-jews". [/qutoe]

You silly fool. I perfectly realize that anti-Semite refers exclusively to hating Jews. I've argued the word makes no sense. I guess that makes me a naive reductionist. :rolleyes:

[quote] a). Realizing your mistake, because you realized that English is not a formal language, and that "antisemite" doesn't mean "hates semites in general" for the same reason that "con-gress" isn't the opposite of "pro-gress"?

An interesting analogy. The prefix "con" means "with" or "together" (think "conference"); it's sort of different than the prefix "contra" (or "contro"), which means "against."

We're not dealing with neutral words here. If my Palestinian friend never registered his objections to the term, I would continue to use it. But out of respect and sensitivity to Arabs, who have expressed similar sentiments to me, anti-Semite quite clearly implies that they are not Semites. One of these words, the one that doesn't make a great deal of sense, is used regularly the press. Do a keyword search on (say) the NYTimes for "anti-Semitism"; then perform another search for "Semitism."

b). Realizing that "antisemite" means "hater of jews" because it was ANTISEMITES who invented the term "antisemite" in the first place as a replacement for "jew-hater", so that, if anybody is to blame for it being "misleading", it's the inventors of the term, not the jews?

I love how you put certain words in quotes as though I actually said them. This is the second time now.

2). Blame the jews for "perverting the meaning of the word" because they say it means something else than what you say.

The third instance

Did you once work for Pravada by any chance?
_________________________________

I wrote:
The monopolization of the word Semite mildly bothers me. Why are there so many self-hating Arabs?

Cleopatra blathers:
Do you take that back, Cain?

Yes. In light of my recently discovered racism, I want to say that it doesn't "mildly bother me," but rather, I am incensed. The very word sends me into apoplectic fits of rage. (You can freely quote any of this for future reference, by the way.)

Do you admit that you were wrong to post this crap twice in this forum and to stick on that for a couple of days?

No. I'm afraid I don't see the malice in the quote. Maybe I have to read it in context. Oh, wait(!)- that *is* the extent of my original comments!

As I said, I want to include a really damning quote in my sig. Can you please find something a little more... malicious.

Mycroft

16th October 2003, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Cain
Finally, in a prior post you said I fall under the worst category of racism. I promptly asked if a violent racist was worse, but you never replied. Another rhetrocial flourish on your part? Or maybe -- just maybe -- you're sliming the opposition in a manner described -- s**t, I dunno -- 100 posts above.

A point that seems to be overlooked in this argument.

I would put forth that the non-violent racist who provides seemingly rational arguments to promote hatred is indeed worse than a violent racist. The second type can be quickly dealt with according to the rule of law, the first type can change society to where the second type doesn't need to worry about rule of law.

renata

16th October 2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Cain

Did you once work for Pravada by any chance?

Psst....Pravda

I wrote:
The monopolization of the word Semite mildly bothers me. Why are there so many self-hating Arabs?

True.

But let's not forget:

The term anti-Semite, as used in popular political discourse, is monopolized by apologists of Israel to slime others.
and

Of course I realize the word, as it's used now, does not concern Arabs. That's because it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.
and
The word is used nearly exclusively by Jews (as opposed to once being used by anti-Jews).

and

It's a politicized word to demonize critics of Israel as racists.
and

But the term has been monpolized by Jews, mostly for political purposes.

And I, unlike Cleopatra or Skeptic or perhaps others on the forum would not call you an anti-Semite. I have no idea whether you are or not. But you are being perhaps a little wilfully naive here, no? Or perhaps a little caught, and somewhat proud and cannot retreat. Happens to all of us.

Now, I thought the whole meaning of the word was already resolved with JamesM? Is it or is it not?

Cleopatra

17th October 2003, 12:28 AM

Renata

If it was for somebody else, I wouldn't make the comment but Cain belongs to the category of posters that is arrogant towards others, he implies that he has a better knowledge on everything and above all he is not a decent debater.

I accept that he wasn't obliged to know the meaning of the word ( although this is strange for somebody who reveals plagiarists( sic) ) but when James pointed to him again in this thread his mistake he insisted on his stupididty.

It's his belief and this belief is antisemitic. Period.

He will have to post clearly, putting his silly attempts to play the smart aside, that he takes it back. Otherwise I am entitled to call him an antisemite based on the beliefs he posted here.

renata

17th October 2003, 12:41 AM

Cleopatra,

I fully accept that he very well may be an antisemite. I have no idea one way or the other. I just do not like calling anyone that, or a racist, a bigot, a chauvinist or even a woo-woo (as you may recall from another thread of mine) based on a belief expressed on a message board. I believe someone may be mistaken, trolling, uninformed, may not express themselves clearly- there are a myriad of possibilities. And even if someone does indeed hold an unsavory belief, that does not necessarily make them that thing entirely. In other words one can hold a single racist belief without being a racist, I think. Finally, even if one is a pure racist, they never admit it, and so calling them out just makes a debate- are- am not- are to. A true racist, just like a true woo woo is beyond reach. So the fruitful discussion is for people who are observers.

It just seems that although Cain and James reached an understanding on this issue a few pages back, it has not settled this matter. It seems to me he will never admit what you want him to admit. However, I did not intend to interfere with your interaction, my apologies :)

JamesM

17th October 2003, 01:08 AM

Hello there, Cain. I'm listening to Noam Chomsky (and Edward Said) as I type this.

Once again, you are claiming that the only point you made was that the word 'anti-semite', as a definition for Jew-hatred was a bit silly, as Arabs are Semites, too.

WE ALL AGREE. No need to keep repeating it. This is not the source of our disagreement. Once again, I will remind you what the contention is here, it's your repeated claims about why the word 'anti-semitism' means what it does now and who is responsible.

Think this is a fishing expedition? It's only that way because you keep bringing the subject up again, and I will continue to challenge you to back up your claims. Ready for another ride on the merry-go-round?

Some quotes, from you, Cain, handily collected by Renata:
But the term has been monpolized by Jews, mostly for political purposes
and
it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.
I challenged you on this, where you have clearly equated 'Jews' and 'apologists for Israeli atrocities'. And you said that it was because you were trying to think of new ways to say 'apologists for Israeli crimes' and at least you hadn't said 'the Jews'. That was the extent of your explanation. No withdrawal, certainly no apology (although I admit it's unlikely you would do the latter). Treating the word 'Jews' and 'apologists for Israeli crimes' synonymously could certainly be interpreted as anti-semitism. That you don't disagree with some Jews is not germane to the discussion.

As for the claim that Jews monopolised the word, you have lately also claimed that it has been monopolised to only refer to Jews. Instead of acknowledging the error of the previous statement, withdrawing it, or apologising for it, you merely replied 'fine whatever' to my challenge. I have no idea from this response whether you acknowledge the difference, feel your old view was a mistake and withdraw it.

When a Jew-hater coins an illogical word to describe Jew-hatred, and then you hold Jews responsible for its meaning, and then make another related claim without clear apology or withdrawal of the old statement, that also could be interpreted as anti-semitism.

I am not prepared to accuse you of anti-semitism. But these ambiguous and evasive comments leave considerable room for doubt about your intentions when you make your false claims.

Cain

17th October 2003, 02:55 AM

Mycroft writes:
I would put forth that the non-violent racist who provides seemingly rational arguments to promote hatred is indeed worse than a violent racist. The second type can be quickly dealt with according to the rule of law, the first type can change society to where the second type doesn't need to worry about rule of law.

An image may help capture my reaction:

http://www.martinspoint.org/images/headache.jpg

You do realize, then, that a proselytizer of hate is only effective (evil) in so far that she promotes conditions ripe for violence, right?

Such verbal contortions are uninteresting.

_______________________________
Renata provided a helpful sampling of quotes that prominently display my own brand of unhinged racism. Nevertheless, she fails to conclude that I am indeed an anti-Semite. It should now be obvious to all that Renata is herself an anti-Semite. I'm not going to bother getting her to confess because we already know an anti-Semite will deny the undeniable.

_______________________________

Ms. Cleo, ignoring Renata's naked anti-Semitism writes:

If it was for somebody else, I wouldn't make the comment but Cain belongs to the category of posters that is arrogant towards others, he implies that he has a better knowledge on everything

I admit this is true. Of course, Cleo, you should always consider the possibility that I am, at least at times, being sarcastic. Hey, I'm just throwin' it out there.

and above all he is not a decent debater.

An obvious lie.

I accept that he wasn't obliged to know the meaning of the word ( although this is strange for somebody who reveals plagiarists( sic) ) but when James pointed to him again in this thread his mistake he insisted on his stupididty.

Your claims grow more hilarious with each post. Remember when I created the "Alan Dershowitz, plagiarist" thread, and someone said it was already discussed in the longish thread on Finkelstein? I lied (right?) and said something to the effect, "Oh, gosh, I had no idea..."

On another forum I posted a link that had already appeared on another board. Our very own "Unrepententsinner" huffed and puffed to the effect, "That's already been posted before. Sheesh!!"

But I love how failing to squander any more of my time on these silly boards makes me "stupid." That's great.

_______________________________

James volunteers the following non-essential, unsolicited information:

Hello there, Cain. I'm listening to Noam Chomsky (and Edward Said) as I type this.

I'm not impressed. But then again, I do not impress easily. If it's a panel discussion moderated by David Barsamian and includes Norman Finkelstein and Robert Fisk, okay, then I might be impressed.

After requoting Renata's unambiguously incriminating quotes, James writes:

I challenged you on this, where you have clearly equated 'Jews' and 'apologists for Israeli atrocities'. And you said that it was because you were trying to think of new ways to say 'apologists for Israeli crimes' and at least you hadn't said 'the Jews'.That was the extent of your explanation. No withdrawal, certainly no apology (although I admit it's unlikely you would do the latter). Treating the word 'Jews' and 'apologists for Israeli crimes' synonymously could certainly be interpreted as anti-semitism. That you don't disagree with some Jews is not germane to the discussion.

Now I completely disown that explanation because you've obviously torn my words from context. Searching for the relevant paragraph, I couldn't find the line above line including "Jews" anywhere in this thread (outside of quotations). In point of fact, it appears in the thread three months ago, and there's nothing equating "Jews" to "apologists for Israel" there. (I do remember searching for a synonym for the cumbersome "apologists for Israel," for the sake of variety, and thought, in light of your quotation, I may have lazily said "Jews"; but of course I didn't. Any "equating" of the two was manufactured by your own imagination.)

[other nonsense snipped]

I've addressed all of this ad nauseum. I never claimed Jews were responsible for originating any type of misunderstanding. The word is wielded primarily to silence people critical of Israel, and *perpetuates* misunderstanding. As I first stated, and continually note, the absurdity only mildly bothers me. Assuming the words "Semite" and "anti-Semite" completely disappeared from the english language, what would signficantly bother me is that apologists for Israel would continue to accuse others of racism.

Cleopatra

17th October 2003, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Cain
Assuming the words "Semite" and "anti-Semite" completely disappeared from the english language, what would signficantly bother me is that apologists for Israel would continue to accuse others of racism.

bwahahahahahahaha

And you dare to complaign for my calling you racist?

Tsk tks tsk

a_unique_person

17th October 2003, 03:09 AM

There are two issues.

1) The term anti-semitic is not a good label, as it is not correctly indicating that it really refers to someone being anti-Jewish.
2) There is a knee jerk reaction to call anyone critical of Israel anti-semitic. Because I criticise Israel, I am anti-semitic and want all the Jews in Israel killed.

Cain

17th October 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

bwahahahahahahaha

And you dare to complaign for my calling you racist?

Tsk tks tsk

:rolleyes:

See, kids: Drugs are bad.

JamesM

17th October 2003, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Cain
Now I completely disown that explanation because you've obviously torn my words from context.
No I haven't, but if you insist. If you want the quote in its full context, here's the whole paragraph for one quote:
It's funny how most of you regularly fail to capitalize Semite. And no, I've never seen this pointed out. Of course I realize the word [anti-semite - JM], as it's used now, does not concern Arabs. That's because it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities. (My avatar of Chomsky has nothing to do with nothing.)
Emphasis mine, my addition in italics. It doesn't seem to change the meaning to me. You still associate the word 'anti-semite' with 'apologists for Israeli atrocities'. And here's the paragraph for the other quote:

Semite-
A person belonging to the race of mankind which includes most of the peoples mentioned in Gen. x. as descended from Shem son of Noah, as the Hebrews, Arabs, Assyrians, and Aramæans. Also, a person speaking a Semitic language as his native tongue.

But the term has been monpolized by Jews, mostly for political purposes. Are you criticizing Israeli atrocities? You're an anti-Semite!
Emphasis mine. Is this sufficiently in context for you? That quote still has the same meaning to my eyes: the term 'anti-semite' has been monopolised by Jews.
Searching for the relevant paragraph, I couldn't find the line above line including "Jews" anywhere in this thread
Neither I nor anyone else said you claimed that in this thread. Why would that be necessary? As shown above, you identified those you held resonsible for monopolising the word 'anti-semitism' in another thread as 'Jews', and then identified them as 'apologists for Israel' in this thread.
Any "equating" of the two was manufactured by your own imagination.
No. It was manufactured by the quotes you made. They're as plain as day, the context is exactly as they say: who is reponsible for monopolising the meaning of the word 'anti-semite'. Jews in one thread, apologists for Israel in the other.
In point of fact, it appears in the thread three months ago, and there's nothing equating "Jews" to "apologists for Israel" there.
Correct. But taken together with the quotes in this thread, they do equate. They both followed directly from your erroneous claims about the connection of the words 'semite' and 'anti-semite'.
I may have lazily said "Jews"; but of course I didn't.
But of course you did, a few months ago. Unless you've changed your mind about who is responsible for monopolising the word in the mean time. Have you? Will you therefore withdraw the claim that it is Jews?
I've addressed all of this ad nauseum.
You've obfuscated and evaded ad nauseum. If you had addressed the points we still wouldn't be in the same position. Put up or shut up.
I never claimed Jews were responsible for originating any type of misunderstanding.
Great! No-one is suggesting that, as far as I can see. I'm certainly not. I'm claiming two things:

1. You equated 'Jews' with 'apologists for Israeli atrocities'.

2. You stated that Jews are responsible for the meaning of the word 'anti-semitism', by monopolising it.

I have presented proof for these assertions in abundance in this thread. But I have not restricted myself to taking quotes from this thread only - why on earth should I?
The word is wielded primarily to silence people critical of Israel
You're now going back on what I thought we'd previous agreed, that the word is used to mean anti-Jewish activities in areas of Jew-hatred unrelated to Israel. It is not wielded primarily to silence people critical of Israel. This is not addressing the point ad nauseum, this is repeating assertions without evidence ad nauseum. Show that evidence.

Stop claiming that you didn't make those claims. You did. Either back them up with evidence or withdraw them.

JamesM

17th October 2003, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There are two issues.

1) The term anti-semitic is not a good label, as it is not correctly indicating that it really refers to someone being anti-Jewish.
2) There is a knee jerk reaction to call anyone critical of Israel anti-semitic. Because I criticise Israel, I am anti-semitic and want all the Jews in Israel killed.
Correct, in that those are two issues, among many. They are not the issues I am pulling Cain up over.

Cain

17th October 2003, 08:12 AM

I've already addressed all of these quotations, often at great length.

Emphasis mine, my addition in italics. It doesn't seem to change the meaning to me. You still associate the word 'anti-semite' with 'apologists for Israeli atrocities'.

Well, of course I do, as I've already explicitly stated on countless occasions. It's a method of intimidation.

Emphasis mine. Is this sufficiently in context for you? That quote still has the same meaning to my eyes: the term 'anti-semite' has been monopolised by Jews.

Once again, anti-Semite is used repeatedly to silence and discredit critics of Israel's racist policies. The defintion for Semite, offered two times from separate sources on different occasions, shows what all of us know: there are many non-Jewish Semites. The slur employed by apologists for Israel implies otherwise, and makes little sense in regards to Arab critics.

That's about the extent of my comments. Both posts were uncharacteristically short.

I see you've continued the policy of butchering my quotations like a member of a South American death squad. (Earlier I called myself a reductionist as a point of irony).

Neither I nor anyone else said you claimed that in this thread. Why would that be necessary? As shown above, you identified those you held resonsible for monopolising the word 'anti-semitism' in another thread as 'Jews', and then identified them as 'apologists for Israel' in this thread.

*sigh* Many different groups have legitimate claims to the word "Semite," but it's associated in the popular media with only one of these groups. A person might say that one group has a monopoly on the term because of it's exclusive association. Do the above comments imply an insidious Jewish conspiracy of some kind? If you try very hard to deliberately read that point of view in, I guess so. I'm sure a post-modernist at a first-rate literature department could develop equally valid -- that is, equally absurd -- views from the quote in question as a statement on Madonna's latest music video and society's changing perceptions of women.

This sort of despicable, lurid obsession is precisely what critics have been talking about for years.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1902593774/qid=1066402411/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_2/102-9350025-4161762?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I unapologetically retract nothing, and eagerly await any serious evidence unambiguously supporting equally unambigious accusations.

(A significant part of me wishes to close-off submissions from the congenitally insane, but then that would reduce the number of claims to exactly zero.)

Great! No-one is suggesting that, as far as I can see. I'm certainly not. I'm claiming two things:

1. You equated 'Jews' with 'apologists for Israeli atrocities'.

Oh yes, in the quote from three months ago. I see. This is why, for instance, before I even bothered to find that thread, I had said, very matter-of-factly, that some of the most important critics of Israel are also Jewish. One even appears in my avatar.

You're basically a clown.

2. You stated that Jews are responsible for the meaning of the word 'anti-semitism', by monopolising it.

Yes, that's exactly what I said! You even quoted it! The equivocation here is rather appalling.

As always, I'm read to help in our search for D.M.W.s (Deliberately Manipulated Words). I recall a thread on Einstein's article in the journal _Monthly Review_ about socialism. For a long time my sig featured a quote by Einstein from this article, but that was a transparent attempt at misdirection to my clever pursuers. I'm sure you'll find a veritable warehouse of racist remarks there.

JamesM

17th October 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Cain
I've already addressed all of these quotations, often at great length.
No. You have repeated yourself without evidence at great length, as you continue to do.
I said:
You still associate the word 'anti-semite' with 'apologists for Israeli atrocities'.
and you replied:
Well, of course I do, as I've already explicitly stated on countless occasions.
So, when I quoted the following from you:
it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.
and you complained that I had quoted you out of context, that wasn't actually the case at all?
Once again, anti-Semite is used repeatedly to silence and discredit critics of Israel's racist policies.
A matter of debate, but I agree with you. Your claim was somewhat different, however:
The word is wielded primarily to silence people critical of Israel
Still wrong. I gave you evidence of its use in anti-Jewish violence. If you claim that it is more commonly used as a smear tactic, present that evidence.
all of us know: there are many non-Jewish Semites.
As stated several times, a point of substantial agreement - I am unaware of any dissenting voices, in fact. So why mention it yet again?
I see you've continued the policy of butchering my quotations like a member of a South American death squad.
As you complained about context, I requoted your posts in their surrounding paragraphs. I'm beginning to think it might be the content, rather than context which is troublesome.
A person might say that one group has a monopoly on the term because of it's exclusive association.
A person might. He might also take a care not to say that the a group has monopolised the term, as that implies that they have had an active hand in bringing about that state of affairs. One statement is fine, the other can be interpreted as anti-semitic. You have made both statements. Perhaps you should withdraw the latter.
This sort of despicable, lurid obsession is precisely what critics have been talking about for years.
I know it's in your interest to present this as a witch-hunt by rabid pro-zionists, but the truth is simple: if you make false claims, I will call you on them to back them up. Keep on making them, I keep on calling on you.
I had said, very matter-of-factly, that some of the most important critics of Israel are also Jewish.
Which makes your statement equating apologists for Israel with Jews even more contradictory. Perhaps you should withdraw that statement.
Yes, that's exactly what I said! You even quoted it! The equivocation here is rather appalling.
What do you mean? You said that Jews monopolised the word 'anti-semitism'. Therefore they are the ones doing the monopolising. Hence they are responsible for that monopolisation. If there's a problem with that chain of logic, I will withdraw my accusation.

Meanwhile, instead of making assertions about my motives, you could back up your claims with evidence. Or withdraw them.

Tony

17th October 2003, 09:00 AM

Jew-haters have always been around; sadly it (and anti-Americanism) appears to be the bigotry du jour, especially for the fanatical left. You don’t have to get it, just realize it is irrational and unfounded.

Every time I come across a potential jew-hater I have to say: "Where would you rather live? In Israel, where they have free speech, democracy, gays are tolerated, women are respected, where kids dance in clubs. or would you rather live in Saudi Arabia? Where woman are treated like cattle, where gays are executed, where girls are stoned to death for having sex, where alcohol is illegal, an where a fundamentalist religion rules. After thinking about that for about 30 seconds, they soon realize jews aren’t so bad.

renata

18th October 2003, 05:43 PM

This goes to people who say there is no antisemitism in US. Speaking of antisemitic remarks...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-forum18oct18,1,5229421.story?coll=la-home-leftrail

But Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut was pelted with jeers as he brought his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination to an Arab-American leadership conference in this Detroit suburb on Friday.
....
"Go home to Tel Aviv," one woman called in disgust as Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, cast Israelis as victims of Palestinian terrorism.

....

When the moderator asked Lieberman about Israel's policy of bulldozing homes in Palestinian territory after suicide attacks, an Arab American in the audience shouted out: "Isn't that terrorism?"

"It's not terrorism," Lieberman responded, to a crescendo of boos. Instead, the senator called the Israeli actions "regrettable" and "heartbreaking."

"He makes me so mad," said Hanan Rasheed, a Palestinian activist from Danville, Calif. During Lieberman's speech, she derided him under her breath, at one point muttering: "He is such a Jew."

Someone was commenting on how can one tell if someone is an antisemite. In my mind, a person who mutters "He is such a Jew" is pretty much sealed herself as an antisemite.

Cleopatra

19th October 2003, 07:22 AM

I came to check if racist Cain took back his stupid antisemitic theories.

Why am I not surprised that he didn't?

Cain

19th October 2003, 08:08 AM

http://www.micruscorp.com/images/headache.jpg

Now I've progressed from merely racist statements to entire theories. All apart of being the worst kind of racist, I suppose. Never did see you cite the offensive text.

:rolleyes:

Anyway, dimwit, you have won the first ever "You're a Goddamn F**king Moron" award. The committee that nominates and grants the prize, a secretive group of influential Jews headed by yours truly, is not fond of speech making, but you are allowed to say a few kind words before accepting the award.

P.S. it's difficult -- impossible even -- to "take back" racist statements I have not made.

Edited to remove sig, which violates Forum language rules. -- Pyrrho

Mr Manifesto

19th October 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Cain

Now I've progressed from merely racist statements to entire theories. All apart of being the worst kind of racist, I suppose. Never did see you cite the offensive text.

Anyway, dimwit, you have won the first ever "You're a Goddamn F*****g Moron" award. The committee that nominates and grants the prize, a secretive group of influential Jews headed by yours truly, is not fond of speech making, but you are allowed to say a few kind words before accepting the award.

P.S. it's difficult -- impossible even -- to "take back" racist statements I have not made.

It would seem that English is her second language. I'd cut her some slack.

Cleopatra

19th October 2003, 08:11 AM

To Cain the racist :

This thread has proven that you are not as smart as you think you are.

Will you take your antisemitic theories back?

JamesM

19th October 2003, 08:37 AM

Cain,

In this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870005378#post1870005378) post you said, of antisemitism:
the term has been monpolized by Jews, mostly for political purposes.
Here, by claiming that Jews have monopolised the word, you hold Jews responsible for the meaning of the word 'antisemitic'. That is a comment that could be interpreted as antisemitic.
Additionally, in this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870134199#post1870134199) post you said, of antisemitism:
the word, as it's used now, does not concern Arabs. That's because it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.
This clearly equates 'Jews' with 'apologists for Israeli atrocities'. This could be considered an antisemitic remark.
A separate claim is the one you made about the word in this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870142232#post1870142232) post:
The word is wielded primarily to silence people critical of Israel
According to Randi's rules of engagement, as paraphrased by BillHoyt here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870105854#post1870105854), you can either

- present your evidence for these claims

or

- say that you believe it without evidence
- state that you refuse to answer

in these two latter cases, I'll let it go.

Alternatively, you can withdraw some of these statements.

Cain

19th October 2003, 10:06 AM

I am reminded of the now cliched observation that commentators -- true believers -- are far more critical to the fulfilliment of prophecies than messengers.

All of these claims have been addressed, in depth, more than once.

Here, by claiming that Jews have monopolised the word, you hold Jews responsible for the meaning of the word 'antisemitic'. That is a comment that could be interpreted as antisemitic.

If I was so inclined I could link to the post describing a monopoly on the word (I believe you should refer to the post that uses the word "singular"). As in it has a singular meaning.

Three months later I write: the word, as it's used now, does not concern Arabs. That's because it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.

This clearly equates 'Jews' with 'apologists for Israeli atrocities'. This could be considered an antisemitic remark.

Uh-huh. It does. Here I am reminded of how lawyers are taught to manipulate audiences by using words like "obviously" and "clearly" to outline relationships that are neither obvious nor clear.

Additionally, in this post you said, of antisemitism:

[snip hilarious lecture about Randi's rules of engagement]

Of course anti-Semitism is wielded to silence critics of Israel. I'm not sure what type of evidence you want to support this observation (would this thread count?).

I called the above "hilarious" because I've been accused of racism and nothing has been forthcoming to support such risible accusations. If you want to debate the what the meaning if "is" is, fine, I guess. I've already gone through at length clarifying and addressing specific sentence after specific sentence. There is, therefore, no reason to "withdraw" these statements.

It's instructive to compare this localized non-incident with Gregg Easterbrook's comments on _TNR's_ weblog.

Edited to remove Cain's sig, which contains a prohibited word. This will continue until Cain edits his sig, or his sig is edited by the Administrators. -- Pyrrho

JamesM

19th October 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Cain
All of these claims have been addressed, in depth, more than once.
So far all you have done is to deny you made those claims.
Of course anti-Semitism is wielded to silence critics of Israel. I'm not sure what type of evidence you want to support this observation.
I don't want evidence for that. I want evidence that it is primarily used to silence critics of Israel - that is the claim you made. In relation to this evidence you say:
(would this thread count?).
Please clarify who it is that is trying to silence you. If you are suggesting that my posts to this thread consist of that evidence, I would appreciate it if you would come out and say it explicitly - I shall add that to the list of your claims.
I've already gone through at length clarifying and addressing specific sentence after specific sentence. There is, therefore, no reason to "withdraw" these statements.
What you've done is to deny you've made those claims, which is false on its face. Additionally, you assert that you were quoted out of context. I therefore requoted your claims with the full paragraphs they came with, yet you still claimed to be quoted out of context.

What you have also done is point to other statements you've made that contradict the claims under discussion here, which is not the same as clarifying these statements.

I lean towards the interpretation that your original claims were poorly worded and do not have the meaning that they appear to. Which makes it all the stranger to me why you don't withdraw those claims. Either prove them or withdraw them. Or state that you have no evidence or that you refuse to answer.

Perhaps a Larsen List (tm) would be in order.

Pyrrho

19th October 2003, 12:36 PM

Cain, use of the "F" word is prohibited on this Forum. I've edited your post accordingly. Please remove it from your "sig" as well. If you don't, I'll edit your posts to eliminate your 'sig'.

edited to add: Cain's sig removed from post until editing is done by Cain or by the Forum administrator.

hal bidlack

19th October 2003, 04:51 PM

Cain,

I have edited your sig. Please remember that you can't cuss here. You can hold any view you want, but you can't cuss. I have also edited more cussing, and a picture with a banned word as part of it. Please read my PM and follow the request therein.

hal

Cain

19th October 2003, 07:09 PM

I don't want evidence for that. I want evidence that it is primarily used to silence critics of Israel - that is the claim you made.

It's the [i]primary[i] function, which is to say, "main purpose." Nobody defends the person who scrawls offensive graffitti on the wall of a synogogue. But if somebody criticizes Israel, the Jewish state, the only democracy in the middle east, they're often labelled anti-Semitic, or their words are subjected to stunning interpretations to prove hidden anti-Semitism. My previous statements have been elaborated on to an extent in this thread that I've experienced no where else. Ever.

Please clarify who it is that is trying to silence you.

It's incredible how you molest the meaning of words and cannot see beyond the narrowest interpretations. I've produced nearly identical sentences but used the word "slimed" and "smeared" instead of "silence." So which is it, right? A contradiction! Are you getting slimed or silenced?

So when I repeat myself in slightly different words, then the story has changed. If I attempt to flesh out the original expression in nearly identical terms, then I'm merely repeating myself. Got it.

[snipped summary nonsense related to the below]

I lean towards the interpretation that your original claims were poorly worded and do not have the meaning that they appear to. Which makes it all the stranger to me why you don't withdraw those claims. Either prove them or withdraw them. Or state that you have no evidence or that you refuse to answer.

You do understand the purpose and meaning of elaboration, do you not? When an author (or judge or anyone) clarifies the intention and expression of previous writing, that update (of sorts), for purposes of understanding, does in fact supercede the original. I refuse to "withdraw" what any remotely sane person would probably term non-controversial. Moreover, with respect to all the verbiage that now clutters this God-forsaken thread, my intentions should be sufficiently clear (again, with the exception of the congenitally insane and the irrevocably stupid).

____________________________

I thank the admins for their vigiliance in ferreting out dirty, uncalled for language. Somebody could get offended.

LucyR

19th October 2003, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Cain

Moreover, with respect to all the verbiage that now clutters this God-forsaken thread, my intentions should be sufficiently clear (again, with the exception of the congenitally insane and the irrevocably stupid).

Yes, but what about the terminally indolent? I like your style but am too lazy to read the whole thread. Would you mind writing a brief summary?

Mycroft

19th October 2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Cain
You do realize, then, that a proselytizer of hate is only effective (evil) in so far that she promotes conditions ripe for violence, right?

Two things:

1) Violence is not the only evil that can come from racism.

2) Your pointing out that a proselytizer of hate can promote violence does not in any way take away from the contribution of the proselytizer, nor does it alter my point.

JamesM

20th October 2003, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Cain
It's the [i]primary[i] function, which is to say, "main purpose."
Evidence?
Nobody defends the person who scrawls offensive graffitti on the wall of a synogogue.
And how does that make the primary use of the word 'antisemitic' refer to smear tactics against critics of Israel?
It's incredible how you molest the meaning of words
You have posted dictionary definitions of words several times. Why then do you object to being held to those definitions?
I've produced nearly identical sentences but used the word "slimed" and "smeared" instead of "silence." So which is it, right?
I don't know, you came up with the sentences, I'd hope you would know. 'Silenced' and 'smeared' mean two different things. Once again, if you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have typed it.
So when I repeat myself in slightly different words, then the story has changed.
If it gives a different meaning to your words, then yes.
If I attempt to flesh out the original expression in nearly identical terms, then I'm merely repeating myself. Got it.
Not quite. If you all you do is repeat the statement, then you are merely repeating yourself. Proof of your assertions is what is required.
When an author (or judge or anyone) clarifies the intention and expression of previous writing, that update (of sorts), for purposes of understanding, does in fact supercede the original.
That won't do, Cain. This is a messageboard, it is standard practice for your claims to stand until you acknowledge their error or withdraw them. The same goes for everyone. Making further claims does not replace your old claims, it adds to them. At no point have you said "no, that's not what I meant, what I really meant was..." - perhaps you should have.

But even if I accept this form of 'clarification', I am now confused by your complaint that I mentioned 'silencing' rather than 'sliming'. By the statement you gave above, your comments about 'sliming' and 'smearing' critics of Israel have been 'superceded' by your use of the word 'silencing', but you have complained that I didn't mention 'silencing' or 'smearing' in my last reply. Are you now saying that those comments have not been superceded, despite you 'clarifying'? I think it would be clearer if you just withdrew claims that you acknowledge are in error.

I refuse to "withdraw" what any remotely sane person would probably term non-controversial.
That Jews are responsible for the meaning of 'anti-semitism'? You thinks that's non-controversial? It's wrong. And could be construed as anti-semitic. Given how seriously you take being accused of anti-semitism, I would have thought you would want to leave no doubt about your meaning by clearly withdrawing that statement.

But as you have laid down some new rules on how to interpret your posts, I shall invite you to reply one further time to a question. I shall put it in yes/no format so there should be no ambiguity in your 'clarification':
But the term has been monpolized by Jews, mostly for political purposes
Were you wrong to claim that?

Additionally, please provide evidence that the word 'anti-semitism' is primarily used to 'silence' ('smear'? 'slime'? Take your pick) critics of Israel.

Additionally, please provide evidence to meet your claim that the word 'anti-semitism' has been used to silence, smear or slime critics of Israel in this thread.

Cain

20th October 2003, 07:04 AM

Here we go again. This is complete bunk. To take an instructive example:

I don't know, you came up with the sentences, I'd hope you would know. 'Silenced' and 'smeared' mean two different things. Once again, if you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have typed it.

Have you ever seen a forest in your life? Or maybe forests don't really exist. Where's the evidence, right? Think for a moment, openly and honestly, about a possible relationship between these two words. Hmmm... silenced, smeared; smeared, silenced... hmmm... Maybe -- just maybe -- as a way of muting criticism of Israel (editor's note for dummies: "muting" is related to "silencing"), apologists resort to smearing individuals as racists. Read that again slowly if you don't understand.

By the statement you gave above, your comments about 'sliming' and 'smearing' critics of Israel have been 'superceded' by your use of the word 'silencing', but you have complained that I didn't mention 'silencing' or 'smearing' in my last reply.

:rolleyes: While it has been a great pleasure indulging this utter nonsense, this verbal diarrhea, I no longer wish to deprive some deserving villiage the incumbency of their resident idiot. (editor's note for dummies: that's you, James!) Try as you will, the "You are a Goddamn F*cking Moron" award is limited to one winner per month.

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/healthjournal/mar_apr_97_hj/images/art_images/headache.gif

JamesM

20th October 2003, 08:07 AM

"muting" is related to "silencing"
So, when you said 'sliming' and then later said 'silencing', that wasn't one of your 'clarifications' and does not supercede the old statement?

But when you said Jews and then you said 'apologists' for Israeli crimes, that was a clarification and it does supercede the old statement? Sorry, but how are we supposed to tell the difference?

And what then was your problem with me asking who was trying to 'silence' you on this thread, when you complained that you had also used 'smear' and 'slime'?

Just provide proof of your assertions, Cain. Your claims about antisemitism remain. Here they are again for you:

the term has been monpolized by Jews, mostly for political purposes
it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.
The word is wielded primarily to silence people critical of Israel
Additionally, you claim there is evidence in this thread of the use of the word to silence critics of Israel.

Please provide evidence for all or any of these claims. Alternatively, state that you believe these claims without evidence, or that you refuse to answer. Or you can withdraw some or all of them.

As a reminder, failure to withdraw or provide evidence for your claims will leave you open to charges of anti-semitism.

Mycroft

20th October 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Cain
:rolleyes: While it has been a great pleasure indulging this utter nonsense, this verbal diarrhea, I no longer wish to deprive some deserving villiage the incumbency of their resident idiot. (editor's note for dummies: that's you, James!) Try as you will, the "You are a Goddamn F*cking Moron" award is limited to one winner per month.

For the most part I’ve been staying out of this discussion. The issue itself, in my opinion, is pretty trivial and not worth arguing about. I just have to inject the following point:

Cain, it makes no sense for you to go on and on about how stupid other people are when you’re the one being dense.

You made the statement. Back it up or don’t. Calling others stupid just because they correctly point out that you haven’t offered anything except your own opinion in support only makes you appear immature.

Cleopatra

21st October 2003, 03:18 AM

Just a reminder to Cain :)

originally posted by JamesM

Just provide proof of your assertions, Cain. Your claims about antisemitism remain. Here they are again for you:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the term has been monpolized by Jews, mostly for political purposes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word is wielded primarily to silence people critical of Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, you claim there is evidence in this thread of the use of the word to silence critics of Israel.

Please provide evidence for all or any of these claims. Alternatively, state that you believe these claims without evidence, or that you refuse to answer. Or you can withdraw some or all of them.

As a reminder, failure to withdraw or provide evidence for your claims will leave you open to charges of anti-semitism.

Cain

21st October 2003, 05:29 AM

I received a few PMs on this topic, which is relatively rare for me. Both advised against taking any greater role in this "farce." I mean, "silence" and "slime"? :rolleyes: Satire will be in a coma until next weekend.

As a reminder, failure to withdraw or provide evidence for your claims will leave you open to charges of anti-semitism.

These are the dictates of a would-be commissar and do not dignify any sensible reply. If accused of anti-Semitism (unsupported, as usual), I will personally refer all interested undecided parties to this comical thread, urging them to read it from beginning to end. Assuming these fair-minded souls are not stranded in ESL thrall (Cleopatra), or so narrow-minded as to be flat-headed (James), or me-too hanger-ons utterly incapable of original and intelligent thought (Mycroft), I confidently welcome the expected conclusions.

JamesM

21st October 2003, 06:12 AM

"Silence", "slime", as I said, take your pick. You said it, I'm asking you to prove it. Perhaps if you put even a fraction of the effort into this matter as you do into putting pictures into your posts or second-hand insults, we might have got somewhere by now.

The only dictate occurring here is the standard one that happens when someone (you) makes a claim and then someone else (me) asks for evidence. Randi's rules of engagement are clear, no matter if you choose to dismiss them. I can keep on challenging you until you provide evidence, state that you believe the claims without evidence, or state that you refuse to answer.

You've made an anti-semitic comment. If you don't want to dignify your claims further, that's fine. If you don't want to be labeled an anti-semite, that's also fine. But you can't have both.

I do regret having made such a mountain out of a molehill. But I don't see why you should make your claims unchallenged. I'm sure it was not your intention to make anti-semitic comments, but that is what they look like. Therefore I continue to ask you to withdraw them.

edited to remove a spurious 'and'

Cleopatra

21st October 2003, 10:17 AM

I received a couple of PMs on this topic which is not rare for me.Both advised to remind little Cain who is in a period of his life that tries to built a character that he cannot spew his hatred unchallenged.

So Cain just a reminder my dear :)

originally posted by JamesM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just provide proof of your assertions, Cain. Your claims about antisemitism remain. Here they are again for you:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the term has been monpolized by Jews, mostly for political purposes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it's monopolized by apologists for Israeli atrocities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word is wielded primarily to silence people critical of Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, you claim there is evidence in this thread of the use of the word to silence critics of Israel.

Please provide evidence for all or any of these claims. Alternatively, state that you believe these claims without evidence, or that you refuse to answer. Or you can withdraw some or all of them.

As a reminder, failure to withdraw or provide evidence for your claims will leave you open to charges of anti-semitism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mycroft

21st October 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Cain
… Assuming these fair-minded souls are not stranded in ESL thrall (Cleopatra), or so narrow-minded as to be flat-headed (James), or me-too hanger-ons utterly incapable of original and intelligent thought (Mycroft), I confidently welcome the expected conclusions.

I think someone is trying to monopolize the terms thrall, narrow-minded and hanger-on to silence opposition, a common knee-jerk slime tactic employed by critics of the state of Israel.

:roll:

JamesM

22nd October 2003, 02:13 AM

This is a reply to a post by Cain, which can be found here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870150092#post1870150092). I take responsibility for letting this spill onto another thread. Again, my apologies.
Ah, yes, the whole "I'd like to think it wasn't intentional" deceit.
It's not a deceit. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I am unsure what response other than "blanket denials" are appropriate for unsupported allegations of a pernicious nature.
My claims are not unsupported. Perhaps you need to be reminded of your quotes again?
I knew this nonsense would reassert itself again -- further reason for believing the blatant, nasty smear tactic
It's not a smear tactic, because you have made an anti-semitic claim, despite what your intentions may have been. And the reason it's been reasserted is because you refuse to back up your claims or withdraw them. I'm perfectly within my rights to do this, according to Randi's rules on challenging versus harrassing.

Note that when TillEulenspiegel withdrew the quote he had falsely attributed to Ariel Sharon, I accepted that, and have made no accusations of anti-semitism against him. Therefore your accusations about my motives are entirely unfounded. Much like your other claims.
For the nth time, as I've made clear in no uncertain terms, not an ounce of animus was intended in these comments
Actually, this is the first time I've seen you make such a statement. Perhaps you could point to just one other post where you have stated that - I've just read through every one of your posts on this thread and failed to find any such sentiment.

Cleopatra

22nd October 2003, 02:24 AM

I am sorry James but I do not see why the political views of Cain should not be interpreted under the prism of his openly expressed antisemitism.

Cain is an antisemite and when he discusses the Middle Eastern conflict his views are coloured by his racism since one of the implicated parts of the conflict is the subject of his prejudice.

JamesM

22nd October 2003, 02:25 AM

It's also worth considering another of Cain's claims with regard to his statements, that he originally made here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870149222#post1870149222)
my posts, their origin and intent... it's usually pretty clear to me, you know, being the author and all.
In this post, Cain, you appear to be claiming that quotes don't mean what they say, they mean what you intended them to say. So when you said:
the term has been monpolized by Jews, mostly for political purposes.
that doesn't necessarily mean that the term has been monopolized by Jews, but means what you intended it to, something that none of us can judge except by the words you put on screen.

It almost goes without saying, but this is supremely illogical. I'm not a fan of BillHoyt's Totles award, but perhaps, if nominated, you would take the opportunity to either justify or correct yourself?