Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

Americans should be really scared. Since October Trump's polling started to overreach Biden. What happened in October? Since then Trump has steadily increased his lead. What happened in October? People are starting to call Biden "genocdie Joe". What happened in October? The entire world except UK and USA is asking for a ceasefire. What the F happpened in October? and what has Trump said about foreign policy? Trump will not win because he is Trump. He's going to win because he is NOT Biden. Welcome to Project 2025

[Pattern-chaser]

But you know as well as I do that "discrimination" is also (in recent times) used as a catch-all term for the -isms — racism, misogyny, ageism, religion-ism (?), and so on. And you also know that's the meaning I intended when I wrote the above, I think?

Yes, I know.

The point of describing both usages and the difference between them is to make clear that these -isms involve a value judgment as to relevance.

OK, but why not just say so the first time? Then I would've known what you were getting at?

So if we see anti-semitism as one of the -isms, then we might conclude that anyone who can honestly say that they don't care that Israel is a Jewish ethno-state is not anti-semitic.

Whereas anyone whose view of Israel's recent actions re Gaza is coloured by their dislike of the notion of a Jewish state is being discriminatory in your sense - judging on the basis of an irrelevant criterion.

It's ironic that you should refer to the 'dualism' of "discrimination" carrying two distinct meanings, as it does, and then go on to use the term "anti-Semitism", which wrongly conflates anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli feeling. And the trouble with that is, as we all must know (?), that anti-Jewish sentiment is religionism, while anti-Israeli feeling is valid and acceptable political criticism.

[Good_Egg]

anti-Jewish sentiment is religionism, while anti-Israeli feeling is valid and acceptable political criticism.

Anti-Israeli statements are "valid and acceptable political criticism" as long as they apply the same standards to Israel as to any other nation-state.

Applying different standards because they're Jewish is an example of the wrong of discrimination (in the modern sense).

Even if the statements themselves are otherwise reasonable. People may have different ideas about the "rules of war". That's legitimate. If applied consistently.

In just the same way as criticising a film by a female director is OK if one applies the same standards as one would to any other film. But is sexist if one applies different standards because the creator is a woman.

Whether the prejudice is religious or racial or anything else is beside the point. The wrong is in the double standard.

[Pattern-chaser]

...anti-Jewish sentiment is religionism, while anti-Israeli feeling is valid and acceptable political criticism.

Anti-Israeli statements are "valid and acceptable political criticism" as long as they apply the same standards to Israel as to any other nation-state.

Yes, of course.

Applying different standards because they're Jewish is an example of the wrong of discrimination (in the modern sense).

Again, complete agreement.

The wrong is in the double standard.

We don't disagree over any of this. And none of it is contrary to what I have said, unless you spotted something I missed?

[Sy Borg]

Anyone who focuses on the Palestinian situation without equivalent concern for Sudan, Yemen, Central African Republic, Syria and Yemen is either:

1) anti-Semitic

2) slavishly following mainstream media

3) has strong links to those hotspots.

[Pattern-chaser]

Anyone who focuses on the Palestinian situation without equivalent concern for Sudan, Yemen, Central African Republic, Syria and Yemen is either:

1) anti-Semitic

2) slavishly following mainstream media

3) has strong links to those hotspots.

4) participating in a discussion specifically aimed at Judaism and "anti-Semitic" statements.

[Sy Borg]

Hello I have been here the whole time. I know what happened. This discussion happened due to anti-Semitism:

1) There were obvious anti-Semitic attitudes both in the media and on the forum after the Palestine terror attack

2) Complaints that the inordinate focus on Israel's misdeeds, while ignoring everyone else's misdeeds, is inherently anti-Semitic, whether intended or not.

[Good_Egg]

Sy Borg , I'm not convinced that having a greater interest in one foreign country and the events therein than in other places itself constitutes a double standard.

To say that some atrocity in Yemen is more or less immoral because they're not Jewish is a double standard.directly related to Jewishness.

To say that some atrocity in Yemen is more or less immoral because we have higher expectations of "civilised" or more-developed or more-westernised countries is a double standard that is not directly related to Jewishness but may accidentally work to the detriment of Israel.

But to know less about and be less interested in Yemen isn't a double standard at all. Nobody is equally well-informed about all parts of the world. We have no duty to be equally concerned about every corner of the globe.

Our standards of conduct are not based on some lowest common denominator. An act does not become morally legitimate because it is happening unremarked somewhere else. To decline to engage with what is happening in Yemen is not to condone it.

Your or my or anybody else's non-engagement with what's happening in Timbuktu does not constitute a valid argument about any matter elsewhere that we do choose to engage with and discuss.

Pattern-chaser , my question for you would be about discrimination. Is it only discrimination if it is directly motivated by explicit ill-feeling towards the particular group ? Or Is it possible, in your view, to be accidentally antisemitic ? By adopting an irrelevant double standard that only incidentally disadvantages Jews ?

[Sy Borg]

I think that a laser focus on Palestine with tremendous intensity, while not showing any interest in other atrocities indicates some kind of distortion, be it bigotry against Jews, or at least the inclusion of Jews as "honorary whites" as regards white self-hatred and self-flagellation based on Marxist guilt as The Oppressor. The Oppressor is worthless and always evil, subjugating their invariable unimpeachable victims.

A person need not be bigoted themselves to focus on only Israel's misdeeds, but they will almost certainly be influenced by the many media bigots who present Palestinian tragedies daily and Sudanese tragedies once a decade. Note that many Sudanese have commented on this disparity, and understandably so.

There's no public outpouring of sympathy if one's Oppressor is of neither European nor Jewish descent.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser , my question for you would be about discrimination. Is it only discrimination if it is directly motivated by explicit ill-feeling towards the particular group ? Or Is it possible, in your view, to be accidentally antisemitic ? By adopting an irrelevant double standard that only incidentally disadvantages Jews ?

I'm sure one could be accidentally discriminatory.

[Pattern-chaser]

Hello I have been here the whole time. I know what happened. This discussion happened due to anti-Semitism:

1) There were obvious anti-Semitic attitudes both in the media and on the forum after the Palestine terror attack

2) Complaints that the inordinate focus on Israel's misdeeds, while ignoring everyone else's misdeeds, is inherently anti-Semitic, whether intended or not.

Please will you clarify the meaning you intend by "anti-Semitism"?

It could mean anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, or even anti-Palestinian. Which of these meanings do you intend, in your words above?

Thanks.

[Sy Borg]

Hello I have been here the whole time. I know what happened. This discussion happened due to anti-Semitism:

1) There were obvious anti-Semitic attitudes both in the media and on the forum after the Palestine terror attack

2) Complaints that the inordinate focus on Israel's misdeeds, while ignoring everyone else's misdeeds, is inherently anti-Semitic, whether intended or not.

Please will you clarify the meaning you intend by "anti-Semitism"?

It could mean anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, or even anti-Palestinian. Which of these meanings do you intend, in your words above?

Thanks. 🙏

You already know what it means. Don't play games.

[Good_Egg]

I'm sure one could be accidentally discriminatory.

So if one adopts an irrelevant double standard

(for example asserting that nations more than a hundred years old have a right to exist and defend themselves but those less than a hundred years old must be considered as wrongful occupiers of the land)

And that double standard works to the disadvantage of Jews

(Who for most of history have had no land, no nation of their own)

Then that constitutes accidental antisemitism ?

[Pattern-chaser]

Hello I have been here the whole time. I know what happened. This discussion happened due to anti-Semitism:

1) There were obvious anti-Semitic attitudes both in the media and on the forum after the Palestine terror attack

2) Complaints that the inordinate focus on Israel's misdeeds, while ignoring everyone else's misdeeds, is inherently anti-Semitic, whether intended or not.

Please will you clarify the meaning you intend by "anti-Semitism"?

It could mean anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, or even anti-Palestinian. Which of these meanings do you intend, in your words above?

Thanks.

You already know what it means. Don't play games.

No, I don't know, and it matters a lot to this discussion. Anti-Jewish rhetoric is discrimination. Anti-Israeli rhetoric is political criticism of a nation state. The difference is crucial.

E.g. my personal position is that I would never knowingly discriminate on the basis of religion, sex, age, etc. But I consider myself free to criticise Israel, as I would criticise any nation's actions, including my own UK. The difference between
"Anti-Semitic" = anti-Jewish,
and
"Anti-Semitic" = anti-Israel
is very, very important.

So which meaning do you intend, in your words, above?

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm sure one could be accidentally discriminatory.

So if one adopts an irrelevant double standard

(for example asserting that nations more than a hundred years old have a right to exist and defend themselves but those less than a hundred years old must be considered as wrongful occupiers of the land)

And that double standard works to the disadvantage of Jews

(Who for most of history have had no land, no nation of their own)

Then that constitutes accidental antisemitism ?

TBH, that all seems a bit vague. But if one should discover one has discriminated accidentally, one should reconsider one's position, and make reparation for the mistake if that is appropriate, possible, and practical. Is that an adequate answer to your words?