Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old June 24th, 2012 #21
Max_
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Because anti-Semitic is the correct term:
Hmm, that's debatable. From a purely functional perspective, anti semitic implies opposition/criticism etc to semites, which wouldn't be the most practical term to use if you are only concerned with opposing Jews.

Quote:
anti-jewish is largely meaningless as it can mean *literally* anything.
It can? but don't you yourself sometimes use the term?

Again, from the same functional perspective, anti-Jewish is a pretty appropriate term for someone opposing Jews specifically.

Quote:
Look up the whole anti-Semitism, anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism debate if you want to understand why I use the term.
Got a link? was it a thread on VNN or something?

Quote:
Also anti-Semitic was originally a positive term not a negative one: hence because of its history and that it is the correct term; intellectually speaking, I use it.
It was originally a positive term?

I ask this because I often like to force distinctions and specifics in debates, and to a lesser extent in conversations(friendlies deserve a little more communicative flexibility I think), partly because I've found it to be a particularly useful thing to do when people are complaining about and/or accusing you of anti-semitism, but also because I am a fan of specifics, even more so in an age plagued by what I would call verbal subjectivism ('hate speech', 'racism', 'extremism' etc).

But of course I do understand that this can be preferred for the sake of consistency and tradition in academia.
 
Old June 25th, 2012 #22
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max_ View Post
Hmm, that's debatable.
Well to give you a counter example: if I were to use to say I was opposed to the use of dialectic. You might might say well fine, but what dialectic is that? Socratic, Hegelian, Marxist etc?

The same applies with anti-Semitism in so far as yes it is an older term, but it is the term that historically means what it says on the tin: opposition to the jews based on their biological origins.

Quote:
From a purely functional perspective, anti semitic implies opposition/criticism etc to semites,
Originally yes, but it is now solely understood to refer to jews although I would personally prefer to widen it once again to cover what we can broader term the 'Semitic' peoples such as Arabs in addition to the jews, but that is my personal preference.

Quote:
which wouldn't be the most practical term to use if you are only concerned with opposing Jews.
In terms of literal meaning perhaps no, but in terms of colloquial meaning it is.

For example pedophile is the American corruption of paedophile: now anybody who knows some Latin knows that pedophile literally means 'lover of feet' while paedophile means 'lover of children'. However the former is more commonly used globally; I do believe, than the latter.

From your perspective then using the term pedophile is wrong, because it functionally refers to a subject or object in; what can be perceived as, a generally incorrect way.

If you see my point?

Quote:
It can?
Well think about it a moment: what does 'anti-jewish' mean to you?

It can mean any or all of five separate oppositions: biological (anti-Semitism), religion (anti-Judaism), a separate jewish national identity (anti-Zionism [one definition]), to the state of Israel (anti-Zionism [another definition]) or a separate jewish culture (assimilationism).

Quote:
but don't you yourself sometimes use the term?
Indeed I do, but only in the context of my use of the term anti-Semitism. In essence I make clear which meaning my use of anti-jewish fits into, but without doing that it can mean anything.

Quote:
Again, from the same functional perspective, anti-Jewish is a pretty appropriate term for someone opposing Jews specifically.
Not really as it doesn't define 'jewish' unless done in the context of one of the above.

Your argument assumes an absolute and commonly understood definition of what 'jewish' means, but orthodox halakhah says one thing, liberal jewish sects say different, more hard-line jewish sects say something else, Israel uses something different altogether and then you've got the whole 'lost tribes' issue (such as the whole Ethiopian, Chinese, Indian, Dagestan jews thing not to mention the Karaites).

Quote:
Got a link? was it a thread on VNN or something?
No: I was referring to the fairly considerable debate in academic journals and works about how we split the different types of opposition to jews exactly. If you like I can suggest some reading you could get via ILL and WorldCat?

Quote:
It was originally a positive term?
Oh yes: it was invented by critics of jews to distinguish between their modern attacks on the jews (i.e. based on the jews as a people) rather than older Christian attacks on jews (i.e. based on Judaism as a religion). Its use of popularised by Theodor Fritsch (although innovated in the 1840s by a German economist and then also coined in the 1860s by Wilhelm Marr) via his newspaper 'Anti-Semitic Correspondence' (and then his 'The Hammer') among other things.

It was commonly used as a positive term up till 1945 and then it became a forgotten victim of 'holocaust' of a sort.

Quote:
I ask this because I often like to force distinctions and specifics in debates, and to a lesser extent in conversations(friendlies deserve a little more communicative flexibility I think),
As do I: especially as many of the people flinging terms around don't even know what they mean.

Quote:
partly because I've found it to be a particularly useful thing to do when people are complaining about and/or accusing you of anti-semitism,
Yup and a powerful rhetorical tool is actually to say: 'Yes and?'

As that stops them in their tracks because they expect you to go on the defensive and then it gives you a nice opening. It depends with whom you are dealing with though to be fair.

Quote:
but also because I am a fan of specifics, even more so in an age plagued by what I would call verbal subjectivism ('hate speech', 'racism', 'extremism' etc).
Agreed: a possibly unintended function of Marxism's love of undefined 'isms' and more recently 'phobias'. Kind of ironic for a self-described 'scientific ideology' that can't even make up its mind what so fundamental a term to its case as 'proletariat' means in the context of social demographics.

Quote:
But of course I do understand that this can be preferred for the sake of consistency and tradition in academia.
I can understand this, but there is a reason the terms and the ideas behind them are so contentious, because there really is a need to differentiate intellectually even if there is not popularly (as semantics are pointless in the popular arena other than as a rhetorical device).
__________________
 
Old June 25th, 2012 #23
John sholtes
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 655
Default

Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion - Complete AudioBook

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL15A3A244DE2148EC
 
Old June 26th, 2012 #38
Max_
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl Radl View Post
Well to give you a counter example: if I were to use to say I was opposed to the use of dialectic. You might might say well fine, but what dialectic is that? Socratic, Hegelian, Marxist etc?

The same applies with anti-Semitism in so far as yes it is an older term, but it is the term that historically means what it says on the tin: opposition to the jews based on their biological origins.
Only within the context of the tradition itself. The words themselves imply a far wider scope however for semitic obviously would include non jewish semites.

Quote:
Originally yes, but it is now solely understood to refer to jews although I would personally prefer to widen it once again to cover what we can broader term the 'Semitic' peoples such as Arabs in addition to the jews, but that is my personal preference.
Well not always, I find myself mostly using semitic to mean what it actually means.

Perhaps you could make a point of forcing the distinction in your work, that kind of thing afterall is what what ground breaking is all about, and why be a stickler to tradition for the sake of tradition? especially when the tradition itself can be quite misleading.

As I've said before, I find forcing the distinction to be very helpful.

Quote:
In terms of literal meaning perhaps no, but in terms of colloquial meaning it is.

For example pedophile is the American corruption of paedophile: now anybody who knows some Latin knows that pedophile literally means 'lover of feet' while paedophile means 'lover of children'. However the former is more commonly used globally; I do believe, than the latter.

From your perspective then using the term pedophile is wrong, because it functionally refers to a subject or object in; what can be perceived as, a generally incorrect way.

If you see my point?
I think that's actually a very good example.

I understand that language really is just an often imperfect medium for communication and that as time goes on language drift and corruption will occur, with new meanings being associated to words and phrases (over the top, decked, blitzed etc). For that reason, amongst friendlies or in informal environments, I am quite easy going giving people the benefit of the doubt etc. Against opponents however or in formal environments when specifics and technicalities matter, I find myself increasingly leaning towards specifics for the sake of practicality and function but also to fend off the kind of destructive and counter productive nonsense that marxist/post-modernist/anti-reality types often try to inject into conversations. (funny, everythings a social construct until they need emergency surgery - then suddenly the closed minded scientific realists etc aren't such 'fascists' after all)

In the case of pedophile vs paedophile I would strongly encourage the correct spelling.

This issue interestingly enough touches on the subject of just why the study of Greek and Latin isn't perhaps as 'useless' as some would argue. Especially when so many insist on using Greek and Latin terms.

But that's a rant for a different day lol.


Quote:
Well think about it a moment: what does 'anti-jewish' mean to you?

It can mean any or all of five separate oppositions: biological (anti-Semitism), religion (anti-Judaism), a separate jewish national identity (anti-Zionism [one definition]), to the state of Israel (anti-Zionism [another definition]) or a separate jewish culture (assimilationism).
Excellent question. It's for this reason that I have considered using hebrew instead of Jewish (but even this could have potential flaws - but I do feel it more accurate) for many people still (and understandably so) are under the impression that the term 'Jewish' refers only to a religion (Hitler seemed to be under this impression himself at one point in his youth) and not also to an ethnic group/bloodline and culture.

Similar to the argument in favour of anti-semitism, the term Jewish has specific enough associations and common understanding for it to be used quite effectively, but while it is technically more specific than anti semitism, a more specific term could be found for one concerned with criticism/opposition to the Jewish ethnicity.

In the case of anti zionism, and the way in which it is often (and deliberately?) conflated/confused with anti-semitism, I feel that this plays right into the hands of the enemy, so stressing the distinction can sometimes be a simple defensive necessity. Why play into the hands of the enemy?

Quote:
Indeed I do, but only in the context of my use of the term anti-Semitism. In essence I make clear which meaning my use of anti-jewish fits into, but without doing that it can mean anything.
Sure. But it does seem to come down to the context and/or assuming that someone is familiar with the subject, and while a discussion/debate with someone that speaks the language has a fairly strong understanding of the words and their various associations, it still doesn't change the fact that 'jewish' is more specific than 'semitic'.

But a problem can emerge when one actually is opposed to semitic people as a whole...haha.

But I do understand that it seems to be used as part of being consistent within the tradition of academic anti-semitism.

Quote:
Not really as it doesn't define 'jewish' unless done in the context of one of the above.

Your argument assumes an absolute and commonly understood definition of what 'jewish' means, but orthodox halakhah says one thing, liberal jewish sects say different, more hard-line jewish sects say something else, Israel uses something different altogether and then you've got the whole 'lost tribes' issue (such as the whole Ethiopian, Chinese, Indian, Dagestan jews thing not to mention the Karaites).
In fairness my post didn't imply complete certainty (as evidenced by "pretty appropriate"). I am generally very cautious about making certain statements and when I wrote this I was very much aware that more specific terms could be identified, though it is still debatable as to what they could be.

While term Jewish could mean a lot of different things specifically, those specific things would still be Jewish and thus 'pretty' appropriate, whereas Semitic can mean a lot of things that aren't Jewish.

Quote:
No: I was referring to the fairly considerable debate in academic journals and works about how we split the different types of opposition to jews exactly. If you like I can suggest some reading you could get via ILL and WorldCat?
Yeah sure. Why not. Could be interesting to see how others have approached this particular subject.

Quote:
Oh yes: it was invented by critics of jews to distinguish between their modern attacks on the jews (i.e. based on the jews as a people) rather than older Christian attacks on jews (i.e. based on Judaism as a religion). Its use of popularised by Theodor Fritsch (although innovated in the 1840s by a German economist and then also coined in the 1860s by Wilhelm Marr) via his newspaper 'Anti-Semitic Correspondence' (and then his 'The Hammer') among other things.

It was commonly used as a positive term up till 1945 and then it became a forgotten victim of 'holocaust' of a sort.
I see.

Quote:
As do I: especially as many of the people flinging terms around don't even know what they mean.
The "fascist" and "nazi" conflation is a fun one.

Quote:
Yup and a powerful rhetorical tool is actually to say: 'Yes and?'

As that stops them in their tracks because they expect you to go on the defensive and then it gives you a nice opening. It depends with whom you are dealing with though to be fair.
Sure, boldness can work well too, but I often feel that such a thing is like saying "this is my position, and that is your position, let the battle commence", however, before such a thing can unfold (and to be honest, with some people there's no real getting around such an ideological clash) it can be helpful to corrode the framework of their beliefs by probing questions, as if to say "do you even know what your actually believe? do you even have an ideological position on this subject or are you just another time wasting whiner?". Things like this can effectively wear them out before they even get a chance to begin attacking your own positions.

I suppose it's like heavily assaulting an army as it tries to muster.

If you probe people enough you will at some point or another likely find an area of ignorance or an error, for who is truly omniscient and omnipotent? and sometimes it is just better to smile about it and deal with it, but those with immense levels of arrogance, a problem all too commonly found amongst opponents of racialism and ethnic nationalism etc, such a tactic can work wonders.

It may seem like a nasty tactic, and perhaps it is, but it isn't like the enemy are above using nasty tactics themselves.

But in the case of stressing a distinction between semitic, jewish, hebrew, zionism, (or whatever it is you are talking about), it does have a practical significance as well making this tactic distinct from semantics for the sake of semantics.

Quote:
Agreed: a possibly unintended function of Marxism's love of undefined 'isms' and more recently 'phobias'. Kind of ironic for a self-described 'scientific ideology' that can't even make up its mind what so fundamental a term to its case as 'proletariat' means in the context of social demographics.
Haha, you've got to love the way "race doesn't exist" yet an ambiguous class complete with uniformity of opinion and attitude (unless we are talking about the "lumpenproletariat" - lol ) does. In the UK the term 'working class', judging by the way in which the term is regularly used, has basically evolved from meaning "workers, not employers" to "stupid people", which makes one wonder just what class politics is really all about.

Here is a question, though it is kinda off topic: How much of the Marxist - post modernist and Jewish problems be viewed as symptomatic of psychosis and/or schizophrenia? or various personality/mental disorders in general?

I have suspected for some time now that the Jews have a hereditary psychosis/schizophrenia problem, which could explain their famed ability to lie with extreme conviction, twist words and contradict themselves.

In this case, forcing these people (jew or otherwise) to be very specific and objective in arguments, can be viewed as a deliberate assault on their very nature, capitalising on a common psychological impairment of these people.

Quote:
I can understand this, but there is a reason the terms and the ideas behind them are so contentious, because there really is a need to differentiate intellectually even if there is not popularly (as semantics are pointless in the popular arena other than as a rhetorical device).
I still think the specifics and distinctions are pretty important and definitely worth stressing in conversations/debates with people inside or outside of a formal/academic arena, however I think my questions have more or less been answered.

So thanks for answering.
 
Old March 27th, 2013 #39
Karl Radl
The Epitome of Evil
 
Karl Radl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
Posts: 3,130
Karl Radl
Default

Umberto Eco and his Fictional Case against the Protocols of Zion
__________________
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 PM.
Page generated in 0.13530 seconds.