Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

Options
1…2122242627…70

Comments

  • Options
    #692
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    In other news, Britain has adopted a new, wider definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism. It means that even criticising Israel could be deemed anti-Semitic. I don't believe a similar standard exists for criticism of the Vatican. Strange, that.

    "UK adopts official anti-Semitism definition as attacks rise", was the headline on Sky News. Official definition, as though it has the approval of anti-Semites. Also note the mention of a supposed rise in attacks, so even before you've read the article they already have you believing this development is necessary. Of course, it's a myth that the Jews have control of the media.


  • Options
    #693
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    In other news, Britain has adopted a new, wider definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism. It means that even criticising Israel could be deemed anti-Semitic. I don't believe a similar standard exists for criticism of the Vatican. Strange, that.

    "UK adopts official anti-Semitism definition as attacks rise", was the headline on Sky News. Official definition, as though it has the approval of anti-Semites. Also note the mention of a supposed rise in attacks, so even before you've read the article they already have you believing this development is necessary. Of course, it's a myth that the Jews have control of the media.

    You had me in full agreement there. This new law is an impingement on free speech. Then BOOM anti Semitic conspiracy theory nonsense.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #694
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Sand wrote: »
    I think its the street violence, the identification of an 'other' who is not entitled to the rights of citizenship and can and should be justifiably attacked violently and even killed. Its probably the only decent point made in the whole video.

    A small vanguard of violent activists of course, but if that weirdo had managed to kill Trump lets not pretend there would not have been an orgy of celebration on social media to rival the gloating that greeted Thatchers death.

    Utter nonsense. By this logic every violent protestor is a fascist. I don't agree with using violence to further a political agenda, but it's not the sole preserve of fascists.

    The anti Trumo protesters were not creating and "other" to blame for their problems. They were protesting Trump doing it. This video is so arse backwards it makes my head hurt. People who protest intolerance are fascists? It's complete and utter nonsense.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #695
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    midnight city wrote: »
    He makes some good points in the first half of that video.

    1) He isn't a white supremacist; he just believes that "white culture" should be "supreme" in the US.

    2) The US was "defined" by Anglo-Protestants - well, ok - even if you totally ignore (i) indigenous peoples (ii) the variety of other European countries present in North America and focus on the British colonial period as the "starting point" of the "definition" of the US, the colonists were from a varied religious/ethnic background and brought salves with them from a very early period.

    3) White college kids aren't getting jobs because of diversity. Well, that's statistically horse ****.


  • Options
    #696
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,285 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    In other news, Britain has adopted a new, wider definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism. It means that even criticising Israel could be deemed anti-Semitic. I don't believe a similar standard exists for criticism of the Vatican. Strange, that.

    "UK adopts official anti-Semitism definition as attacks rise", was the headline on Sky News. Official definition, as though it has the approval of anti-Semites. Also note the mention of a supposed rise in attacks, so even before you've read the article they already have you believing this development is necessary. Of course, it's a myth that the Jews have control of the media.

    You'll find few people who wouldn't be, at the very least, disturbed at this "criticising Israel" equalling this "anti-Semitism".

    However, then you fcuk it all up with this -> "it's a myth that the Jews have control of the media".

    Well done.

    It isn't the "media" that makes laws. That'll be government, who at the moment is the Conservatives. So, aim at your targets better. This is probably a move triggered by lobbying from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and other Jewish groups in Britian that have been looking to have this move in place for quite some time. Not to mention Israel itself, who have also been seeking to hide behind the anti semitism slur to deflect from their more nefarious actions in Palestine.

    If you're looking to blame something, blame the right thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #697
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Tony EH wrote: »
    You'll find few people who wouldn't be, at the very least, disturbed at this "criticising Israel" equalling this "anti-Semitism".

    However, then you fcuk it all up with this -> "it's a myth that the Jews have control of the media".

    Well done.

    It isn't the "media" that makes laws. That'll be government, who at the moment is the Conservatives. So, aim at your targets better. This is probably a move triggered by lobbying from the Board of Deputies of British Jews and other Jewish groups in Britian that have been looking to have this move in place for quite some time. Not to mention Israel itself, who have also been seeking to hide behind the anti semitism slur to deflect from their more nefarious actions in Palestine.

    If you're looking to blame something, blame the right thing.

    It's a given that Jewish lobby groups were behind this move. Theresa May also used it as a stick to beat Labour with, given the recent accusations fired at them.

    I'm pointing out how the media frame it, that the Jews are under attack and we must protect them from evil.


  • Options
    #698
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,285 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Adjust your aim.

    The media reports have been quite clear, by and large, and some have been outright critical of the move.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/anti-semitism-theresa-may-new-definition-jewish-council-holocaust-society-israel-criticism-palestine-a7470166.html


  • Options
    #699
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Hang on a second. The definition of anti-semitism adopted by the British government (among others) is:
    “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
    Where's the mention of criticism of Israel?


  • Options
    #700
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Hang on a second. The definition of anti-semitism adopted by the British government (among others) is: Where's the mention of criticism of Israel?

    The guidance from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, who supplied the definition, says it could include criticisms which target Israel, if this was “conceived as a Jewish collectivity”. Even though Israel explicitly defines itself as a Jewish state.


  • Options
    #701
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    The guidance from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, who supplied the definition, says it could include criticisms which target Israel, if this was “conceived as a Jewish collectivity”. Even though Israel explicitly defines itself as a Jewish state.

    The Home Affairs Select Committee made this recommendation:
    We recommend that the IHRA definition, with our additional caveats, should be formally adopted by the UK Government, law enforcement agencies and all political parties, to assist them in determining whether or not an incident or discourse can be regarded as antisemitic.

    ‘Additional Caveats’ (point 3)

    We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate. The definition should include the following statements:

    It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

    It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

    The British government's response was:
    Government has agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition on anti-Semitism. We believe that references within the definition stating that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” are sufficient to ensure freedom of speech.

    So I ask again: how exactly is the British government equating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #702
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The Home Affairs Select Committee made this recommendation:

    The British government's response was:

    So I ask again: how exactly is the British government equating criticism of Israel with anti-semitism?

    It's in the very piece you quoted, criticism of Israel could be deemed anti-Semitic if they believe that is one's intent.

    From the BBC: "Sir Eric Pickles, the UK's envoy for post-Holocaust issues, told the BBC that the new definition addressed "modern" forms of anti-Semitism.

    He said that holding Jewish people "accountable for what's happening in Israel" was one example."

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38281950


  • Options
    #703
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    Anyone who thinks race is a loaded term should not be discussing anything to do with races until they have shed their hang ups.


  • Options
    #704
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    It's in the very piece you quoted, criticism of Israel could be deemed anti-Semitic if they believe that is one's intent.

    Well, yes. If the intent is anti-semitic, then that's anti-semitism. Not sure what the problem is.


  • Options
    #705
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Well, yes. If the intent is anti-semitic, then that's anti-semitism. Not sure what the problem is.

    The problem is that people will be increasingly hesitant to criticise Israel, lest they be charged with hate crime. No other nation has this level of protection afforded to them.


  • Options
    #706
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    The problem is that people will be increasingly hesitant to criticise Israel, lest they be charged with hate crime. No other nation has this level of protection afforded to them.

    I have no hesitation in criticising Israel. All I have to do is not be anti-semitic when I do so. It's not actually hard.


  • Options
    #707
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    No other nation has this level of criticism directed at them.

    Thread's great-many Jew haters outing themselves in one place.


  • Options
    #708
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Widdershins wrote: »
    No other nation has this level of criticism directed at them.

    Thread's great-many Jew haters outing themselves in one place.

    Mod:
    Didn't know there were many!

    Cut it out please.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #709
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I have no hesitation in criticising Israel. All I have to do is not be anti-semitic when I do so. It's not actually hard.

    See what I mean? Even discussing criticism of Israel leads to accusations of being a "Jew-hater". Many people will simply not stick their head above the parapet anymore.


  • Options
    #710
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,286 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Widdershins wrote: »
    Anyone who thinks race is a loaded term should not be discussing anything to do with races until they have shed their hang ups.

    Race is a loaded term, it has nothing to do with "hang ups".

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Options
    #711
    Widdershins
    Registered Users Posts: 10,633 ✭✭✭✭Widdershins


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    See what I mean? Even discussing criticism of Israel leads to accusations of being a "Jew-hater". Many people will simply not stick their head above the parapet anymore.

    Ok I'll post in a language the posters here seem to understand. Bull****!

    And to quote another more sensible poster: ''I have no hesitation in criticising Israel. All I have to do is not be anti-semitic when I do so. It's not actually hard.''


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #712
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    See what I mean? Even discussing criticism of Israel leads to accusations of being a "Jew-hater".

    I'm going to go out on a limb and speculate that espousing conspiracy theories about Jewish-controlled media is much more likely to lead that way.


  • Options
    #713
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 38,726 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Again, keep on topic and away from interracial differences.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Options
    #714
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    Why didn't the British Government just include the Home Affairs Select Committee recommendations then? They don't appear to have changed the text at all which their own experts say could mean anti-Israel or anti-Zionist commentary being prosecuted as anti-Semitic.


  • Options
    #715
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,935 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Brian? wrote: »
    Racially aware? Do tell.

    He should be careful what he wishes for.


  • Options
    #716
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    He should be careful what he wishes for.
    Why the history lesson? Which countries have racist laws right now and what races do they discriminate against?


  • Options
    #717
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,935 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    osmiumartist wrote: »
    Why the history lesson? Which countries have racist laws right now and what races do they discriminate against?

    A poster was getting euphoric about the prospect of "more and more people are becoming racially aware". Do you really think that WASP believers in racial quackery won't try to distinguish themselves from other white ethnic groups?


  • Options
    #718
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,371 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    osmiumartist wrote: »
    Why the history lesson? Which countries have racist laws right now and what races do they discriminate against?

    Racism doesn't require laws to exist.


  • Options
    #719
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Racism doesn't require laws to exist.
    But you don't think countries where racism is enshrined in law are more likely to be racist? Really?


  • Options
    #720
    AnGaelach
    Registered Users Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭AnGaelach


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    He should be careful what he wishes for.

    Well it's a good thing we're considered white now, isn't it? :o


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #721
    osmiumartist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 916 ✭✭✭osmiumartist


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    A poster was getting euphoric about the prospect of "more and more people are becoming racially aware". Do you really think that WASP believers in racial quackery won't try to distinguish themselves from other white ethnic groups?
    They might. They might not. You've said WASP specifically instead of just "white" to load the question I suppose?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement