Israel Advocating Limiting Free Speech In USA ??

[rosends]

It's in the nature of cartoons to be pithy....using brevity of wit.

Some shorthand is too short. Using stereotypes, for example, can be a useful story tellling tool or an offensive group-association.

When the fundamental problem is the over-sensitivity of
some, the cure lies with them, not with everyone else.

That might be true. Good thing I don't see the fundamental problem as an over-sensitivity, but one of insensitivity (at best) and bigotry more likely.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Usually when a group of people had to suffer a genocide you can easily see that in the numbers of the people.
There's always a decrease in numbers that extremely differs from the usual population growth.

You don't see that among the Arabs in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip or Israel.

Why do we see such a decrease in numbers in Rwanda or the Shoah?

So when the Nazis portray the Jews as leading the Prime Minister of the UK around it's anti-Semitic.
When the NYT portrays the Jews as leading the US President around it's not anti-Semitic.

Thanks dude.

The scale of killing on the west bank bears no resemblance to the Holocaust, and no one has suggested that it might be.
However attacks on them and the confiscations of their land can not be described as a friendly act.
A defacto state of undeclared war exists between Israel and the Palestinians. peace talks have been fruitless, and trustless.

When Nazis portray Jews it is inevitably Antisemitic. However the actual attack was on the prime minister for being led by a Jew. the attack was for their own political gain in the upcoming elections.
In the case of the NYT they were also showing the weakness of Trump in the face of Netanyahu. this was clearly an attack on trump.
However the attack could equally have been by King Saud leading Trump by the nose. only the circumstances differed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some shorthand is too short. Using stereotypes, for example, can be a useful story tellling tool or an offensive group-association.


That might be true. Good thing I don't see the fundamental problem as an over-sensitivity, but one of insensitivity (at best) and bigotry more likely.

The problem I see with bigoted over-sensitivity vs bigoted
insensitivity is that governments like to step in to regulate speech.
At least in Ameristan, it appears we're safe in that regard.

 

[sun rise]

I've never heard of naming the "socialists" as conspirators.
But Marxists....those guys are behind Ameristan's downfall.
(I hear that one regularly.)

Read up on how the right is using the word "socialist".

 

[sun rise]

If it's too much for you that I disturb the bubble there's always the ignore feature.

If you could see the Private Jewish forum you'd see that Jewish members have been disillusioned over what they read on RF years ago.
They simply resigned.

I suspect that's also true for Muslims, Christians and atheists as well as liberals and conservatives.

 

[sun rise]

The problem I see with bigoted over-sensitivity vs bigoted
insensitivity is that governments like to step in to regulate speech.
At least in Ameristan, it appears we're safe in that regard.

I would not call us "safe" but rather in "decent shape".

 

[Flankerl]

I see all...except private forums devoted to complaining.

Yeah that's all that ever happened there.

You are so smart.

The scale of killing on the west bank bears no resemblance to the Holocaust, and no one has suggested that it might be.

Happens on RF, the rest of the internet and in real life all the time.

When Nazis portray Jews it is inevitably Antisemitic. However the actual attack was on the prime minister for being led by a Jew. the attack was for their own political gain in the upcoming elections.
In the case of the NYT they were also showing the weakness of Trump in the face of Netanyahu. this was clearly an attack on trump.

This is a real amazing effort to grasp at straws. Really I am amazed.

So it was just an attack on Trump. Then why was Trump drawn with a Kippah? Why was he blind? Why was Netanyahu marked with a Star of David?

God...

However the attack could equally have been by King Saud leading Trump by the nose. only the circumstances differed.

Could've might've...

 

[Brickjectivity]

In the news....
Israeli envoy calls for criminalizing antisemitism after NYT cartoon
Excerpted...
The only way to stop antisemitism is to criminalize it, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon told reporters in New York on Monday.

“The time for talking and having a conversation is over,” Danon said. “What Israel and the Jewish community around the world demand is action - and now."

Danon, speaking on the sidelines of the United Nations Security Council meeting, said that those who engage in antisemitism "must be punished. Whether it is here at the UN [or by] political leaders, editors, policy pundits or college professors, it does not matter.

“Antisemitism should have no place in our society," he continued. "Until it becomes criminal, this bigotry will persist; it will fester. It is only a matter of time until it erupts again in violence and bloodshed."

In his defense he is speaking at the United Nations, and many of the countries there are not free speech zones. Of course it is illogical to think that anti-semitic speech can be driven out by criminalizing it in a free speech country, and I don't think he would advocate for that here. I wouldn't expect to find Israel's ambassador to the US doing so. On the other hand in countries where speech is already strictly controlled it makes sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Read up on how the right is using the word "socialist".

Why?
I observe them misusing it all the time.

 

[Revoltingest]

In his defense he is speaking at the United Nations, and many of the countries there are not free speech zones. Of course it is illogical to think that anti-semitic speech can be driven out by criminalizing it in a free speech country, and I don't think he would advocate for that here. I wouldn't expect to find Israel's ambassador to the US doing so. On the other hand in countries where speech is already strictly controlled it makes sense.

That's why the thread title had a question mark.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would not call us "safe" but rather in "decent shape".

I can live with such quibbling.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah that's all that ever happened there.

So it sounds from your description.

You are so smart.

I went to a large public school.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Aye, tis permissible speech here in the wild west (Ameristan).
But some of our extra sensitive friends across the pond disagree.

In order to prevent some speech from offending anyone, the line would have to be moved so far, we could no longer say anything or have the freedom speak what is on our minds. If we have to customize it every time someone gets offended, we might as well not have the freedom at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

In order to prevent some speech from offending anyone, the line would have to be moved so far, we could no longer say anything or have the freedom speak what is on our minds. If we have to customize it every time someone gets offended, we might as well not have the freedom at all.

The power to prevent offending Jews would also be the
power to prevent posters here from writing "tRump".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah, so then you would have to accept that any criticism of Israel is defacto criticism of Judaism, making anti-Zionism and anti-semitism identical. Do you agree with that?

I think that it is important to understand the distinction between criticism of Israel as a sovereign nation and claims about the people that might be offensive. What is to prevent legitimate criticism of Israeli state policies from being lumped in as anti-semitism? I see this issue crop up in a lot more instances than just with Judaism or the Israeli state as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The power to prevent offending Jews would also be the
power to prevent posters here from writing "tRump".

That is how I see it. I could not refer to him as the Great Fabricator, under rules that must eliminate any and all speech that is offensive to some group or other. I could help myself and not throw that in, but I did not want to.

But the point remains. If a person does not like something that is said under freedom of speech, they can respond with their own argument and try to persuade others to their view. But they cannot prevent the view they are arguing against or we might as well forget free speech all together.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They must be behind the greatest of compliments...."goody two shoes".

Also, have you noticed how few people with no legs or even one leg you
see walking around? The SIC (Shoe Industrial Complex) has them
eliminated because they're not good shoe customers.

I have not noticed this, but that is likely tacit praise for the success of the global SIC conspiracy. There will probably be some "goody two shoes" bring this up at the next meeting.

 

[Shaul]

Where were all of those now crying about freedom of speech when pro-Israel and pro-Jewish speakers were shouted down or banned from speaking on college campuses? Many were nowhere to be seen. Hypocrites.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

As far as I know there is no law that gives the right not to be offended, to anyone.

 

[rosends]

I think that it is important to understand the distinction between criticism of Israel as a sovereign nation and claims about the people that might be offensive. What is to prevent legitimate criticism of Israeli state policies from being lumped in as anti-semitism? I see this issue crop up in a lot more instances than just with Judaism or the Israeli state as well.

I understand the distinction (see this cartoon as an example https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...=8bdce94b731f881e27388c8029204d9e&oe=5D7227EF ). The claim was that Israel invites the conflation by calling itself a Jewish state. My point was just that if there is an automatic conflation then such distinction is impossible and this defeats anyone who says anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism.