Hacker Neue

Preferences
slg parent
That is a strange one to call out as too broad because it is literally an ancient form of antisemitism going back to the Romans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_loyalty#Jewish_Believers

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/us/politics/jews-disloyal...

f33d5173
The point is that is may be admitedly true on the part of the one accused.

In general, you should be wary of "forms of antisemitism" (or similar "forms of x-ism/x-phobia/etc"). Such things usually consists of the defensible but vacuous notion that "doing X in an antisemetic way is antisemetic", while attempting to imply that doing X is antisemetic in general, regardless how it's done, or at the least that doing X is suspect. But the only proof that has been provided in such cases is that X has ocassionally been done in an antisemetic way, which you could say for just about anything. Since X in these cases is not per se anti semetic, it is more helpful to identify what antisemetic thing has often been done alongside it, and be on the lookout for that, instead of for X.

slg OP
What is a context in which it is acceptable to say that an American's loyalty to this country can't be trusted because of their ethnicity/religion? Some of these definitions are too broad, but this is not the example to use in that argument. Accusations of dual loyalty are widely recognized as antisemitism.
DangitBobby
> because of their ethnicity/religion

You specified that. The excerpt did not.

slg OP
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are calling attention to the phrasing of the excerpt rather than insinuating that Jews collectively are more loyal to Israel than the US.

I admit the phrasing of the excerpt does look vague out of context, but it is about the collective of Jewish people. That is suggested by the excerpt saying "Jewish citizens" rather than "a Jewish citizen". It should also become more clear if you click through to the original and see all the other examples are about the Jewish people as a collective too. So yes, this text is specifically about the "because of" even if the excerpt doesn't make that explicit. It is not saying that any accusation of disloyalty is inherently antisemitism. For example, if a Jewish American citizen was arrested with real evidence of them being an Israeli spy, there would not be a serious discussion of whether the arrest was an act of antisemitism.

DangitBobby
I am suspicious of the motivations behind the excerpt and thus critical of the wording. Jewish Citizens can be taken to mean generically as a group or multiple instances of single individuals. They could have been more precise in their usage of language if they meant the latter, but imprecision can be useful.
slg OP
>I am suspicious of the motivations behind the excerpt

This is a pointless concern because "the excerpt" has no motivations behind it that were imbued by its author. The only reason it exists as an excerpt is that someone pulled it out of its original context. Either go to the source and read it in context to get a better idea of the motivations of the full text or attribute the motivations to the person who decided to excerpt that specific text.

axel6665 (dead)
Zaheer
This isn't theoretical. There's literally cases of ICE kidnapping people off the streets for writing an innocuous op-ed in a magazine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C3%...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil

slg OP
What did I say that made you think I support the ICE kidnappings? I was making a very specific point that you seemingly received as a much different general point.
sibhezt (dead)

This item has no comments currently.