The issue explicitly discussed was the issue of facebook censoring news or opinions that could be seen as critical of Germany’s immigration policy. There is an policy in Germany called “Voluntary Self-Monitoring of Multimedia Service Providers”. At a UN dinner where Merkel and Zuckerberg were seated together, they were recorded discussing the fact that Facebook was not yet completely in compliance with the censorship laws. Zuckerberg acknowledged that they still had work to do for compliance, and he reassured Merkel that they were working on it.
I do not wish to suggest that this is primarily about religion, except that the immigrants have brought with them to Germany many religious biases. For instance, the attack this week by a migrant on a female German Police Officer. They did not arrest him because he is Muslim, or even because he is offended by the idea of a Female Officer. he was arrested because he acted on his rage and tried to kill her.
Shhhh! We don’t talk about that, even when we have a 2 mile long article discussing passports as tools of oppression. (Anyone want to watch me try to get into Israel like anyone else with my American passport? Ain’t gonna happen.)
So, is there something about Zuckerberg on Israel that I haven’t heard about or is this just because he’s a Jew? Genuinely asking. I went looking and didn’t find anything but can’t claim it was an exhaustive search.
One becomes Muslim not by avoiding to do certain kinds of murderous crazy shit, but by saying, with conviction and understanding it’s meaning, the shahada:
“La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah.”
The declaration’s meaning: There is no deity but God, Mohammed is messenger of God.
That is what it takes. This first of the five pillars of Islam grants you paradise and makes you a Muslim. Crazy murderous shit or not.
But don’t change your mind later.
Islam, while specifically banning that kind of murderous crazy shit, also specifically demands it.
General religiophobia is reasonable. Looking at all known history and pre-history and the now and the continuance into the future, there are three major reasons for massive murdering: Religion, “race”, land and resources.
One of them seems so much more superfluous even than the others.
Because that is a Jewish thing, right? No true Jew would ever attack other communities.
I’m all pro-Israel and all, but I see the news. Did Zucker never read the Tanakh?
This statement would have been so nice and true, but he just had to start it, with three words, as a lie.
The facebookmaker is such a dishonest, manipulative creep.
Also, “You ain’t no Scotsman, bruv.”
So, is there something about Zuckerberg on Israel that I haven’t heard about or is this just because he’s a Jew? Genuinely asking. I went looking and didn’t find anything but can’t claim it was an exhaustive search.
“Something”? If you really went looking, you must have read about this?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the nexus of the Internet and Islamist terrorism as “Osama bin Laden meets Mark Zuckerberg.”
Although he was called out by name like that (and by that person), I haven’t heard a response from Zuckerberg himself, let alone any statements or efforts from him one way or the other about the “conflict” itself. Which is why I said I wonder, given his expressed concern about “attacked communities,” whether someone with so much money, power and influence has used any of it toward lessening the suffering of one of the most abused communities on earth.
When I went looking I just got a sea of articles on his donations and I was at work, didn’t really have time to look harder then. Thank you for the link.
I think his statement was meant more in the context of the holocaust than Amalekites. And seriously he starts it with three words “as a lie?” He is Jewish. But then, that’s not what you mean. You’re claiming that no Jew could ever raise their kid to believe in helping the oppressed. Misapplication of no true Scotsman. He never said that no true Jew could participate I oppression, only that in Judaism as His parents raised him was an interpretation of Judaism that valued standing up against oppression. Nice to know where you stand.
Hell no, I’m not! That would be plain idiotic. Are you a moron?
Your “I can typing” forces me to respond.
Strings of words have meaning, how do you go through life ignoring that?
"My parents taught me that we must …" conveys a different meaning than “As a (member of a group), my parents taught me…”
He claims a compelling causal connection between being Jewish and his parents teaching him to be a decent human being, ignoring any historic and current examples of Jews attacking communities. Some Jews feel that a god Adonai promised them Canaan, you know, they just have to take it from the people that live there.
Somebody might say: “As a Jew, my parents taught me that we should take the land of that other community, because My Lords promised it to my great-granddads ancestors 3000 years ago.”
Do you not see it?
Well, nice to know where you stand.
Did you really not recognize “You ain’t no _____, bruv!”, as a recent and popular application of ‘no true Scotsman’?
I had thought I have made pretty clear where I stand.
Throughout history (and currently) almost all truly bad guys have claimed gods on their side, promoted themselves as knowing just what evil their gods wanted and portrayed themselves as their gods acting hand and tool. Try and find exceptions. Not easy.
Almost all successful gods have had truly evil men as their Erfüllungsgehilfen. Very few exceptions (FSM).
Throughout history the followers of those same gods who saw the evil done in the names of their deities disassociate themselves from the evil. Those other followers of their gods are not the true followers of their gods. That way every organized religion, being mankind’s bane, after causing and committing most of history’s carnage, can always be a “religion of peace and love”.
You like to know where I stand? Right here, pointing at them.
Zuckerman purposely feeds that thing, I point at him.
You’re quite an eager defender of the Zuck.
Isn’t deifying Him going a bit far?
I love Xeni. I still love coming here, sometimes. When it isn’t an echo-chamber. I love the people that argue stuff with each other and sometimes me, they make me smarter, entertain and educate me. Mostly. I come here for the argument, the discussion, the civil discourse. I sometimes mean to be aggravating. All of the interesting people here do. Within a frame of civility.
For my taste, your publicly stating that I stand in the anti-Semitic outer reaches of your imagination is not inside that frame. It’s funny weird not funny ha-ha. Others mileage may vary.
Ya think the bOINGbOINGers would have me here for twelve(?) years if I had an issue with teh Joos? Wouldn’t they have noticed? Costs them nothing at all to remove me from their ice cream.
IRL I would have immediately started swearing at you in a mixture of Arabic Hebrew and Yiddish. You would have felt awkward.
Maybe because his parents were Jews and one generation from the holocaust, they thought it was particularly important for their son to learn the importance of standing up for oppressed minorities? It doesn’t have to be a general statement about all Jews.
If this had started IRL we would, almost certainly, both have had more context about who the other person was and where they were coming from. In all likelihood the whole thing would have gone down differently because we would have had more than a handful of paragraphs to size each other up and decide what the other person was about.
At the same time I think that on the internet there is a lot of verbal conflict that gets started up and perpetuated because one party starts feeling defensive and doesn’t want to back down. I pretty much straight up called you an anti-semite, and I apologize. I trigger too easily on that front, and I was in a toxic mood and went off too quickly. My mood doesn’t excuse it though. I’m going to hit a few points after this. But I want to lead with an apology. I apologize. I’ve gone after fellow Jews for being too quick to bring out anti-semitism as a verbal cudgel in the past, and am chagrined to have to gone off in almost exactly the same way that I’ve called others out for in the past.
This I just want to highlight because it’s funny. I’m not particularly a fan of Zuckerberg or the products he’s responsible for, but my reply was hastily typed on a phone, and the auto cap got me while I was attempting to edit. I assure you, there are no candle lit shrines or nascent Zuck focused religions on my account.
Whelp, you know, I brought fire, so I can hardly complain about elevated rhetoric.
So, you talk about the meaning of strings words, and how you wonder how I can go through life ignoring them. Well, the glib answer is I don’t. But really, words have meaning and the meaning is context dependent. That context extends beyond the mere string of words that creates a complete sentence. You say that he claims a compelling causal connection between being Jewish and his parents teaching him to be a decent person. But the word Jew has almost as many meanings as the number of people in the world who claim to be Jewish. Each of them will define it slightly differently depending on their personal experience. Sure, two black hats might have such similar experiences that you could generalize if both of them started a sentence with “as a Jew.” But if Jeff Halper and Benjamin Netanyahu both started a sentence with “as a Jew,” you can bet there is going to be an ocean of difference between what they express.
[removed longwinded personal perspective]
Of course I do, it’s the London underground incident where the guy yells at the assailant because he doesn’t want people to take that man’s actions as indicative of Islamic belief. But you an I are going to disagree on the applicability of the fallacy because you feel:
I am more with @jsroberts on this. His statement is a better encapsulation of what my mother taught me to take away from the Holocaust. He does in two sentences what I wasted several paragraphs on and then cut out. It doesn’t have to be a general statement about all Jews.
You and I will probably continue to disagree on a large portion of this, but I was wrong to bring accusations of anti-semitism into it. I will also understand if you feel that my apology is not acceptable, but please understand that it is heartfelt. There is plenty of ammunition for attacking Zuckerberg (privacy, his interpretation of charity, etc.) and I still find it odd that his essentially anodyne statement about Islamophobia is what you chose to attack him over, but I am sorry for the manner I went about engaging. I am embarrassed to have done what I have lambasted others for in the past.
No, that is not the point. “As a Jew” means, in this context, “as a non-Christian.” Evangelicals and fundamentalists are leading the xenophobia against Syrians and need to be taught the lesson about acts against one group.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
.jpg){kind=link}
