Was McCarthyism unethical? How is the campaign against Thiel ethically distinct from McCarthyism?
Also, is it possible that you’re being especially uncharitable? Perhaps “lock her up” is a slogan and should be interpreted to mean something more like: “I’m fairly certain Clinton has committed a serious crime and should be locked up after being convicted of that crime in a court of law.” Or do you think that politicians should be exempt from being tried, convicted, and serving a prison sentence in general?
This is actually even more complicated than you present it to be, as I’ve gone over in subsequent comments. But it’s important to note that ethnicity is a social construct and your ethnicity is a matter of what you believe, not what you physically are. Case in point: I am physically Jewish – like I have genes that objectively mark me as the descendant of Jews. But I am not the least bit ethnically Jewish except that my stepmother is actually Jewish so we did some Channukah and Passover stuff at home. Another case in point: a person who is physically south Asian but was adopted by Jewish parents, is observant, and has an over-the-top Jewish name along the lines of “Aaron Goldberg”. Are you going to tell me such a person is not ethnically Jewish?
All of which is a stupid digression from the main point, which is that Trump supporters should not be shunned or cut off from their livelihoods for their political opinions any more than communists, socialists, libertarians, or anarchists should be.
Watch footage of the Republican convention where Chris Christie ran a mock “trial” reading out unsubstantiated “crimes” that Hilalry commited, inviting the crowd to call for her imprisonment based solely on what he said. Listen to Donald Trump flatly tell Hillary she would be in jail if he were president. That is not a person or a party dedicated to the fair application of due process. That’s a god damn witch hunt executed under the color of law. Of course politicians should be subject to the same laws as you and I, but the legal process has already taken place and ruled that while stupid, what Clinton did with regard to her use of a personal email account while serving as Secretary of State was not illegal. Just because Republicans who have been trying to put the Clintons behind bars for 30 years for something - anything - think the FBI is rigged doesn’t mean they’re right.
And yes, of course McCarthyism was unethical. It was also being driven by a sitting US senator (which is why it’s called McCarthyism) who was fearmongering and outright lying about communists infiltrating the government for political purposes. Boycotting a business or refusing to associate with someone whose views you find repugnant is not the same thing. The red scare, while not entirely government propaganda, was fueled by certain segments of the government. Thiel being outed as an asshole who is backing a racist fascist misogynist Islamophobic idiot is not. People have the freedom and the right to choose who they associate with, and they have the freedom and the right to choose not to do business with companies that put people actively working to harm their personal well-being in prominent leadership positions.
That’s a fun question, actually, but, in general, no, since it was through the paternal line, meaning that, by a strict reading of Jewish law, you weren’t Jewish (and also not raised with the culture, although there are groups out there that actively seek out people such as yourself to see if you might be interested in claiming or learning about that part of your heritage).
But, by the racist logic, yeah, a single drop in the last several generations is enough to land you in the gas chamber line next to me.
Active debate going on about that; Orthodox agrees with your statement, Conservative says “depends if the kids are raised as Jewish”, Reform goes “Welcome! L’Chaim!”
Fixed that for you.
Hi cousin! I see you’re carrying on one of our oldest traditions–the loud argument.
And, no, it’s not “arbitrary”. Jews have a high rate of endogamous marriage; we tend to marry within the faith (and thus the ethnicity) because of that rule. But you are still (to some extent) possessing a claim towards Jewish ethnicity, which is a real thing, as shown by genetic analysis.
Again, you’re wrong. Most of us do recognize the difference. We actually have a term for “variant cultural practices” between the sub-groups, a “minhag”.
Uh… I can’t exactly exchange my ethnicity. I was born with it. I will die with it–possibly at the hands of someone that hates me strictly because of that ethnicity. Ethnicity and ethnic identity is totally “what you are”.
Eww. Those people usually get used as figureheads by Christian Evangelical groups trying to convert at-risk Jews.
It’s way more common than you think, but you don’t experience it. But misquotes (and made-up quotes) from the Talmud are depressingly common in antisemitic circles. I have some samples from my time on Tumblr if you’re interested in seeing their “logic”.
Yep. And even though you have Jewish ancestry, you yourself do not claim to be Jewish in a cultural fashion, and thus have little to no say in the matter. That being said, you definitely have the right to start joining in, given your heritage, but know that you’d just be one voice among many, in a long, long, long argument, where many disagree with you.
Ethnicity is a genetic construct. Ethnic culture is a social construct. But you contradict yourself; how can it be a social construct when we both have physical features marking our common heritage?
There are Asian Jews who are ethnically Jewish (mostly in China and India, descended from other Diasporic groups), but, yes, point taken. Ironically, one of my best friends is also adopted into Judaism, and we’ve had some rousing discussions on the topic. In general, I define Jewish identity on three axes: Ethnic, Cultural, Religious. Ethnic is a person’s direct ancestry. Cultural is the customs and attitudes. Religious is pretty obvious.
So, yeah, in that case, I’d say that that person is ethnically Asian, but formally adopted into the Jewish tribe and thus Jewish (because our rules work that way on identity), even though their biological parents were not Jewish, Culturally raised as Jewish, and definitely ticks on the Religious axis. But, on the positive side, they’re genetically “fresh blood” and don’t have to worry about, oh, say, Tay-Sachs disease.
Fair, and sorry for contributing to the digression. But I would point out that Thiel is a libertarian, and this form of social censure is pretty much one of the only social mechanisms in libertarian capitalist thought for censure (the other being lawsuits). Now, I’m not a libertarian for a variety of reasons, but I will point out the irony there.
However, I will refrain from further judgement, because my own opinion is complicated, but generally in agreement that there is no right to demand an audience, and that freedom of association means that you can cut yourself off from people that you find vile–but I also recognize that that has the potential for forcing adherence to community attitudes, which I also find distasteful. So put me down as “undecided” on this one.
It’s because of people who haven’t realised that the paradox of tolerance has been thought about for years, and that it was generally decided that tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance, but passive intolerance.
Again, only if you make the most uncharitable possible interpretations of those statements.
In case you haven’t noticed, liberals and other assorted Democrats have literally been saying that Trump is literally Hitler for about a year now. That seems about as bad or maybe worse than saying: “I think you’ve committed a serious crime and should go to jail for it.” Seems like a lack of charity and a complete failure to try to understand each other on both sides. It might be news to you, but sinking to the level of the other guy doesn’t leave you in a good position to claim the moral high ground.
Fearmongering yes, lying no. McCarthy was largely correct about the extent of the penetration of Communist spies into the US government.
Furthermore, the fact that McCarthy was a sitting senator is being used to obscure the fact that the blacklist was not enforced by government power in any way whatsoever but rather was implemented purely by the exercise of the right to free association by the companies, people, and organizations involved in the blacklist. Which makes it exactly the same thing.
I addressed this upthread. Unless you’re seriously suggesting that the genes for Judaism live in the mitochondrial DNA, the “maternal line” thing is actually a cultural rather than physical marker for Judaism, making this yet another vote for “Judaism is what you believe, not what you are.”
I never claimed it was not a “real thing”. Lots of social constructions are real e.g. the US dollar or the US government. But it’s still fundamentally a matter of what you believe, not what you physically are, just as the physical form of a US dollar is irrelevant to its function in the economy (another social construct that is also a “real thing”) whereas beliefs about its nature and value are very relevant.
You have no real way to judge this seeing as you don’t know me personally. I have many (ethnically) Jewish friends and relatives. I realize my perspective on this is not the only one possible, but it is well-informed by life experiences and not arrived at in a snap judgment or anything.
Straight up disagree for reasons already stated.
I don’t contradict myself. We have physical features marking our common descent, but we are not the same ethnicity.
Which is fine, use whatever definition you want, but it might help you communicate more clearly if you specify that you are using a non-standard definition of “ethnicity”.
I never really pried with what the deal is. She isn’t Evangelical. I believe they go to a generic Baptist church, her kids goes to a Catholic school, but other than mentions of going to church, I have never heard them comment about religion. But she has various Jewish items in her homes, a blessing of the marriage, a menorah, etc, and I know she has taught her daughter about some of the Jewish holidays. But it really is NOMB, so I haven’t asked for details.
Interesting. I guess I just don’t see as much as you have. I have seen the Koran used against Muslims fairly often. I hesitate to ask for examples because do I really want to go down that hole.
Does American antisemitism have similar or the same themes with Islamic based antisemitism? Do they share the same view?
I see no reason why I should consider that interpretation uncharitable, given that Republicans are explicitly calling for Hillary Clinton to be jailed, not investigated.
I also don’t think it’s particularly uncharitable to describe Donald Trump as Hitler-esque, considering he’s using the same scapegoating tactics and fascist, jingoistic, nationalist rhetoric. The man is an idiot, but he’s also phenomenally dangerous. And it’s not just us crazy extremist liberals making the comparison; Holocaust survivors are doing it too, and I think they’d be in a position to know.
If he was right - and there is ample evidence that he wasn’t - it was only coincidentally. Despite all of his claims of having lists of “known communists” in the State Department and the army (whose numbers varied wildly from declaration to declaration), he never produced a single shred of evidence. The red scare and the blacklists that resulted from it were a highly political operation driven by many members of the federal government. The FBI investigated people for being communists and declared entire organizations or industries to be inherently suspect, often with little or no concrete evidence. Hollywood started blacklisting people after ten screenwriters and directors were held in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee. If you want to argue that the government had no influence over the way people in the private sector viewed potential communist party members, history is very much against you. The red scare and McCarthyism have much more in common with the government’s contemporary anti-terrorism propaganda and Islamophobia than anything that’s happening to Peter Thiel.
Peter Thiel is being ostracized because people have, of their own volition, come to the conclusion based on solid documented evidence that the man is a raging asshole. There is no government agency declaring that his views are antithetical to American life. The FBI has not investigated Thiel for subversive behavior. He has not been called before Congress to answer for his views. If Thiel ends up being completely blackballed, it’s not because of some misguided fear of the Other, but because he is on the record as supporting things that many people find objectionable or abhorrent, including his personal crusade to shut down Gawker, his argument that women shouldn’t have been given the right to vote, and now his substantial support of a professional hatemonger who happens to be running for president.
Alright. Agree to disagree there. I think that you’re wrong, you think that I’m wrong, and I will leave it at that out of respect for your perspective. I will politely ask this, though: if you don’t claim to be Jewish in ethnic, cultural or religious identity, please don’t speak for Jews in what Jews believe. Beyond that, I recognize that I’m not going to budge you, and you won’t budge me. Thank you for your time.
@Mister44, to not derail the thread more, let’s move it to the Judaism Q&A, and I’ll happily answer those questions.
But despite this august council’s decisions, someone voting for Trump isn’t necessarily saying that they endorse sexual assault, any more than someone voting for Clinton is endorsing being a corporate shill. Both sides for the most part think their candidate is a better choice for president in spite of their obvious flaws. And typically in a discussion in a democracy people make their case about why their candidate is better than the opposition without resorting to threats and boycots.
Or, how about this, there’s more people in the US who make < $75k/year than that will vote for Trump.
How many of those people are on Facebook’s board?
Diversity is all well and good, but if you want diversity fucking do it, don’t accept support from a human form of cancer and then hide behind diversity like a shield. Diversity is an obligation, not a permission.
Peter Thiel is already plenty “dialed down”. He’s made a very rational case for why he’s backing Trump, and none of his reasons are “because I endorse sexual assault”. You (and BoingBoing) are trying to make his endorsement of Trump an endorsement for everything that Trump stands for to you, but that’s no more true than someone’s accusation that my endorsement of Hillary Clinton is an endorsement for taking bribes disguised as speaker fees. Calling Thiel a “human form of cancer” because he thinks Trump has a greater chance of being a transformative force in Washington than Hillary Clinton is downright childish.
The ACLU defending the civil rights of Nazis or the Klan doesn’t mean they endorse their views any more than the attorney of an accused serial killer or rapist. If anything the ACLU showed remarkable consistency in their mission by doing this.
What Zuck here is using “diversity” and “inclusiveness” as a bullshit disguise to defend a horrible person who happens to be a major stakeholder in the company.
Good point, but that’s not the case with Peter Thiel. He has stated perfectly reasonable reasons for supporting Trump. I personally disagree with them, but I can do so without calling for his head.
Calling Trump supporters white power rapists and as bad as terrorists (Osama supporters), that’s where the real bigotry is.
I dislike Trump as much as the next person, and think his (few) policy proposals are dangerous and wrong, but going after him and his supporters only with insults and smears is literally the same tactic you alleged Trump uses… text book bigotry.
