It's also true in the US. If we were going to hate groups based on their ethnicity, which I of course oppose, surely the group commtting 53% of the homicides despite making up 13% would be a far more worthy candidate.
There's also no critical examination of Jews throughout history on what brings about their persecution. If it's spoken of at all, it's attributed to "jealousy" or "scapegoating". Intellectually dishonest.
But that is the reason, and that is also the reason why other middlemen like the Chinese in Southeast Asia and the Greeks and Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were treated.
Their biggest issue has always been lack of assimilation.
Yet the greatest threat to their existence came from Germany, where they were most highly assimilated and where 50% of Jews were marrying non-Jews in the 1920s, and a greater proportion of Jews had dangerous combat duties in the war than non-Jews.
They moved up the Rhine for trade opportunities, but they never really emigrated. They just moved. Usury certainly didn't help perceptions.
Correct, but the idea that you can be expelled/butchered at any moment also doesn't really help.
Any criticism as a people is strictly taboo because of the big H's big H.
Precisely what criticism can you not utter because of the Holocaust?
Does a plethora of lawyers create its own issues?
Yes. Any more than zero is a very bad thing.
I think so.
I agree. But what of it then?
They exist, but I disagree with the last part. There are too few. Regardless, to praise them would just be the "based black man" meme.
How is it then that you only 'notice' when something is in accordance of your ideology, and you don't happen to 'notice' when it's not? Surely, if impressive skills of perception and 'pattern recognition' were involved, you'd see: "wow, there sure are a lot of Jews being regressives, and also a whole lot of Jews being against them".
It's also true in the US. If we were going to hate groups based on their ethnicity, which I of course oppose, surely the group commtting 53% of the homicides despite making up 13% would be a far more worthy candidate.
Yeah, the hate bit is stupid. Finding the line that ethnonationalism has valid and practical application can be a tough one. Too many fall off the argument, and into ideology traps. I do it myself sometimes.
As to 13/53, it's old hat. I think it's mostly convinced those who will be convinced. Every once in awhile, the arguments are worth reiterating, but the facts are known, with a wealth of supporting data.
But, in the end, it shouldn't be about hatred. Ethnonationalism has dirty connotation, but there is a solid rationale to it. It's just not well placed to replace in most parts.
Precisely what criticism can you not utter because of the Holocaust?
It seems to work like this:
"If you criticize, Israel, Jews as a people, point out that someone is Jewish, or that Jews are disproportionately represented in a field (especially the lawyer/banker/journalist class), it's anti-semtiism. Anti-semitism is what created the Holocaust. If you continue to follow this line of reasoning, you're a Nazi. You don't want to be a Nazi, do you?"
Firings may follow.
How is it then that you only 'notice' when something is in accordance of your ideology, and you don't happen to 'notice' when it's not? Surely, if impressive skills of perception and 'pattern recognition' were involved, you'd see: "wow, there sure are a lot of Jews being regressives, and also a whole lot of Jews being against them".
Who said I don't notice? There's just no major purpose in stating it. Though, I guess there kind of is, if it's part of how you're informing your opinions.
It seems the more influential are on the regressive side. Those who push back tend to be pretty Zionist or neoconservative. I don't see it as a black and white choice. None of these ideologies are really in my interest.
It's also true in the US. If we were going to hate groups based on their ethnicity, which I of course oppose, surely the group commtting 53% of the homicides despite making up 13% would be a far more worthy candidate.
But that is the reason, and that is also the reason why other middlemen like the Chinese in Southeast Asia and the Greeks and Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were treated.
Yet the greatest threat to their existence came from Germany, where they were most highly assimilated and where 50% of Jews were marrying non-Jews in the 1920s, and a greater proportion of Jews had dangerous combat duties in the war than non-Jews.
Correct, but the idea that you can be expelled/butchered at any moment also doesn't really help.
Precisely what criticism can you not utter because of the Holocaust?
Yes. Any more than zero is a very bad thing.
I agree. But what of it then?
How is it then that you only 'notice' when something is in accordance of your ideology, and you don't happen to 'notice' when it's not? Surely, if impressive skills of perception and 'pattern recognition' were involved, you'd see: "wow, there sure are a lot of Jews being regressives, and also a whole lot of Jews being against them".
Yeah, the hate bit is stupid. Finding the line that ethnonationalism has valid and practical application can be a tough one. Too many fall off the argument, and into ideology traps. I do it myself sometimes.
As to 13/53, it's old hat. I think it's mostly convinced those who will be convinced. Every once in awhile, the arguments are worth reiterating, but the facts are known, with a wealth of supporting data.
But, in the end, it shouldn't be about hatred. Ethnonationalism has dirty connotation, but there is a solid rationale to it. It's just not well placed to replace in most parts.
It seems to work like this: "If you criticize, Israel, Jews as a people, point out that someone is Jewish, or that Jews are disproportionately represented in a field (especially the lawyer/banker/journalist class), it's anti-semtiism. Anti-semitism is what created the Holocaust. If you continue to follow this line of reasoning, you're a Nazi. You don't want to be a Nazi, do you?"
Firings may follow.
Who said I don't notice? There's just no major purpose in stating it. Though, I guess there kind of is, if it's part of how you're informing your opinions.
It seems the more influential are on the regressive side. Those who push back tend to be pretty Zionist or neoconservative. I don't see it as a black and white choice. None of these ideologies are really in my interest.