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.
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.