Only one of the two is actually silencing dissent.
The other one is weaponized as a mascot in order to prevent criticism of people the Democrats like (Soros), while allowing free criticism of people they do like (Adelson).
Only one of the two is actually silencing dissent.
Oh come on. My entire life, it's been perfectly acceptable for anybody to blame white people and Christians for just about every social ill under the sun. But if someone suggests that maybe Jews are responsible for some social ills themselves, they're immediately Hitler.
It's perfectly acceptable to acknowledge that Jews are disproportionately very wealthy (if it's an exercise in singing the praises of Jewish contributions the world), and it's perfectly acceptable to accuse wealthy people of exerting unfair influence on governments, but to suggest that maybe Jews use their disproportionate wealth to influence governments makes you Hitler.
I've got no truck with Jews, personally. I do think there are a lot of really fucking vile racist Jewish individuals out there, and that for some reason nobody tells them to stop being vile racists (probably because to do so means you're Hitler). But the idea that Jews don't enjoy some level of protection from criticism is ludicrous.
Yes, you'll come back with "but the Jews aren't actually the ones that silence the dissent!" and I'll roll my eyes and move on.
Oh come on. My entire life, it's been perfectly acceptable for anybody to blame white people and Christians for just about every social ill under the sun. But if someone suggests that maybe Jews are responsible for some social ills themselves, they're immediately Hitler.
Same thing with feminism. You can blame men for any problem you want and nobody bats an eye, but a woman? Fat chance. Which is kind of what OP was talking about.
I've got no truck with Jews, personally.
Neither do I. It is kind of odd however, that you aren't allowed to question whether or not the Holocaust happened in many countries. It's literally illegal in Germany. I can't think of any other ethnic group where you aren't allowed to debate the veracity of something they claimed happened to them.
Oh come on. My entire life, it's been perfectly acceptable for anybody to blame white people and Christians for just about every social ill under the sun. But if someone suggests that maybe Jews are responsible for some social ills themselves, they're immediately Hitler.
Depends on who does it. If you're a leftist and attack Israel, that's perfectly fine. Hell, you can even put Ivanka Trump on the frontpage of your "paper" and call her a "ghoul" You can also criticize any Jewish donor to GOP causes.
You cannot get in the way of the woke/establishment agenda though.
Besides, compare how criticism of Judaism plays vs. criticism of Islam.
It's perfectly acceptable to acknowledge that Jews are disproportionately very wealthy (if it's an exercise in singing the praises of Jewish contributions the world), and it's perfectly acceptable to accuse wealthy people of exerting unfair influence on governments, but to suggest that maybe Jews use their disproportionate wealth to influence governments makes you Hitler.
Because then your motive is racial. It's like you would not mind people saying that whites are richer than blacks, and that it's bad that wealthy people exercise disproportionate influence, but if you say that "white people use their wealth to influence governments", it sounds like you have a bizarre racial agenda. And people who say that do.
Yes, you'll come back with "but the Jews aren't actually the ones that silence the dissent!" and I'll roll my eyes and move on.
Of course there are. But the only Jews whom you can't criticize are those who are on the left.
It's like you would not mind people saying that whites are richer than blacks
I'm not making that argument. I'm describing specifically leftist arguments where it's perfectly ok to bitch about white people (collectively, as a whole) but not ok to bitch about Jews (collectively, as a whole) without being Hitler. Trying to play gotchas with the internal contradictions of the victim oppression hierarchy is just deflection. It's ok to criticize Israel specifically for oppressing the poor Palestinians, but blame the state of Israel for a false flag attack or stealing technology and go directly to Hitler.
Of course, if you do want to get into that, and play the stupid "oppression" game... Fine, I can play devil's advocate. I'd speculate that Jews are demonstrably more nepotistic than non-Jewish white people in general and that accounts for a lot of the types of positions that account for vast wealth accumulation, whereas nepotism isn't driving admittance into the middle class tradesman's lifestyle of your average middle-class white person. But if we're restricting any possible alternative factors then I guess we're in feminist "wage gap" argument territory and I'll just roll my eyes again and walk away.
Personally, I think people should be free to bitch about whoever they want for whatever reason and the response to the crazies should be, "eh, maybe, but prob'ly not." But we clearly don't have that.
I'm describing specifically leftist arguments where it's perfectly ok to bitch about white people (collectively, as a whole) but not ok to bitch about Jews (collectively, as a whole) without being Hitler.
OK. But this applies equally to every group other than whites, men, heterosexuals - their betes noirs. You can't even bitch about Asians, and they get screwed over bigly by the wokies.
It's ok to criticize Israel specifically for oppressing the poor Palestinians, but blame the state of Israel for a false flag attack or stealing technology and go directly to Hitler.
It's OK to criticize Israel if you're from the left. It's not OK to criticize Israel if you're from the right. It's as simple as that. It's hierarchy.
I'd speculate that Jews are demonstrably more nepotistic than non-Jewish white people in general
It's not really speculation. Any tightly knit community will look like that. E.g. Sowell describes how Jewish traders sometimes avoided contract and lawyer costs by trading without contracts, due to the trust that existed between them. Of course you're going to trade with a fellow Jew whom you (at least think you can) trust rather than with an outsider.
and that accounts for a lot of the types of positions that account for vast wealth accumulation
That wealth has to exist in the first place though. It didn't come dropping out of the sky. Same with the wealth of the overseas Chinese. They are the ones who created that wealth.
Personally, I think people should be free to bitch about whoever they want for whatever reason and the response to the crazies should be, "eh, maybe, but prob'ly not." But we clearly don't have that.
I'm starting to think .win is being infected by leftists just like reddit was. It is becoming impossible to enjoy anything without being bombarded with leftist ideology. On reddit leftists blame white people, in here leftists blame the jews. Why do leftists ruin everything they touch?
No, it's just the Jewish Question that has people at odds here.
There's a fine line between A) rational criticisms of the Jews as a political entity or as an insular community at odds with the various nations they inhabit, and B) scapegoating them out of laziness or convenience or bigotry.
I have to give the debate to SR388-SAX here, not because I agree with his point of view entirely but because he's correct about "protection from criticism" and "neoptism."
I didn't give "my points of view," I just pointed out observations I've made, and then took the devil's advocate position because AoV wanted to argue about something else.
Probably the closest thing I gave to my "point of view" is that I wish that racist Jews got called out and shunned for being racists the same way non-Jewish white people are. Would probably help a lot to restore good faith discussion.
"Based" subreddits are a great example of how censorship benefits right-liberal gatekeepers. On places like reddit, there is always an excuse that hands are being forced by the admins so mods can ban the "undesirables" without looking like they are betraying their free speech stance. That won't work here (for now).
You get "infested by this ilk" because we are correct, and you're all but out of excuses to cover it up when you're in the alt tech gutter like this. We win the debate when we're allowed a seat at the table. Right-liberals know it. Leftists know it. That's why Zizek and Peterson will debate each other but not us.
On places like reddit, there is always an excuse that hands are being forced by the admins so mods can ban the "undesirables" without looking like they are betraying their free speech stance.
Why is that an 'excuse'? Or do you mean that we were happy to be forced to ban people?
You get "infested by this ilk" because we are correct, and you're all but out of excuses to cover it up when you're in the alt tech gutter like this. We win the debate when we're allowed a seat at the table.
You may, but the kind of loser I'm talking about certainly did not. They also did not 'debate'.
That's why Zizek and Peterson will debate each other but not us.
How do you define 'winning a debate'? People generally just declare the person they agree with to be the winner.
Only one of the two is actually silencing dissent.
The other one is weaponized as a mascot in order to prevent criticism of people the Democrats like (Soros), while allowing free criticism of people they do like (Adelson).
Oh come on. My entire life, it's been perfectly acceptable for anybody to blame white people and Christians for just about every social ill under the sun. But if someone suggests that maybe Jews are responsible for some social ills themselves, they're immediately Hitler.
It's perfectly acceptable to acknowledge that Jews are disproportionately very wealthy (if it's an exercise in singing the praises of Jewish contributions the world), and it's perfectly acceptable to accuse wealthy people of exerting unfair influence on governments, but to suggest that maybe Jews use their disproportionate wealth to influence governments makes you Hitler.
I've got no truck with Jews, personally. I do think there are a lot of really fucking vile racist Jewish individuals out there, and that for some reason nobody tells them to stop being vile racists (probably because to do so means you're Hitler). But the idea that Jews don't enjoy some level of protection from criticism is ludicrous.
Yes, you'll come back with "but the Jews aren't actually the ones that silence the dissent!" and I'll roll my eyes and move on.
Same thing with feminism. You can blame men for any problem you want and nobody bats an eye, but a woman? Fat chance. Which is kind of what OP was talking about.
Neither do I. It is kind of odd however, that you aren't allowed to question whether or not the Holocaust happened in many countries. It's literally illegal in Germany. I can't think of any other ethnic group where you aren't allowed to debate the veracity of something they claimed happened to them.
Depends on who does it. If you're a leftist and attack Israel, that's perfectly fine. Hell, you can even put Ivanka Trump on the frontpage of your "paper" and call her a "ghoul" You can also criticize any Jewish donor to GOP causes.
You cannot get in the way of the woke/establishment agenda though.
Besides, compare how criticism of Judaism plays vs. criticism of Islam.
Because then your motive is racial. It's like you would not mind people saying that whites are richer than blacks, and that it's bad that wealthy people exercise disproportionate influence, but if you say that "white people use their wealth to influence governments", it sounds like you have a bizarre racial agenda. And people who say that do.
Of course there are. But the only Jews whom you can't criticize are those who are on the left.
I'm not making that argument. I'm describing specifically leftist arguments where it's perfectly ok to bitch about white people (collectively, as a whole) but not ok to bitch about Jews (collectively, as a whole) without being Hitler. Trying to play gotchas with the internal contradictions of the victim oppression hierarchy is just deflection. It's ok to criticize Israel specifically for oppressing the poor Palestinians, but blame the state of Israel for a false flag attack or stealing technology and go directly to Hitler.
Of course, if you do want to get into that, and play the stupid "oppression" game... Fine, I can play devil's advocate. I'd speculate that Jews are demonstrably more nepotistic than non-Jewish white people in general and that accounts for a lot of the types of positions that account for vast wealth accumulation, whereas nepotism isn't driving admittance into the middle class tradesman's lifestyle of your average middle-class white person. But if we're restricting any possible alternative factors then I guess we're in feminist "wage gap" argument territory and I'll just roll my eyes again and walk away.
Personally, I think people should be free to bitch about whoever they want for whatever reason and the response to the crazies should be, "eh, maybe, but prob'ly not." But we clearly don't have that.
OK. But this applies equally to every group other than whites, men, heterosexuals - their betes noirs. You can't even bitch about Asians, and they get screwed over bigly by the wokies.
It's OK to criticize Israel if you're from the left. It's not OK to criticize Israel if you're from the right. It's as simple as that. It's hierarchy.
It's not really speculation. Any tightly knit community will look like that. E.g. Sowell describes how Jewish traders sometimes avoided contract and lawyer costs by trading without contracts, due to the trust that existed between them. Of course you're going to trade with a fellow Jew whom you (at least think you can) trust rather than with an outsider.
That wealth has to exist in the first place though. It didn't come dropping out of the sky. Same with the wealth of the overseas Chinese. They are the ones who created that wealth.
I think it's a diversion.
Right, because the adl, splc, and aclu haven’t repeatedly worked as the legal thug branch of “minorities”.
But you prove my point, as the only minority they defend is the Democratic Party.
The adl was started to defend the Democratic Party?
The ADL presently does nothing but defend the interests of the Democratic Party, yes.
I'm starting to think .win is being infected by leftists just like reddit was. It is becoming impossible to enjoy anything without being bombarded with leftist ideology. On reddit leftists blame white people, in here leftists blame the jews. Why do leftists ruin everything they touch?
No, it's just the Jewish Question that has people at odds here.
There's a fine line between A) rational criticisms of the Jews as a political entity or as an insular community at odds with the various nations they inhabit, and B) scapegoating them out of laziness or convenience or bigotry.
I have to give the debate to SR388-SAX here, not because I agree with his point of view entirely but because he's correct about "protection from criticism" and "neoptism."
I didn't give "my points of view," I just pointed out observations I've made, and then took the devil's advocate position because AoV wanted to argue about something else.
Probably the closest thing I gave to my "point of view" is that I wish that racist Jews got called out and shunned for being racists the same way non-Jewish white people are. Would probably help a lot to restore good faith discussion.
The problem is that these leftists are only about "B" and never the "A".
No censorship always means you get infested by this ilk, because they have nowhere else to go.
On the sub, we would occasionally give them a slap so they would at least keep their power level private.
"Based" subreddits are a great example of how censorship benefits right-liberal gatekeepers. On places like reddit, there is always an excuse that hands are being forced by the admins so mods can ban the "undesirables" without looking like they are betraying their free speech stance. That won't work here (for now).
You get "infested by this ilk" because we are correct, and you're all but out of excuses to cover it up when you're in the alt tech gutter like this. We win the debate when we're allowed a seat at the table. Right-liberals know it. Leftists know it. That's why Zizek and Peterson will debate each other but not us.
Why is that an 'excuse'? Or do you mean that we were happy to be forced to ban people?
You may, but the kind of loser I'm talking about certainly did not. They also did not 'debate'.
How do you define 'winning a debate'? People generally just declare the person they agree with to be the winner.
They need more slapping here.
Otherwise these leftists will take over, and we will have reddit 2.0.
They do get over the top sometimes. But what can you do?