Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

4

leftous wrote

He is a liberal no doubt. But by that logic, you're pretty much arguing liberals, the ACLU, and whatever other freeze peach organization is anti-semitic.

It is a bit ridiculous and I would say potentially harmful. To lump liberals in with antisemites, you lessen its meaning and what harm it has caused.

Also in that article isn't he talking more about anti-semitism in the same way we discuss racism/"reverse racism" here where it's in the context of power and opportunity?

4

Dumai wrote

But by that logic, you're pretty much arguing liberals, the ACLU, and whatever other freeze peach organization is anti-semitic.

well i mean... yeah i kind of am

i do not see the fault in that

like would you be uncomfortable saying freeze peachers are pretty racist?

To lump liberals in with antisemites, you lessen its meaning and what harm it has caused.

anti-semitism isn't some exclusive political ideal that belongs solely to the far-right, it's a systemic form of oppression with centuries of history and, as with many of these things, is often perpetuated by liberals

Also in that article isn't he talking more about anti-semitism in the same way we discuss racism/"reverse racism" here where it's in the context of power and opportunity?

well he literally said anti-semitism as whole does not exist in the united states anymore and that the only reason anybody talks about it is because jews as privileged people want "total control", which like... yeah i'm thinking it's a safe bet to say that's anti-semitic

3

leftous wrote

like would you be uncomfortable saying freeze peachers are pretty racist?

Not necessarily since there are two types of freeze peach liberals:

  1. people who want freedom from any consequences of their speech (Those who perpetuate and enable racism)

  2. people who don't want the government to prosecute speech

The second group is where I would fit in groups like the ACLU and Chomsky.

They recognize that it is essential that the state isn't allowed to prosecute people for speech. There are lawmakers in the US who are trying to use anti-semitism and hatespeech laws to shutdown legitimate protests like BDS.

Of course they have priveleged cheerleaders from AIPAC to sell their laws as if they are legitimately to combat antisemitism.

I feel like this is one of the biggest dangers facing the left and Palestinians (in the US, at least) since it is a direct existential threat, and to erase solidarity. It needs to be called out.

Do you believe there is an existential threat on white people and that antiwhite racism exists in the US? I would say Jews have white privelege in the US in particular.

4

Dumai wrote

The second group is where I would fit in groups like the ACLU and Chomsky.

you are aware the ALCU defended the right for neo-nazis to march through a town full of holocaust survivors right

and considering chomsky is a literal friend to holocaust deniers i think he more likely belongs in the first category

Do you believe there is an existential threat on white people and that antiwhite racism exists in the US?

no.

I would say Jews have white privelege in the US in particular.

it's safe to say white jews do - and it's important here to recognise that not all jews are white and there's a discussion to be had on whether even ashkenazim are white in every social setting, particularly during this huge reawakening of american neo-nazism - but believing anti-semitism exists as a systemic issue doesn't mean you have to deny white privilege, i do not know where you are getting that impression

if nothing else we probably ought to take exception to the fact chomsky thought it was a good idea to claim jews are the most privileged section of american society

3

leftous wrote

you are aware the ALCU defended the right for neo-nazis to march through a town full of holocaust survivors right

People should have the right to do whatever they want without government interference. Like I said, precedent is a dangerous thing to play with in the US.

and considering chomsky is a literal friend to holocaust deniers i think he more likely belongs in the first category

Literal friend? Never heard of this.

if nothing else we probably ought to take exception to the fact chomsky thought it was a good idea to claim jews are the most privileged section of american society

I can agree with this. But it should be noted that many on the alt-right are radical Zionists and islamophobic. They actually pose a greater existential threat to the Palestinians.

3

Dumai wrote

People should have the right to do whatever they want without government interference. Like I said, precedent is a dangerous thing to play with in the US.

okay but ever think it's a little weird that the first amendment is often used to protect bigotry (i mean look at aclu's defence of the charlottesville protests if you want a more recent example) but is equally as likely to fail in protecting causes you're more likely to care about? as far as i'm concerned, that's the precedent, and with it is a wider pattern of affording direct legal protection to fascists and other racist extremists - not just protecting their speech but also defending them from any kind of anti-racist action. i feel very confident in condemning anybody who contributes to that precedent.

in any case, you're getting things kinda backwards if you think the us is likely to begin with criminalising hate speech and then move onto targeting radical politics. it already does the latter and consistently fails in the former.

Literal friend? Never heard of this.

chomsky defended french holocaust denier robert faurisson, condemned his suspension from his academic post as an attempt at censorship, and denied there was anything anti-semitic about his "extensive historical research into the 'holocaust' question" (the actual words of a petition chomsky signed!). and just in case anybody is tempted to bring up faurisson's prison sentence in the '90s, this happened years before holocaust denial was even illegal in france, so nobody could have reasonably believed he was in any legal danger at the time.

3

leftous wrote

okay but ever think it's a little weird that the first amendment is often used to protect bigotry (i mean look at aclu's defence of the charlottesville protests if you want a more recent example) but is equally as likely to fail in protecting causes you're more likely to care about? as far as i'm concerned, that's the precedent, and with it is a wider pattern of affording direct legal protection to fascists and other racist extremists - not just protecting their speech but also defending them from any kind of anti-racist action. i feel very confident in condemning anybody who contributes to that precedent.

Youre contradicting yourself here. You claim that the imperialist US government is the real danger...yet you want to give them tools to shutdown dissent? Why are you trying to empower the most dangerous force in the US government? As I said, the US is currently trying to classify solidarity with the Palestinians as hate speech. Governments in Europe are using hate speech laws to attack leftists.

Allowing the government to regulate speech is basically asking for yourself to be arrested since they can then claim what you're doing on Raddle is hatespeech.

This is why organizations like the ACLU are actually vital.

Regarding your points about the Faurisson Affair a basic Wikipedia search pretty much disproves everything here so I have to wonder what your source is.

2

Dumai wrote (edited )

i never said i wanted to give it the power to do anything. like most anarchists i'm not in the business of the politics of demand, and the us government is not likely to ever use these powers in the way you're assuming i want anyhow. i was just observing that free speech as a legal construct has often been used as part of a wider political toolset to protect violent bigotry. that's not incompatible with the fact the same system might otherwise legally target left-wing politics.

what have you read on wikipedia that contradicts what i said about faurisson? chomsky did deny that faurisson is anti-semitic, chomsky did sign a petition that described him as an innocent historical researcher, this did happen in the late '70s, long before holocaust denial was criminalised in france in 1990.

2

leftous wrote (edited )

I recognize the problem with liberalism.

But what you're failing to recognize is that the first amendment and those who protect it do so to limit the state. Yes, it's unfortunate that bigots can have a happy home in liberalism. However, limits on the state are the only way anarchists, leftists, and other allies are able to organize without being repressed. To argue against limits on the state while liberalism still exists is completely reckless and dangerous. It threatens everyone who dares to dissent.

Regarding your point about the Faurisson affair. According to what I read, Chomsky was not "literally his friend", because Faurisson included his essay without his knowledge or consent. I think I misread what you wrote otherwise, sorry about that. You're right that it does seem Chomsky failed to acknowledge the anti-semitism in Faurisson's holocaust denial.

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

as much as i'd like to believe the american government voluntarily limited its own powers and there were absolutely no authoritarian implications as a result, consolidating racial hatred is one of the many functions of freedom of speech as a legal construct, and it easily provides the state with the tools to do so. violence, too, since the aclu is basically defending the circumstances surrounding heather heyer's death! of course the person who did it is going to prison, but doesn't speak to the fact that it will continue to happen as a result of the policies the aclu defends. in the final analysis freedom of speech is a power of the state in and of itself, like many other well-intentioned attempts at reform.

obviously i'm glad to live in a country where i'm less likely to be arrested for being an anarchist, but that doesn't mean freedom of speech needs to be a part my political values - in part because it takes the presence of a state as granted in the first place. believing in the essential truth of a right to free speech assumes the state deserves the power to grant it! of course petitioning a government to institutionalise political censorship would also legitimate the state, so i'm not going to do that. there, happy now?

According to what I read, Chomsky was not "literally his friend"

well i was exaggerating and using "literally" as an intensifier in that way that annoys language snobs :')

4

leftous wrote

Alright fair enough. My only point is that I will support the right to free speech as long as the state/capitalism exist, and those institutions that protect it, since I think it's our only chance to not get fucked in the interim. Especially in our current culture where everything we say or post is increasingly being tracked. But I totally agree with everything you have to say.