The Gaming Den

There's a silly linguistic debate about the hyphenation of antisemitism. The argument goes something along the lines of there is no semitism to be anti about. It's very true.

Now for a little sharing of information that I have gleaned from the internets on the subject.

Most of what we know about antisemitism's history seems to have been poularized by some German guy called William Mahr and his pamphlets on how the jews are going to kill Germany. At that time, it was mostly a point of pride to use the phrase. Of course, the phrase did exist before mahr for at least 20-30 years but it really only ran in certain circles.

My curiosity is to when Jews themselves start using the word.

In the 70s, arab representatives backed by Soviet funding tried to blunt their own anti-israeli rhetoric by bringing up the point that they were Semites as well. Didn't work too well because of the soviet backing.

Recently it seems to be cropping up in blog posts around the post in the last 7 to 8 months by labeling anti-palestinian sayings as antisemitic. It still doesn't seem to have caught on even gotten a whiff of approval. Most people look at it and automatically give it a label as something that shouldn't be.

ON a listserv I belong to, it's been said that having antisemitism work for others such as the Palestinians would be something akin to holocaust denial.

This is retarded obviously but seriously that's what someone said.

Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:

Sir_Neil wrote:I think number 3 is meant to describe their motivation, rather than their literal actions.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with that. I could say I'm defending American Freedom when I'm watching japanese women making out while jerking it, that doesn't mean I actually AM defending American freedom.

... I guess if you claimed that you were watching Japanese erotica to preserve our first amendment that would sorta be what I'm talking about.

Narcissus wrote:
The term has come to mean anti-Jewish because the only semitic people with whom the European cultures that gave rise to the modern English language had significant and direct contact with were Jews.

It's a linguistic idiosyncrasy accepted by most people. And yes, it is stupid.

I seem to have missed this one.
Actually your reasoning is false. See my earlier post on this subject.

Europe had more significant contact with the arab world rather than with the Jews in Europe. I talk about trade, the wars, and movement across the globe.

Historically, Jews in europe have not had much power until the last 100 or so years. They were herded here and there and really weren't well liked at all.

See negative viewings of jews in literature through "merchant of venice", "Jew of Malta" and other works from the tiime.

angelfromanotherpin wrote: Actually, something like 70% of the U.S. population thinks that our policy should be as a neutral peace-negotiator. Somehow, despite this, our political leaders back Israel unconditionally. Fuck, swearing allegiance to Israel is almost a prerequisite for becoming U.S. President.

Disclaim: I think both sides ('both' implies that there are two.. but I can think of at least like 5 in the middle east, so take that with a grain of salt) are a pack of dickheads.

That said the US is always going to back Israel and so is everyone else in the 'west'. Israel is 'one of the boys' and massacres the local ethnics while participating in things like trade, stability and democracy.

As a result it builds influence with the other influence weavers and they all get along.

The other states in the middle east aren't really interested in that game, and don't play. They would much rather that everyone else went away.

Its like high school. Israel is one of the jocks, and the arabs are the emo kids who stand around and cut themselves. I guess that makes china bill gates in my hilariously bad analogy.

A_Cynic wrote:

Narcissus wrote:
The term has come to mean anti-Jewish because the only semitic people with whom the European cultures that gave rise to the modern English language had significant and direct contact with were Jews.

It's a linguistic idiosyncrasy accepted by most people. And yes, it is stupid.

I seem to have missed this one.
Actually your reasoning is false. See my earlier post on this subject.

Europe had more significant contact with the arab world rather than with the Jews in Europe. I talk about trade, the wars, and movement across the globe.

Historically, Jews in europe have not had much power until the last 100 or so years. They were herded here and there and really weren't well liked at all.

See negative viewings of jews in literature through "merchant of venice", "Jew of Malta" and other works from the tiime.

I stand corrected.

I think both sides are right.

They aren't kidding themselves. Peace in the Gaza strip and whatnot isn't possible. They both know that. Israel came in and kicked the Palestinians out and they've been pretty mad about it since. And why shouldn't they be? And why shouldn't the new generation of Israelis who never kicked anyone else not defend themselves too? The end. Which means war until the end of my lifetime. And this entire post is basically a summary of a whole speech given by an earlier prime minister of Israel.

Surgo wrote:I think both sides are right.

They aren't kidding themselves. Peace in the Gaza strip and whatnot isn't possible. They both know that. Israel came in and kicked the Palestinians out and they've been pretty mad about it since. And why shouldn't they be? And why shouldn't the new generation of Israelis who never kicked anyone else not defend themselves too? The end. Which means war until the end of my lifetime. And this entire post is basically a summary of a whole speech given by an earlier prime minister of Israel.

That had some remarkable clarity, be sure. But let's take the implicit confession that the Israeli didn't have a right to all the land they presently occupy, and then wonder why they wouldn't relinquish the part they shouldn't own in exchange for not having some of them dead. Aside, of course, from U.S.A. pressure, for example.

Bigode wrote:

Surgo wrote:I think both sides are right.

They aren't kidding themselves. Peace in the Gaza strip and whatnot isn't possible. They both know that. Israel came in and kicked the Palestinians out and they've been pretty mad about it since. And why shouldn't they be? And why shouldn't the new generation of Israelis who never kicked anyone else not defend themselves too? The end. Which means war until the end of my lifetime. And this entire post is basically a summary of a whole speech given by an earlier prime minister of Israel.

That had some remarkable clarity, be sure. But let's take the implicit confession that the Israeli didn't have a right to all the land they presently occupy, and then wonder why they wouldn't relinquish the part they shouldn't own in exchange for not having some of them dead. Aside, of course, from U.S.A. pressure, for example.

look it's a lose-lose situation. Yes, israel shouldn't have been there before. but they've raised families there and it's as much their land as before.

palestine shouldn't have been gypped and they have a right to reparations.

it's a retarded situation.

Yeah, the British (and later Americans) had no right to steal all that land from the Native American peoples, but the American have been there for generations now, and...

Whoops. My bad. That's something totally different.

'Right' to land - and this isn't private property, you mean a 'state' is a pretty stupid concept especially in that part of the middle east, because it has been systematically abused by everyone standing near the area, including the romans, the british, the turks, the turks again, Egyptians, europe again, etc, etc, etc. You have to go so far back to find a 'state' and both sides had them in the area, that it is pretty bloody amphorous.

Really everyone decided to give the 1948 partition the finger - mostly because it was stupid - and then have never recovered the situation. Then the Arab league made it worse by shockingly maltreating Palestinian refugees. I suspect if they have had been resettled, much would be better today.

Until someone(s) who are judged 'impartial' (it will have to be collectively because no individual state will be acceptable to both sides), knocks some heads together nothing will change.

Both sides can make the land 'rights' thing as clear as day, but no rationale stands up to really in depth examination. It is a very murky issue.

As long as Israel keeps encroaching, they don't have a leg to stand on. The settlements are still going forward, ad as long as that is happening no land deal is possible.

"This land is your land, except that we'll fucking build our shit on it next Tuesday and if you're still here we will bulldozer your fucking kids and any reporters that try to cover it."

-Username17

So on a similar topic as to why I am currently exuding hate for Americans (well...extreme nationalists anyway.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/us/11 ... .html?_r=1

Leave it to the country music capital of the world to try to enforce English first politics.

Is there any reason, why we still have country music?

FrankTrollman wrote:As long as Israel keeps encroaching, they don't have a leg to stand on. The settlements are still going forward, ad as long as that is happening no land deal is possible.

"This land is your land, except that we'll fucking build our shit on it next Tuesday and if you're still here we will bulldozer your fucking kids and any reporters that try to cover it."

-Username17

Though not saying it's right, it is reminiscent of the conquest of the americas.

Conquest and morality does not seem to be a decent mix.

Our government lets the people of the First Nations live and work anywhere in the country, not just on reservations.

Admittedly, the USA and Canada did a good enough job massacring Native Americans that putting laws in place to prevent them from gaining significant political power would be superfluous. However, aside from a few horror stories, things have been getting better for First Nations people living in the USA and Canada.

If Israel gave all Palestinians citizenship, tore down the walls, started making reparations, and didn't allow Israelis to own Palestinian land, then you'd have a more comparable situation. Not that doing exactly that would be the best solution (a lot of the ways that the USA deals with tribal membership and reservations are retarded), but I don't think you're giving North America enough credit.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Our government lets the people of the First Nations live and work anywhere in the country, not just on reservations.

Admittedly, the USA and Canada did a good enough job massacring Native Americans that putting laws in place to prevent them from gaining significant political power would be superfluous. However, aside from a few horror stories, things have been getting better for First Nations people living in the USA and Canada.

If Israel gave all Palestinians citizenship, tore down the walls, started making reparations, and didn't allow Israelis to own Palestinian land, then you'd have a more comparable situation. Not that doing exactly that would be the best solution (a lot of the ways that the USA deals with tribal membership and reservations are retarded), but I don't think you're giving North America enough credit.

Wait, are you saying that giving them proper rights of citizenship is an adequate reparation to the Trail of Tears and smallpox blankets? You are a fucked up individual.

A_Cynic wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Our government lets the people of the First Nations live and work anywhere in the country, not just on reservations.

Admittedly, the USA and Canada did a good enough job massacring Native Americans that putting laws in place to prevent them from gaining significant political power would be superfluous. However, aside from a few horror stories, things have been getting better for First Nations people living in the USA and Canada.

If Israel gave all Palestinians citizenship, tore down the walls, started making reparations, and didn't allow Israelis to own Palestinian land, then you'd have a more comparable situation. Not that doing exactly that would be the best solution (a lot of the ways that the USA deals with tribal membership and reservations are retarded), but I don't think you're giving North America enough credit.

Wait, are you saying that giving them proper rights of citizenship is an adequate reparation to the Trail of Tears and smallpox blankets? You are a fucked up individual.

Well, what would be adequate reparations?

There are some things that just can't be atoned for. No matter what you did, it wouldn't be adequate. You can't bring back the dead, and you can't undo the suffering. The best you can do is try to help those who have suffered (and there are plenty of living individuals with memories of "boarding schools" and similar), and to ensure equality in the future.

Fair point.

Yeah, Europe "atoning" for the Holocaust by giving a group of zionists a bunch of german military equipment and telling them to carve out their own pogroms in a trail of blood hasn't worked out super well.

-Username17

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Admittedly, the USA and Canada did a good enough job massacring Native Americans that putting laws in place to prevent them from gaining significant political power would be superfluous. However, aside from a few horror stories, things have been getting better for First Nations people living in the USA and Canada.

Life expectancy is measurably higher for Gazans than Australian aboriginals or native Americans despite the finest Israeli attempts to blow them up. (According to the UN, the Australian government and the US government respectively)

So yeah. You'd hope so, being in that its currently worse than people actually being subjected to economic blockades, have an endemic lack of access to power and medicine and active bombing campaigns.

FrankTrollman wrote:Yeah, Europe "atoning" for the Holocaust by giving a group of zionists a bunch of german military equipment and telling them to carve out their own pogroms in a trail of blood hasn't worked out super well.

-Username17

This feels a bit disingenuous. The European powers wouldn't sell the israeli's guns (being in that the israeli's had been launching a series of terrorist attacks against them to secure land rights, ho ho ho, boot is on the other foot now fellas), so they only got anything off the Czechs and as far as I can see the only criteria there was 'do you have money'

Edit: Until some timeafter 1949, and by that point Israel was practically a european power and the arabs were soviets, so the fact that the west was selling it guns isn't exactly surprising.

A_Cynic wrote:Is there any reason, why we still have country music?

Because...it sounds good and people enjoy listening to it?

I'll be the first to admit that there's a lot of crap in country, but show me a music genre where that isn't true.

As for the article, my feelings are mixed. On the one hand, "English only" is pretty stupid. On the other, it seems equally stupid for the political agents of an predominantly English-speaking region to not speak fluent English.

Talisman wrote:

A_Cynic wrote:Is there any reason, why we still have country music?

Because...it sounds good and people enjoy listening to it?

I'll be the first to admit that there's a lot of crap in country, but show me a music genre where that isn't true.

As for the article, my feelings are mixed. On the one hand, "English only" is pretty stupid. On the other, it seems equally stupid for the political agents of an predominantly English-speaking region to not speak fluent English.

For one, the speaking of spanish in assemblies was done in California. For two, I don't know how much I trust it. Nashville doesn't really have a heavy spanish language base like Cali or Texas. It's retarded to enforce a bill like this.

At last, the moment America's been waiting for: Joe the Plumber weighs in on the media coverage of the Gaza war.

CNN wrote:‘Joe the Plumber’ Wurzelbacher told a group of journalists covering the conflict in Israel and Gaza that he didn’t think the media should be allowed to report on war.

“I think media should be abolished from, you know, reporting,” Wurzelbacher said. “You know, war is hell. And if you’re gonna sit there and say, ‘well, look at this atrocity,’ well you don’t know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it.”

Of course, if Israel and its supporters don't like the coverage of the war, they have only Israel to blame.

Ah, Joe the Plumber. What would America do without you?

...Oh wait; there's millions of other morons out there. Never mind.