Thanks to some whiny people I don't get to read Tuesday Morning Quarterback any more

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, that complicates things if he is in a joint congregation. The only problem I have with his statement is that he is not holding the Christians to proper accountability.

I worship in one of the handful of joint Christian-Jewish congregations in the United States.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM:
I think there is nothing wrong in warning of antisemitism when it is justified. Mahathir's comments were obviously anti-semite, and this guy deserves to be criticized for that.
But many Jews have the really bad habit of screming "antisemitism" everytime the Jews or the Israelis get associated with something unpleasant. It pisses me off greatly, because these whiners completely denaturate this grave word. It pisses me off even more so, because according to such logic, we can't allow ourselves to criticize some Jews or to criticize Israel without being associated with the worst horror of modern history

Many criticisms of Israel are NOT antisemitic. Some criticisms of Jews in are not antisemitic (well Im not sure about that) But MANY criticisms of Israel are antisemitic, and most criticisms of Jews in general are antisemitic. It pisses ME off, that I cant call a criticism of Israel antisemitic, when I believe it to be so, cause some folks will say im shouting "antisemite" as a rhetorical weapon and abusing the holocaust.

And yes, many (not all) criticisms of affirmative action in the US are anti-black, many criticisms of feminism are anti-female, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, that complicates things if he is in a joint congregation. The only problem I have with his statement is that he is not holding the Christians to proper accountability.

Or perhaps what he should have done is hold these HUMAN BEINGS to their proper accountability. Which he has done in the past.

[DinoDoc]

I am not pleased at those who dont understand the things that Greg Easterbrook DOES understand.

Why should we understand those that jump to needless conclusions based on nothing more than thier own fears and prejudices?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Gregg Eastebrook himself disagrees. To see why read his eloquent apology.

I've read his apology. And it merely confirmed what I was thinking from the beginning: the only people he shocked are Jews who are still dwelling in the age-old prejudices cast against them.

If said prejudices continued to apply in the American society, these people would have a point. But I have yet to meet an American who actually believes the Jews are worshipping money above all else.

The whole ruckus over his wording is a pure overreation by people who can't tolerate that words can be accidentaly reminiscent of the prejudices of the past This is exactly "whiny" in my book.

Heck, if I entered a righteous crusade to ban anti-French prejudices on Apolyton (which are still running rampant as we speak), many would think I'm overreacting. But if the people who had a poor wording once, linking France and cowardice even if it wasn't their intent; if I had these people banned by Ming, I'd be rightfully called a "whiny Frog".

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It pisses ME off, that I cant call a criticism of Israel antisemitic, when I believe it to be so, cause some folks will say im shouting "antisemite" as a rhetorical weapon and abusing the holocaust.

You didn't restrict yourself that much when you implied GePap's criticism of Israel may have come from latent antisemitism.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

I am not pleased at those who dont understand the things that Greg Easterbrook DOES understand.

Why should we understand those that jump to needless conclusions based on nothing more than thier own fears and prejudices?

You said it much better, and much clearer than me

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I've read his apology. And it merely confirmed what I was thinking from the beginning: the only people he shocked are Jews who are still dwelling in the age-old prejudices cast against them.

If said prejudices continued to apply in the American society, these people would have a point. But I have yet to meet an American who actually believes the Jews are worshipping money above all else.

The whole ruckus over his wording is a pure overreation by people who can't tolerate that words can be accidentaly reminiscent of the prejudices of the past This is exactly "whiny" in my book.

Heck, if I entered a righteous crusade to ban anti-French prejudices on Apolyton (which are still running rampant as we speak), many would think I'm overreacting. But if the people who had a poor wording once, linking France and cowardice even if it wasn't their intent; if I had these people banned by Ming, I'd be rightfully called a "whiny Frog".

well im so glad that youve moved beyond worrying about antisemitism, antiblack prejudice and so forth.
First - yes, while I think there is less antisemitism in this country than anywhere else in the West, there ARE some backword people who hold old antisemitic prejudices. Most do not make those prejudices public, though some, like Louis Farrakhan, do. There are also millions of people around the world who hold such prejudices, many of whom are actively engaged in trying to kill Jews even as we speak.

Im also glad that you didnt mind the Anti-French rhetoric - Id like to know which head of state has recently said that Frenchmen rule the world, or has made the French the one of the principle targets in a global campaign of terror. But if youd like to consider "Cheese eating whatevers" the moral equivalent of antisemitic remarks, go right ahead.


And yes, we do live in the past, to some degree. Part of that is a religion that constantly asks us to remember. Part of it is the need to remember the recent past. Part of it is the present, when blood thirsty antisemitism is espoused by someone who gets widespread admiration from several hundred million people around the world. And part of it is that the Jews of Germany were quite convinced that things had changed, and that the pogroms and persecution that afflicted there ancestors could never happen again.


And I still dont understand why you dont take seriously what Mr. Easterbrook himself says about his words.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

You didn't restrict yourself that much when you implied GePap's criticism of Israel may have come from latent antisemitism.

He (and plenty of others) didnt stop criticising Israel cause they might be accused of antisemitism. One presumes that when you say this causes self-censorship, you mean there would be even more criticism. Well i can tell, you, i have limited myself to what i saw as the most egregious cases - I am sure there are other instances that I thought were antisemitic, when i restrained myself to avoid the appearance of being "whiny".

GePAP refused to admit that Hezbollahs attack on a Jewish Center in Buenos Aires constituted an attack on Argentina, since the attack was aimed at Jews. Now perhaps that was in defense of a political agenda (he didnt want to admit that Hezbollah was global terrorist group, since then it would logically follow that Syria and Iran supported global terrorism, and that had political implications he didnt like) - but the implication - that an attack on Argentinian Jews was not an attack on Argentina - seeemed classically antisemitic to me. and no, I was NOT attacking him as antisemitic for criticizing Israel.

[Master Zen]

This more pathetic uber-PC bullsh*t.

There was nothing anti-semitic about his post but as usually, oversensitive whiny Jews will raise a racket. I'm not saying they all are, (there are whiny people everywhere) but those who are seems to be particularly intent at using political correctness for doublethink purposes. Just look, they even manage to change thread titles here!

(yeah, under their definitions I'm an anti-semite for this kind of posts. )

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

I am not pleased at those who dont understand the things that Greg Easterbrook DOES understand.

Why should we understand those that jump to needless conclusions based on nothing more than thier own fears and prejudices?

Because in this case their fears have legitimate historical roots, as Gregg Easterbrook has the understanding and insight to say.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Master Zen
This more pathetic uber-PC bullsh*t.

There was nothing anti-semitic about his post but as usually, oversensitive whiny Jews will raise a racket. I'm not saying they all are, (there are whiny people everywhere) but those who are seems to be particularly intent at using political correctness for doublethink purposes. Just look, they even manage to change thread titles here!

(yeah, under their definitions I'm an anti-semite for this kind of posts. )

Well speaking of jumping to conclusions "ust look, they even manage to change thread titles here! "
I must again repeat - I did NOT - repeat NOT - request the change in thread title. I dont know who did. Why not ask the moderators before you throw accusations around.

[Spiffor]

And I still dont understand why you dont take seriously what Mr. Easterbrook himself says about his words.

Because he apologized to people who were only shocked because of their own fears and prejudices, as DD put it much better than me. What he said had zero impact on the population's antisemitism - it had only impact on some Jews' sensibility. And I think that's what he exprimes, albeit in a non-hostile way.

And what you are saying is right. There is some antisemitism in this world. I didn't know Farrakhan could spill anti-semitism hatred, but it isn't a surprise from what I heard on the guy. There is still much antisemitism around that has to be fought.

And this rightful struggle against antisemitism goes along with an absurd struggle against every slip of tongue and against many bad opinions towards some Jewish people or towards Israel.

What I'm opposed to is not the struggle against antisemitism. What I'm opposed to is not the fact that Jews can really have power to shut down antisemitic media in the West. What I'm opposed to is when the Jews fight on the wrong battleground. There are too many grounds on which to fight; it is a waste to choose this one. It achieves nothing besides giving the Jews a bad name.

[rah]

*********NOTICE**************


I changed the title. I didn't mind the discussion, but I thought having whiny Jews in the title was not appropriate. MY CALL. And for being a dumb A** and pushing his luck with a copy cat thread, Ben Kenobi will be sitting on the sideline for 24 hours.

Anybody else that complains about it can join him.
Geeze. I just tweeked a title to make it sound a bit less inflamatory, without changing it in the thread.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
GePAP refused to admit that Hezbollahs attack on a Jewish Center in Buenos Aires constituted an attack on Argentina, since the attack was aimed at Jews. Now perhaps that was in defense of a political agenda (he didnt want to admit that Hezbollah was global terrorist group, since then it would logically follow that Syria and Iran supported global terrorism, and that had political implications he didnt like) - but the implication - that an attack on Argentinian Jews was not an attack on Argentina - seeemed classically antisemitic to me. and no, I was NOT attacking him as antisemitic for criticizing Israel.

In this regard, I'd be with you if GePap himself separated the Jews from Argentina from other Argentinians in general. However, in the case of an attack, the target is largely determined by the intent of the attacker.
If the Hezbollah wanted a cheap spot on Jews somewhere unexpected on Earth, the attack was against Jews. If the Hezbollah wanted to destabilise Argentina, and their attack happened to blow up a Jewish Center, the attack would have been against the Argentines.

In your opinion, was the US attack on Iraq aimed against the Saddam regime, or against the children of Iraq ? Many Iraqi children died in the process, yet the target of the war was clearly the Saddam regime.
If the Hezbollah defined its target as "the Jews", then their target was "the Jews". No matter what GePap actually thinks of the integration of Jews in the Argentinian society.

I would have been with you if the FARC attacked some Colombian top leader happening to be a Jew, and if GePap had said "This is an attack against the Jews of the world, not against the Colombian government". But in the case of the Hizbollah, I fear you are acting according to your own fears.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

In this regard, I'd be with you if GePap himself separated the Jews from Argentina from other Argentinians in general. However, in the case of an attack, the target is largely determined by the intent of the attacker.
If the Hezbollah wanted a cheap spot on Jews somewhere unexpected on Earth, the attack was against Jews. If the Hezbollah wanted to destabilise Argentina, and their attack happened to blow up a Jewish Center, the attack would have been against the Argentines.

In your opinion, was the US attack on Iraq aimed against the Saddam regime, or against the children of Iraq ? Many Iraqi children died in the process, yet the target of the war was clearly the Saddam regime.
If the Hezbollah defined its target as "the Jews", then their target was "the Jews". No matter what GePap actually thinks of the integration of Jews in the Argentinian society.

I would have been with you if the FARC attacked some Colombian top leader happening to be a Jew, and if GePap had said "This is an attack against the Jews of the world, not against the Colombian government". But in the case of the Hizbollah, I fear you are acting according to your own fears.

he didnt just say it was not an attack on the Argentinian govt - he said it was not an attack on Argentina. If Alqaeeda dropped a bomb on Paris, say Le Marais, with the intent of killing Jews, would that make it an NOT an attack on France? If they killed me this minute, would it not be an attack on the US? The US never denied that we attacked Iraq - we may have done so in order to liberate the people, but even if we had attempted only to assasinate Hussein, we never denied that he was an Iraqi. What if we had said that he didnt count cause he was a sunni, and we didnt thing Sunnis were true Iraqis? Would you say that yes, we didnt attack Iraq, because we only attacked a Sunni, and we didnt think Sunnis are true Iraqis? Does Hezbollah get to define who is an Argentinian citizen? They DID not attack ISRAELIS who happened to be in Argentina - they attacked ARGENTINIAN CITIZENS - regardless of the motive, that makes it an attack on Argentina. The govt of Argentina certainly considers it to be one.

Now i must ask you what i asked GEpap - do you consider the Jews killed in Buenos Aires to have been Argentian citizens? If not , why not? If so, how was it not an attack on Argentina?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Because in this case their fears have legitimate historical roots

And in this case they led them to attack something as anti-semetic that even you admit wasn't.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
do you consider the Jews killed in Buenos Aires to have been Argentian citizens?

Obviously

If not , why not? If so, how was it not an attack on Argentina?

While I myself Spiffor consider these people to be Argentinian citizens, I highly doubt it was the reason why they were targetted by the Hizbollah. I think it is likely that the Hizbollah attacked these people because of their Jewishness, regardless of their nationality. And I assume the Hizbollah attacked in Argentina because it was convenient, and not because of an anti-Argentine agenda.

As to your question: if an antisemitic terrorist organization bombed Paris with the intent of killing Jews, I'd call this an "attack against Jews", regardless of the religion of its victims. If a terrorist organization bombed Paris to destabilize France (like it happened in 1995, when Algeria's Islamic Armed Group bombed the subway repeatedly and indiscriminately), I would call it an "attack against France". Because the target is in the eye of the beholder.

[Tuberski]

Ifind it funny that LoTM is defending the people that got this guy fired.


You don't get it do you? Ever hear of Chicken Little? If you keep calling 'racism' and 'anti-semitism' every time you turn around all you do is make people sick of hearing those words.

Choose your battles carefully, save it for remarks that are truly anti-semitic. You are fighting a lost cause if you argue over everything.

ACK!

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Tuberski

You don't get it do you? Ever hear of Chicken Little? If you keep calling 'racism' and 'anti-semitism' every time you turn around all you do is make people sick of hearing those words.

Well said, most people are pretty sick of their constant *****ing on racism and anti-semitism. Say something against France, you are an all-American hero. Say something against Bush, you are a liberal champion. Saw something against Jews, you are an anti semite nazi supremacist racist bigot. Poof. Your career is over.

[yavoon]

god damn pc police need to shutup. what made him great was his opinion.

[badams52]

getting back to the original topic, does anyone know where TMQ is going to be published for this week???

I noticed it last week that all of TMQ was gone and Gregg Easterbrook was no longer listed on the columnists on P2 when I went late (last Friday I think) to find his column and to see no trace of it or himself. Fortunately a search on the ESPN site turned up his TMQ for week 6 (lucky me). But I digress.

[notyoueither]

I understand where LotM is coming from. There are certain things that simply should not be said, even if they are said with 'good' motives.

The N word is a good example. You are simply inviting a heap of trouble if you are not black and you use it. Why? Because if one honky can use it harmlessly, then it is perpetuated for use by all honkies who would use it with malice. I can see the POV which says I shouldn't ever use the word, and I can respect it enough to abide by it.

This guy used the Shylock phrase, as it were. Even though he intended no harm, there are those who can not find it in themselves to excuse it. LotM excuses it, but he can appreciate the POV of those who will not.

BTW, he also pointed out that the guy was likely turfed for criticising his boss publicly. That's not PC bullsh*t, that's professional suicide.

[pchang]

Originally posted by notyoueither
BTW, he also pointed out that the guy was likely turfed for criticising his boss publicly. That's not PC bullsh*t, that's professional suicide.

Only if you work for someone vindictive. Easterbrook can now join the company of Katzenberg and Ovits.

[MrFun]

Conservative political correctness says that it's offending to find anything that offends you, as being offensive.

[Drake Tungsten]

Conservative political correctness says that it's offending to find anything that offends you, as being offensive.

Can anyone else figure this out? I'm drawing a blank.

[notyoueither]

It says that conservative PC is self-offensive, whatever the hell that means.

[Dis]

Originally posted by badams52
getting back to the original topic, does anyone know where TMQ is going to be published for this week???

I noticed it last week that all of TMQ was gone and Gregg Easterbrook was no longer listed on the columnists on P2 when I went late (last Friday I think) to find his column and to see no trace of it or himself. Fortunately a search on the ESPN site turned up his TMQ for week 6 (lucky me). But I digress.

I think I forgot to read week 6, let me find that one

I should e-mail Fox News website and ask them to pick him up. He would fit in more over there anyways.

Disney is a strange company. They seem to have no problems with Kill Bill. Strangely that film isn't causing them any controversy.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
"Is it me, or the thread title has just been edited by the mods ?"

how very ironic!

maybe a whiny jew told the mods?

ROFL!

[Dis]

I sent Fox sports a suggestion telling them to pick up TMQ