this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
230 points (89.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2825 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I will never understand why that’s so difficult for some people.

You're assuming everyone is discussing this in good faith. They're not. Some are weaponizing antisemitism so only unequivocal support for the Israeli government is welcome. I don't know why anyone would think doing that is a good idea, it's certainly not going to bring people around to the side of Netanyahu's government.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

People need to understand that when you do something like that, it waters down both sides of the equation. You can call something "antisemitic" to get people to think that action is evil without looking too closely because they want to distance themselves as much as possible from the evil label. But it also can make people lose the association between "antisemitic" and "evil" because they agree with whatever is being called "antisemitic" and think "if this is antisemitism, it must not be that bad".

And then there's the ones who think "if you're going to call me evil, then I might as well just be evil".

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's an example of crying wolf and I guess we all know how that ended. Accusations of antisemitism have been used as a cudgel to silence critics for so long now that when I hear someone has been accused my first instinct is to dig into what they actually said because I'm automatically skeptical of the accusation.

This kind of thing happened when Jeremy Corbyn was running in the last UK election. To this day, I've yet to read a single comment he has ever made that could be construed as antisemitic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, now that you mention it, it's already happened with me, too. I'll still make the assumptions if the news is associated with neo-nazis, but in any other context "antisemetism" needs more specifics before I can tell if it's legit or if it's just Israel (or their allies) trying to silence critics.

Like there was an article about a study just a few weeks back that said "antisemitism was rising among liberals", but then you look into what it actually meant and it was really about liberals not supporting Israel. But even before I clicked it to have a look, I was looking to see how ridiculously they defined "antisemetic" rather than having any worry that hatred of Jewish people was on the rise with progressives.