Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I see. I agree. I guess these people shouldn't be silenced, but, I do think that they shouldn't go out and promote these ideas just because
they're on the internet, outside of law enforcement and a public place, just to offend people.
I would say just challenge those who you feel are being racist or sexist.
If you find someones racism or sexism offensive, rather than lobby for censorship, use YOUR freedom of speech to counter it. Just dont expect the
person you are arguing with to be happy about it either.
There does seem to be times when criticizing a member of a group, like the Jews since you brought that one up, where you are placed at a disadvantage
because that label applies to both a ethnic group a nationality, and a religion.
There also does seem to me, and others, a using of the historical suffering of that group as a means of deflecting ANY criticism by calling it
"anti-Semitic."
en.wikipedia.org...
The Roman-Catholic historian Edward Flannery distinguished four varieties of antisemitism[3]:
* Political and economic antisemitism, giving as examples Cicero and Charles Lindbergh;
* Theological or religious antisemitism, sometimes known as anti-Judaism;
* Nationalistic antisemitism, citing Voltaire and other Enlightenment thinkers, who attacked Jews for supposedly having certain characteristics,
such as greed and arrogance, and for observing customs such as kashrut and shabbat;
* Racial antisemitism, as practiced in the Holocaust by the Nazis.
In addition, from the 1990s, some writers claim to have identified a new antisemitism, a form of antisemitism coming simultaneously from the far left,
the far right, and radical Islam, which tends to focus on opposition to Zionism and a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel, and which may deploy
traditional antisemitism motifs.[4] Proponents of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism, anti-globalization, third worldism, and
demonization of Israel or double standards applied to its conduct may be linked to antisemitism, or constitute disguised antisemitism. Critics of the
concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly,
trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence debate.
Those definitions are so broad and confusing I do not even know if I qualify. I am highly critical of the Semitic religions, including Judaism. (But
including the other Semitic religions, Christianity and Islam as well.) I dont treat individuals of any of those faiths a certain way based upon
their membership in those faiths however, I consider them individually, based upon how much they think
their religion should dictate to me what
I am and should be. And, truth be known, I am nosier than that, I also care how they feel their religion allows them to treat other humans who are
not me. If being opposed to or critical of a religion or group of religions that I think are highly problematic in terms of spreading oppressive
religious and cultural norms around the world, so be it. I guess I am anti-Semitic then.
Anyway, I much prefer someone be allowed to tell me where they stand rather than enforcing a social code that drives their prejudices underground and
doesnt do away with them, but only makes them harder to pinpoint.