Homophobia and Antisemitism.

[Kooky]

You might enjoy Professor Joseph Henrich's book, The WEIRDest People in the World. It deals with the evolution of the socio-cultural configurations of which you speak.

From my personal perspective your statement places you firmly within the very kind of epiphenomenalism that gives rise to homophobia and antisemitism since all the thinking you do, is surely founded, as with the rest of us, in a socio-cultural configuration that your statement implies you look at from some Archimedian perch not contaminated by your personal socio-cultural foundation.

In this sense, your personal epistemological perch is, as best I can tell, just as detached from its foundational socio-cultural birth-place, as Abraham's Jewishness was detached from his Gentile beginnings, or a homosexual's sexual predilections are detached from his sexual beginnings. In all three cases, the newfangled identity ---detached from it's founding ---begs the thoughtful person to beg for a scientific, logical, philosophical, or theological, mechanism for how such a thing could come to be?

Oh, quite the contrary!
My argumentation, my premises - indeed the entire continuum of my thought processes - are positively soaked in the socio-cultural configuration that surrounds me. I would have found it quite impossible to make any sensible argument at all without having been exposed to the intellectual building blocks that make up my current theoretical, ideological and logical framework.

You are quite correct that there is no Archimedean point from which we would be able to view our society - we are effectively different kind of fish talking about the quality of the water that surrounds us. In this, the point of view I took was very much an intellectual conceit rather than an accurate representation of my own situation, and you are correct in pointing that out. To be fair, I do not know any other way to construct my argument than thusly, perhaps due to a flaw in the way I've acquired my arguments and positions on the matter or a fundamental deficiency on the intellectual end; or perhaps, a simple inability to frame this debate in any other way but in the assumption of a fictitious outside observer role that I cannot actually inhabit in earnest.

 

[RestlessSoul]

How do you cope with the fact that there are Jewish homophobes?

Not to mention gay Nazis…

 

[firedragon]

As noted in the referenced thread, one source for both homophobia and antisemitism, is the inability of those who aren't gay, or Jewish, to metabolize, or digest, the unique nature of the two peoples (homosexuals and Jews) in the cross hairs of the angst of their detractors. And the primary reason, abstracted perhaps, for the distraction caused by these two unique peoples (in the minds of their detractors) relates to a doctrinal concept indeed very difficult to swallow: the existence of a new kind of person who arrives on the scene as the product of the older kind of persons, with no logical, scientific, or reasonable definition, describing the genesis of the new person from the exodus of the old persons.



John

How did you make antisemitism and anti jewish the same? Do you not know there are semites that are not jewish? Also, dont you know there are jews who consider other jews as anti semites? Also, there are many many semites who are homophobic. So does that make those others who are anti semites pro phobic because semites are also homophobic? Or does that mean that anti semites are pro homo (if there is such a word) purely by the nature of anti semitism being against semites who are also homophobic?

 

[firedragon]

In the Talmud, and throughout Jewish midrashim, the sons of Abraham, through Sarah, are posited as something very near, if not identical, to what Saul of Tarsus spoke of in 2 Corinthians 5:17. In the Talmud, and Jewish thought in general, Jews are fancied something like a new people, race, or, in the words of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (sounding positively Pauline) a "new species."

In the Tanakh, as in the Talmud, Jews are forbidden from intermarrying with non-Jews. Rabbi Hirsch relates the prohibition directly to the law of shatnez, which forbids the mixing of species, telling us, from Rabbi Hirsch's mouth, that in the minds of the compilers of the Talmud and Jewish law, Jews are a different species from Gentiles.

And yet Abram was a Gentile before the birth of Isaac, or at least before he circumcised himself (prior to the miraculous, post-circumcision, conception of Isaac).

How did the Gentile Abram become a new kind of human? How did one person, or people, race, or species, get separated out from the pre-existing ---- Gentile ---- peoples, persons, race, or species?



John

Can a jew be homophobic?

 

[Harel13]

How did you make antisemitism and anti jewish the same? Do you not know there are semites that are not jewish? Also, dont you know there are jews who consider other jews as anti semites? Also, there are many many semites who are homophobic. So does that make those others who are anti semites pro phobic because semites are also homophobic? Or does that mean that anti semites are pro homo (if there is such a word) purely by the nature of anti semitism being against semites who are also homophobic?

Are you on some sort of crusade to change the meaning of "antisemitism"? When the term was created, it was defined as referring to Jews, not to all semites. While it has long been obvious that that is not an accurate, you seem deeply bothered by it. Why? Is there some sort of movement out there to change the consensual meaning of the term?

I ask, because this is not the first time you've made similar remarks, and at first I thought you were joking.

 

[firedragon]

Are you on some sort of crusade to change the meaning of "antisemitism"? When the term was created, it was defined as referring to Jews, not to all semites.

Well, thats a little absurd isn't it? Why would anyone make up a term that refers to a certain type when its not really referring to that type?

Then its false.

Why? Is there some sort of movement out there to change the consensual meaning of the term?

Well, maybe you are used to "movements" so you as the question that's obvious to you, but its not obvious to me.

 

[Harel13]

Well, thats a little absurd isn't it? Why would anyone make up a term that refers to a certain type when its not really referring to that type?

Then its false.

The least you could do is read up on the origins of the term. You can start here: Antisemitism - Wikipedia

Well, maybe you are used to "movements" so you as the question that's obvious to you, but its not obvious to me.

I have no idea what you mean by this. I was merely asking why it ticks you off so much. Do you commonly define yourself as a "Semite"?

 

[firedragon]

The least you could do is read up on the origins of the term. You can start here: Antisemitism - Wikipedia

See, there are people who go beyond a wikipedia page. So thanks for a very difficult to find internet link, but its not relevant to me.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Ill tell you again. Maybe you are used to hearing about "movements" of whatever nature and only people from "movements" have this ability or nature to question things. that's not relevant to me. So rather than trying to create identity politics in an Internet forum, let the poster respond to it.

Thanks.

 

[Harel13]

See, there are people who go beyond a wikipedia page.

I said "you can start here".
Yes, I myslef usually go beyond Wikipedia. But it's a good starting point. I mean, the least you could do is open up their sources. Though considering where this conversation is going, I have a feeling you won't do that.

Ill tell you again. Maybe you are used to hearing about "movements" of whatever nature and only people from "movements" have this ability or nature to question things.

It was a follow-up question to "Are you on some sort of crusade to change the meaning of "antisemitism"?" - I was merely asking whether this is some sort of personal vendetta you have against the term, or whether there are multiple people on this quest working with you in organized fashion. Evidently not.

 

[Rival]

See, there are people who go beyond a wikipedia page. So thanks for a very difficult to find internet link, but its not relevant to me.

I suspect for the same reason 'Anti-American' doesn't mean anti-every country on the American continent / anti-all the Americas; for the same reason the French call us 'Anglo-Saxons' when they mean the whole of Britain; or when folks refer to all the Muslim world as 'Arabs'.

We know what we mean in context.

 

[firedragon]

I was merely asking why it ticks you off so much. Do you commonly define yourself as a "Semite"?

You know, Im curious to ask really. Why does this "tick you off" so much? Do you consider yourself a semite and you want the term semite to only relate you or something of that nature? I cant understand the problem really. I am asking you because you are asking some personal question about my personal life or who I am in an Internet forum being a so called "staff member" of this forum that I have always respected. You should be able to protect my identity and who I am rather than asking personal questions from me.

I am asking this question from you only because you asked the same question from me. I will honestly answer by saying "no". So now, what is it that gets you go off on this personal tirade? Can you explain?

 

[Harel13]

You know, Im curious to ask really. Why does this "tick you off" so much?

I'm actually not ticked off. If you could see my face, you'd see tired and slightly bored eyes. But sometimes I get curious about things that seem strange to me. I guess it's my fault, I'm only human and I get curious on occasion. Perhaps I should learn to control that.

I am asking you because you are asking some personal question about my personal life or who I am in an Internet forum being a so called "staff member" of this forum that I have always respected.

I'm not asking you as a staffer, though since you state that you find the question insulting, I'll desist. Sorry and have a nice day.

 

[firedragon]

I said "you can start here".
Yes, I myslef usually go beyond Wikipedia. But it's a good starting point. I mean, the least you could do is open up their sources. Though considering where this conversation is going, I have a feeling you won't do that.

You can consider other people have gone way beyond your wikipedia page.

I suspect for the same reason 'Anti-American' doesn't mean anti-every country on the American continent / anti-all the Americas; for the same reason the French call us 'Anglo-Saxons' when they mean the whole of Britain; or when folks refer to all the Muslim world as 'Arabs'.

We know what we mean in context.

Its a pretty bad analogy. Maybe your whole world revolves around anti semitism and America.

When you say America, the whole world only thinks of the United States. But you see, its very primitive to think like this, maybe that's why you are so ticked off and are doing google searches for your apologetics.

Semitism is based on language, not a continent.

 

[Rival]

Maybe your whole world revolves around anti semitism and America.

No actually, my whole world revolves around God, my bf, books and food.

Have a nice day.

 

[firedragon]

I'm actually not ticked off.

Maybe then you should not ask questions for other people. Maybe do some reading.

Have a good day.

I'm not asking you as a staffer, though since you state that you find the question insulting, I'll desist. Sorry and have a nice day.

You should not forget who you are no matter what. Anyway, that's besides the point. Do you really think you asking me who I am and if I am a semite makes a difference in any kind of discussion? This is called a genetic fallacy.

Even if you are from the moon, or a magical world, your proposition is whats important and that's the only thing that's important.

 

[firedragon]

No actually, my whole world revolves around God, my bf, books and food.

Have a nice day.

I am happy for you.

Semitism is based on language, not a continent."

 

[Rival]

I am happy for you.

But try to learn that as I said "When you say America, the whole world only thinks of the United States. But you see, its very primitive to think like this, maybe that's why you are so ticked off and are doing google searches for your apologetics.

Semitism is based on language, not a continent."

I don't care.

 

[John D. Brey]

"Nature" is not a cosmic entity, it is merely a generalized, abstract notion we created to be able to talk about the multitude of phenomena present in the physical world that surrounds us.

This reminds me of my exasperation when, in primary school, the teacher chided me for stereotyping. I thought to myself, isn't all thought stereotypical to one extent or another? After all, as you yourself note, every word or idea is merely a generalization, and not the thing-itself.

The most fascinating property of language is its capacity to make metaphors. But what an understatement! For metaphor is not a mere extra trick of language, as it is so often slighted in the old schoolbooks on composition; it is the very constitutive ground of language.

Julian Jaynes, The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, p. 48.​

John

 

[firedragon]

I don't care.

Great. Its your prerogative.

If you dont care, you should not typically engage in something you dont care about. Maybe its too personal for you. So I shall withdraw from conversing on this with you. Cheers.

 

[John D. Brey]

"Nature" cannot protest anything because, again, what we call nature is not a distinct entity, but an abstract notion referring to a multitude of processes and phenomena that act multidirectionally and based on a multitude of different factors. A virus, for example, is little more than an organic machine primed for reproduction at any cost - there is no direction in its actions except the drive for reproduction and the blind process of mutation and survival.

What is the abstract term "primed" meant to imply in your statement?



John