"Contrary to a 'horseshoe' theory, the evidence reveals increasing antisemitism moving from left to right."
"Contrary to a 'horseshoe' theory, the evidence reveals increasing antisemitism moving from left to right."
Hersh, Eitan; Royden, Laura (25 June 2022). "Antisemitic Attitudes Across the Ideological Spectrum" Political Research Quarterly.
doi:10.1177/10659129221111081
You're viewing part of a thread.
They're doing the standard reverse racism charge, because you see, noticing racism is actually the real racism.
In the English speaking world, anti-white racism isn't really a thing.
Some people will swear up and down that it is, but those people think racism is just a set of attitudes towards a race of people, and not a deeply entrenched system of oppression against entire swathes of society.
Racism is seeing race as what makes people "goodies" or "badies". The "good" races and "bad" races in your thinking being different from those of mid and early XXth century racism in Western nations is wholly irrelevant for asserting that thinking like that is being a Racist.
The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of "good" and bad "races", it's somebody who thinks it's not race that makes people be "good" or "bad".
It's pretty telling that your entire defense of somebody else assigning race as cause of certain behaviours is to say that indeed for certain races, race is the cause of that behaviour and presume that the denial of that by others is due to the specific race which was said to be "badies".
Please show me where I said white people were the bad people.
It's not a long comment I made so it shouldn't be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.
Yeah, you're right on that point: you're dividing people into behavioural groups using "English speaking world" as identity tag rather than a race.
So the prejudice you voiced was using "geographical area of birth defined by language spoken" to presume unrelated characteristics of people, rather race.
It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by "geographical area of birth".
Please tell me where in my comment I said anyone were bad people because of their "geographical area of birth".
It wasn't a very long comment I made so it shouldn't be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.
Please tell me where in my comment I said that you said "anyone were bad people because of their 'geographical area of birth'”.
It wasn’t a very long comment I made so it shouldn’t be hard to find it, unless I said no such thing.
The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.
It was indeed incorrect and unfair of my part to accuse you of voicing prejudice by race when the prejudice you voiced was by “geographical area of birth”.
Put those two together, in context, like you might do if you could read things, understand them and infer basic meaning, and that's actually very clearly what you were saying.
In case you can't follow it because for example you are trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you said: you said I divided people into good and bad by race, then you corrected yourself and said my prejudice was based on geography. That prejudice was clearly established as believing in good and bad people.
You're right, that really wasn't hard, because you absolutely did say that.
You clearly don't have anything honest to say or you'd have said it. You're 0 for 3 on actually saying something that makes sense yet. I don't hold out hope for future comments.
The opposite of Racist is not a Racist with an opposite list of “good” and bad “races”, it’s somebody who thinks it’s not race that makes people be “good” or “bad”.
You're pressuming that was about you rather than me making the counter-point to the posture you were supporting.
It's funny that you repeatedly demanded me to point an exact statement and yet when faced with an equal demand, it was fine for you to "infer" meaning, though that was previously not fine for me to do.
It's called a double standard.
Curiously and having in good faith taken that original riposte of yours (before you repeated it again, in slogan-like fashion) about me having unfairly infered something about your statement, I actually apologized for that since I had indeed presumed too much.
Well, at least it's well beyond doubt (certainly you exhausted the original benefit of the doubt) to me that you are not making points in good faith and what drives you in this exchange is something else than a desire for an open and fair discussion, so you do you an I'll do me.
Motherfucker you came at me with a challenge to a position that I clearly didn't have, and your "apology" was obviously a snide attempt to make a second equally ridiculous accusation.
You also said I "voiced prejudice". (EDIT: In fact, you called it an "accusation", your words, so it wasn't some academic detached notion that you were attacking, it was my conduct directly) Now, if that's meant to mean something other than you accusing me of racism or whatever "geographical" prejudice is, go for it. Explain yourself.
I never said anything prejudicial towards any group. Once again, if I did, fucking show it. Explain your working.
So far I am working off of vague insinuations and technical "well ackshually"s from you. If you have something to say, fucking say it.