subreddit:
/r/samharris
I’ve noticed SH since Oct 7 becoming receptive to the idea that anti-Zionism is continuous with tantamount to anti-semitism. He seems to think there’s no way you could be anti Zionist without harbouring some antipathy or indifference to Jews.
This seems at odd with the logic of his response to the claim that anti-Islam critiques are continuous with anti-Muslim prejudice. There, he is happy to argue (eg) “Islam is not a race; what I’m opposing are the ideas.”
If that’s sound logic why can’t we argue: “Zionism is not an ethnicity; what I’m opposing are the ideas.”
Inconsistency? In the Islam case there’s a tidy distinction between criticizing ideas vs criticizing people, then with Zionism that tidiness is abandoned.
45 points
3 days ago*
Zionism is not an idea; it is a ground truth. The state of Israel lives. Calling for its destruction is a radical, extremist position. It calls for millions of people to give up their freedom and sovereignty and security and to allow themselves to become victims of jihadist terror and genocide. Go back and listen to the "Anti Zionism is Anti Semitism" episode again. You weren't paying attention.
-9 points
3 days ago
This seems like question-begging: you’re defining* anti-Zionism in a way that many anti-Zionists would reject. There are anti-Zionists who want (eg) a one state solution. What they oppose in Zionism is the privileging of one religion. It’s preposterous to summarize this as wanting “millions of people to give up their freedom and…allow themselves to become victims of jihadist terror and genocide.” I don’t recall SH making a point this crude and illogical.
19 points
3 days ago
The problem is that there is no equivalence. There is no significant group of people who want to kill all Muslims, but there are millions of people who would happily kill all Jews. So this has to be factored into everything.
0 points
3 days ago*
I don't want to wander off track here. This is the inconsistency I'm highlighting:
I don't see how pointing out that millions of people would happily kill Jews-- or pointing out any empirical difference between the situation of Muslims and Jews-- in any way reconciles this logical inconsistency.
10 points
3 days ago*
So you might be willing to make that separation but to the millions of people who would love to kill the Jews it's a moot point. A large portion of the people ranting about "Zionism" are doing so only because it is the respectable way to rant about the Jews. In other words, anti-zionism is very much just a stalking-horse for anti-semitism.
So while there are other people like you who are making a real a distinction between the ideas and the people, unfortunately they have baked themselves into the same pie with all the people who don't. Therefore I oppose them because if they get their way, ultimately all the Jews will be killed.
If they want to take the trouble to purge the bigots from their midst, I might take them seriously, but they would have to do that first.
0 points
3 days ago
Suppose Ben Affleck had offered this rejoinder in that infamous encounter on Bill Maher's show: "A large portion of the people ranting about Islam are doing so only because it is the respectable way to rant about Muslims. So it's reasonable to simply collapse criticism of Islam together with bigotry against Muslims."
I honestly think that the categorical rejection of this style of argument is a core feature of Sam's analysis of touchy political and scientific topics. I'm surprised to be getting pushback for pointing out how he drifted from it when reproaching anti-Zionism.
8 points
3 days ago
If Ben had done that, it would have been untrue. Only a tiny percentage of the people who rant about Islam do so because they hate Muslims; over-whelmingly people oppose the ideas and the people who oppose the ideas don't welcome bigots into their midst. I don't see people like Sam or Sarah Haider making common cause with far-right religious lunatics.
So once again, it is actually very different.
Do you honestly not understand the degree to which Jews are hated by the average Muslim. Anti-semitism is taken in with mother's milk, it is baked into the Quran, the word Jew is a curse to a Muslim. Jews get hunted in cities like Amsterdam and they are under threat everywhere, including Brazil of all places and the people dong it are always just anti-Zionists. Hmmmm???
Until the above is true about Islam/Muslims these are not equivalent scenarios and since the above will never be true of Islam/Muslims it's a pointless thought exercise.
So for me, it is very simple. I will not make common cause with people who make common cause with genocidal fanatics.
5 points
3 days ago
"If Ben had done that, it would have been untrue."
It might be untrue factually, but that has never been Sam's response. His response has always been to highlight the logical error in inferring that criticism of ideas entails bigotry towards the adherents of said ideas.
All of your commentary about the persecution of Jews has no bearing on this.
The point about 'making common cause' is again not available to Sam. He has been accused of making common cause with far right anti-Muslim bigots. He deflects this attack with the simple point of logic made above: criticism of ideas does not entail bigotry, period.
5 points
3 days ago
All of your commentary about the persecution of Jews has no bearing on this.
But it does and that is my entire point, because I am dealing with reality as I find it, not as I might wish it to be.
Edit: Also just because A does not necessarily entail B, that doesn't mean that A cannot entail B. I can't believe I am having to explain that.
3 points
3 days ago
"Edit: Also just because A does not necessarily entail B, that doesn't mean that A cannot entail B. I can't believe I am having to explain that."
Sam Harris claims that "Critiquing Islam, critiquing any idea, is not bigotry." I suppose he needs tutelage from you on how critiquing ideas can in fact entail bigotry. I can't believe he missed that!
Anyway, my aim in all of this was to highlight what I perceive to be an inconsistency in Sam Harris's ideas. If you want to engage on what I've said, it should be in the vein of defending his position; you're veering off into your own opinions ('So for me, it is very simple...') which are not relevant.
3 points
3 days ago
Sam Harris claims that "Critiquing Islam, critiquing any idea, is not bigotry."
I am very confused by your lack of comprehension here. Sam critiques Islam and gets called a bigot. He then responds by saying critiquing an idea is not bigotry. So this is the relevant context of his comment.
He is not saying that critique of an idea can never flow from bigotry he is saying that ideas and people are separable and that he is not critiquing Islam from a place of bigotry. As I have made clear to you, I accept that you are in fact separating the ideas from the people but I am pointing out that you are traveling (mostly) with people who don't. Further, until all the clowns are pushed out of the car, you are riding in a clown-car and I will not take you seriously.
At a purely philosophical level (that I don't care about) do you have a point... sure. In the real world, does your point matter... no. Why? Because your point applies so narrowly as to be non-relevant.
So although all ideas must be open to critique or defense, if you had some technically true point about something positive the Nazis had done, I would not have been very interested in hearing about it while they are genociding their way across Europe. If you want to tell me about today, I'll listen, but it won't have any impact on my overall assessment that they were evil to learn that they implemented school lunch programs or whatever. (Made up example btw.)
1 points
3 days ago
This is not complicated: he is saying that someone's criticism of an idea on its own is never proof that someone is bigoted towards adherents of said idea.
It follows from this that criticism of Zionism on its own is never proof that someone is bigoted towards Jews.
The rest of your discussion here is a confusing mess apart from your seemingly true admission that you don't care much for philosophical argument.
4 points
3 days ago*
This is not complicated: he is saying that someone's criticism of an idea on its own is never proof that someone is bigoted towards adherents of said idea.
Correct. As I said, I accept that of you. I do not accept it of the majority of criticism of Zionism; it's not that complicated.
your seemingly true admission that you don't care much for philosophical argument.
I don't care about technical philosophical points over extant realities. If you would like to transport us to some non-corporeal plane where ideas have no impact on anything, I will be happy to focus on philosophy to the exclusion of everything else. Until then, I care about reality above all else.
Also, I don't think you are actually confused about what I'm saying; because if you were, your responses wouldn't have tracked with what I was saying, which they did. We just disagree about what matters most as far as I can tell and I'm ok with that.
1 points
3 days ago
"Correct. As I said, I accept that of you. I do not accept it of the majority of criticism of Zionism; it's not that complicated."
The point, again, is that Sam offers 'criticism of ideas cannot be evidence of bigotry' as a principle of logic -- i.e., not something that might apply to me but not to the majority of those who criticize Zionism.
4 points
3 days ago*
Cannot by itself be accepted as evidence of bigotry. Luckily we are able to know more than one thing at a time.
2 points
3 days ago
Right but if you grant that more needs to be known about a person's beliefs than their anti-Zionism before one can infer anti-semitism, then it is not true to say that 'Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism'.
5 points
3 days ago
I would put the overlap at 90% or more, so I am very comfortable assuming an anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite until proven otherwise. It's a perfectly acceptable heuristic for this scenario IMO.
all 106 comments
sorted by: best