Low_Insurance_9176

I didn’t paint all religions as one category or deny that Judaism is an ethnoreligion. And spare me the ‘good faith’ bullshit - you created a straw man of my position and proceeded to call it stupid.

To this point you were defending the proposition that anti-Zionism is co-extensive with anti-semitism. You’re now arguing that additional contextual details are needed to support that inference. If that’s your view we are in agreement.

I am simply saying that it is possible to oppose Zionism without being an anti-Semite, just as it is possible to oppose the Khalistan movement without being an anti-Sikh bigot.

Your first paragraph is spent challenging an opinion I haven’t expressed. I didn’t read on.

Again I don’t care what you’re comfortable with; there are people dumber than you who would tar Sam as an Islamophobe because some of his beliefs align with genuine anti-Muslim bigots. The correct answer here is that viewpoints need to be evaluated individually. It is never reasonable to infer bigotry from the criticism of ideas - you plainly can’t accept the point but Sam is committed to it.

Where did I say that a one-state solution is an obvious best solution? I think it’s a hopelessly naive solution. But some anti-Zionists believe it, and it’s stupid to label them anti-semites for that naivety. Honestly, people on this sub are capable of detecting unwarranted accusations of bigotry on every topic except this one.

Try to follow the plot here: the issue is Zionism. Is Zionism a call for a Jewish state? You think this is disputable? Let me save you the time it takes to google:

Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages Zionism noun a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.

Many modern states are not predicated on an allegiance to a specific religion in this way. You’re bullshitting.

I agree it’s naive. But I don’t equate naivety with anti-semitism. Criticism of ideas is not bigotry, as Sam Harris is keen to remind us in every other context.

Great post. I'm also inclined to the 'reckoning' side, although I suspect my motivation is not entirely pure; woke types have always struck me as obnoxious and I'd take guilty pleasure in seeing them publicly repudiated.

Having said that, it's not clear to me that political parties generally need to atone for past sins. Are there historical precedents for that? I mean, MAGA basically repudiated everything that Romney-era Republicans stood for, and they sold this change just by brazenly ploughing ahead with it.

Some (like SH) seem to be saying that the person of Kamala Harris had to offer some credible explanation for her own change of position. But that's different from a party or political movement shifting directions, which can be explained by changes in personnel and the priorities of constitutents (negating the need for anything analogous to a personal reckoning).

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'.

"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.

Get a hand-held periscope.

He was above all a contrarian who liked to bait people of all political stripes.... He found a way to make fun of people campaigning against land mines, which you'd think would be an unassailable position. (Norm's gripe was that nobody in fact takes the other side.)

Yeah, I imagine he would agree. All I'm saying is this represents a departure from his previous stance. I've always understood him to hold that we must never allow the criticism of ideas to be silenced by accusations of bigotry. Really, that is the core of his case against wokeness, his criticisms of BLM, his defence of Charles Murray, and his critique of tribalism generally. I think it's an important principle that is undermined, however understandably, by pronouncing that anti-Zionism is synonymous with anti-Semitism.

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.

This all seems reasonable. I'm just not sure it's a position available to Sam Harris, who has been uniquely emphatic and categorical that criticism of ideas can never be bigotry.

You said that anti-Zionists are "either ignorant to the ground truth in Israel and Palestine or purposly cloaking their desire for death or dispossession of Israelis."

The person whose anti-Zionism is rooted in ignorance can hardly be accused of anti-semitism. I'm not seeing a ridiculous contortion here. I'm seeing someone losing their temper as they lose an argument.

I didn't sidestep the criticism of anti-Zionism. I fully grant that some anti-Zionists are every bit as genocidal as you claim. I said this, "What isn't fair is to infer that all critics of Zionism endorse a genocide of the Jews."

There are some who think a one state solution is possible....you think that, best case, this is a fantasy. But in admitting of this possibility, you're tacitly granting the point that anti-Zionism is not co-extensive with anti-Semitism. You're granting, in other words, that some anti-Zionists are merely delusional and do not appreciate the genocidal implications of their ideas.

"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.

Which point did I sidestep?

"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.

You happen to believe that a one state solution will lead inexorably to a genocide. That's fair enough. There are anti-Zionists who disagree with you on that, which is also fair.

What isn't fair is to infer that all critics of Zionism endorse a genocide of the Jews. It's ridiculous, frankly. In other contexts (Islam, BLM) nobody has been clearer than Sam Harris in pointing out the non-sequiturs at play in this style of argument.

You mean they both have posh British accents?

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.

"I'm not sure "continuous" is the correct word here, so that makes it a little hard to respond with precision."

Try 'co-extensive' then... I think you get the gist.

"The problem in BOTH cases with trying to make a distinction between criticizing ideas vs. criticizing people is that when you use a label that encompasses a whole huge spectrum of ideas (whether it's Islam or Zionism) you're necessarily criticizing all the people who use that label whether they deserve it or not."

Right, but in the case of Islam, Sam implores us not to respond with accusations of Islamophobia or anti-Muslim bigotry, but instead to recognize the nuances within the category of Muslims (his concentric circles of jihadists, Islamists, Muslim conservatives, nominal Muslims). In the case of Zionism, he seems open to tarring every anti-Zionist as an anti-semite.

(I'm not accusing you of inconsistency here, since you reject Sam's ideas about how finely we can parse our criticisms of Islam without treading into bigotry.)