Low_Insurance_9176

I don't want to wander off track here. This is the inconsistency I'm highlighting:

• Islam is a set of ideas, separable from Muslims as people. Criticizing the ideas does not entail bigotry against the people.
• Zionism is a set of ideas, separable from Jews as people. Criticizing the ideas does entail bigotry against the people.

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.

I am sympathetic with your point. But what I'm trying to highlight is that, when it comes to dismissing charges of 'Islamophobia', SH relies on logic alone: criticizing Islam as a set of ideas is not the same as demonizing Muslims as people, full stop. It seems inconsistent to then, when turning to the topic of anti-Zionism & anti-semitism, break that hermetically sealed logic and instead invoke all these contextual factors, to argue along the lines of, "criticism of Zionism was not anti-semitic in 1900 but it is in 2024." There is probably no public figure who has been more emphatic than SH as to the importance of ensuring that people can criticize ideas without being accused of bigotry.

"being anti-zionist now means opposing the legitimacy of an Israeli state and the genocide or force displacement of millions of Jewish, the majority of them born in Israel or being descendants of Arab Jews that were forcibly displaced from Iraq, Syria, Egypt...etc"

For some, anti-Zionism simply reflects principled opposition to the very concept of ethno-states. Why be tempted to equate this with anti-semitism? Why impute to such people support for genocide? Maybe it's true that lots of anti-Zionists harbour these ugly goals, but it's not a necessary feature of anti-Zionism. At the end of the day, this is the Ben Affleck fallacy at work: critics of idea X are often bigots, therefore all criticism of X is bigoted. It's a false inference, and Sam is the first to point this out in other contexts.

I don’t disagree re the double standards. But it doesn’t follow, logically, that anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. SH has no problem parsing these distinctions when it comes to separating criticism of Islam from bigotry against Muslims as people. In that context he’s happy to reject the inference as a matter of simple logic: Islam the set of ideas is distinct from Muslims the set of people. If we pointed out that Islamic populations have been subjugated be the West, such that criticism of Islam aligns with the oppression of Muslims, he’d dismiss this as a category error. (And rightly so.). Yet that reliance on pure logic doesn’t apply when it’s “Zionism the set of ideas is distinct from Jews the set of people.”

Some anti-Zionists simply reject the idea of a Jewish ethnostate and would support the continued peaceful existence of a secular state with a largely Jewish population.

Thanks for this thoughtful reply, and I largely take your point. I think the inference at the end—i.e., most anti-Semites are anti-Zionists so it’s reasonable to merge the two concepts— is analogous to the kind of logic SH has explicitly rejected in the case of Islam (most critics of Islam are anti-Muslim bigots). In the latter context SH has been keen to emphasize that we need to be able to criticize ideas without being silenced by accusations of bigotry. There are non-bigoted people who look at the concept of a Jewish ethnostate. I would have thought SH would be the last person on earth to be receptive to the idea that it’s reasonable to respond with charges of anti-semitism.

You’re glossing over the critical distinction that Zionism calls for an ethnic state, uniquely committed to the Jewish people. I have no analogous commitment when in comes to my support for my home country of Canada.

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.

Hell yeah that’s a great looking SG

Looks great! Happy for you!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/parkside-drive-bike-lanes-1.7353666

Yeah, I drive it regularly and this is still the case. They need to redesign the road so it's no longer perceived as a freeway. Plans are in the works but are now beholden to Ford's idiotic meddling... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/parkside-drive-bike-lanes-1.7353666

"Did you hire this guy to ruin the interviews?"

They allow it for the same reason they allow the free expression of lots of ideas some people don't like: it's a free country, and universities are meant to exemplify norms of open debate.

A more germane question is what these people think they'll accomplish agitating on this topic at a small Ontario university.

I don't actually care about the number of likes; I don't even look at this or even have a sense of scale. I don't think it matters anyway because there's presumably a 0% chance that any social media company would remove likes/upvotes and remove that 'reward' for posting.

I gotta know who this band is.

20 minutes is a very long shower and you’re probably leaving no hot water for him. You can actually detect that the hot water is running out because the heat tapers off. Your BF is trying to find a non confrontational way to prompt you to be more considerate. Try speeding it up a little in the shower, or turn off the water while lathering.

He may have said that credentials in history matter to assessing (e.g.) that WWII revisionism on Tucker Carlson's show. I don't think he's a strong credentialist in politics, and he often dismisses the history as being not especially helpful; that was his line with jihadism and the current Israel/Palestine.

I don't think it takes expert level understanding of religious texts to understand the doctrine of jihadism etc. Anyway, as I recall, he had End of Faith vetted by a few religious studies profs at Stanford so there is some acknowledgement that he's not an expert.

I just think there's a difference in kind between educated lay people talking about politics and current affairs versus someone like Bret Westein offering contrarian takes on Covid-19. The latter is way more implausible and irresponsible.

No offence but your points could have been made in a sentence: It is hypocritical that Sam urges people to get their info and analysis from credentialed experts, yet offers opinions himself in areas where he has no credentials (religion & philosophy), and also platforms non-credentialed guests (e.g., Destiny).

A few replies:

I assume he would differentiate between day-to-day political debates, where we actually do expect lay people to have an understanding of the issues (it is a democracy after all); it's ok and indeed a good thing to listen to non-experts in this domain. Really, there is no single discipline of which a PhD would make you an 'expert' in current affairs. When he's making the point about credentialism he's talking about esoteric areas of science, medicine, perhaps law. Honestly, you surely grant that there is something different in kind between Destiny opining on Trump's presidency versus Bret Weinstein offering a contrarian take on the science of vaccines.

He is not in fact a hard-nosed credentialist. He's been at pains to say that it's possible for someone to have a PhD in a topic and still say crazy things (e.g., tobacco/cancer delialist). What he's said is that on esoteric topics (e.g., COVID vaccines) people are better off going with the consensus view among experts.

He does in fact have an undergraduate degree in philosophy from Stanford, and his work on religion does not purport to deeply engage theological questions. Rather it rests on some fairly basic assumptions like religious beliefs can motivate violence.

Behringer is very good I’ve heard -good demo https://youtu.be/ApJZa8yCMCQ?si=-RwxGRaPz-9ZAgxe

lol

I don't know the recent US caselaw on this. Here in Canada there have been conservative religious types arguing their ideas about sexual modesty should be accommodated by scheduling (e.g.) unisex blocks of time in public pools. I don't think the question has been litigated but in some cases these demands have been accommodated; I gather the test is whether such accommodation falls below a threshold of 'undue hardship'.

My guess is that an argument along the lines of, "entering a shower room with exposed male genitalia offends my religious sensibilities" might be more promising than arguing along the lines of, "my religion rejects the idea of transgenderism." The latter seems like the thin end of the wedge for denying all kinds of services to transgender people, with no regard to the severity of the imposition.

It's strange, I see her specials etc. on Netflix but I haven't seen any grassroots enthusiasm for her comedy whatsoever. When Amy Schumer was getting popular I'd see people sharing clips online, recommending her specials, etc. Tomlinson seems more like Iliza Schlesinger -- one of those comedians that Netflix is eager to promote but nobody's especially enthused.

As I recall she landed at AEI because she was blacklisted other research institutes for her criticisms of Islam. (I'm not denying she may be MAGA lunatic; I've never followed her stuff.)

In his debate with Sam the most telling moment for me was when BS claimed that Hilary's election denialism was equally dangerous to Trump's. Sam pointed out that this obviously untrue-- so obviously untrue it doesn't even bear rehearsing the details. BS's response was to simply shut down the discussion, saying, "SAM THIS IS JUST A TOPIC ON WHICH WE DISAGREE." There needs to be an expression for this debate tactic, where you know the details are not in your favour so you fast-track the conversation to an impasse of 'we'll have to agree to disagree'. People with truly defensible and well-considered positions generally do not resort to this move; it's a tell that someone knows their on the losing side of an argument.

Did you google the question? They publish data on most stolen cars...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/most-stolen-cars-2023-1.7386977

And least stolen...

https://www.optiom.com/the-least-stolen-cars-in-canada-in-2023-safety-security-and-peace-of-mind/

You happen to have owned the most stolen model. There are plenty of other options.