Web Hype
The Internet Is For Anger
And really, it makes perfect sense. The pseudo-anonymity of virtual interactions and the anarchic vibe the Internet has going makes it easy to be angry online. Venting about any number of subjects, finely tuning our snark in a witticism dicksizing competition is the perfect panacea for the impotence of quotidian life. I don’t mind anger. It often amuses me, the way people froth at the fingertips to rail against the end of, well, everything. Today, the Internet is angry about Justin Bieber, the 16 year old with the bowl head haircut. I like to think of myself as pop culture savvy but I don’t know much about the Bieber. I know he’s young and cute. I know he sings though I’ve not heard one of his songs. I know tween girls lose their minds over him because he’s just so dreamy. He’s their Ralph Macchio. I swooned over Ralph. I had a Tiger Beat poster of the original (and one true) karate kid on my wall.
But now the Bieber is going to write a memoir and that’s infuriating to some people. It’s a contradiction, the very idea of it, because memoirs, from the Latin, memoria, or memory, are generally associated with people who have lived long enough to have things to remember and who have live well enough to say things people might want to hear. This is not something that should be taken seriously anymore than, say, a Tyler Perry movie. Perhaps we should give Bieber the benefit of the doubt. I’m sure there was that one time, at band camp and that other time when that one thing happened. Sixteen year olds have complex inner lives. My So Called Life taught us that. So did Dawson’s Creek (TEAM PACEY). It could be that Bieber will have something truly illuminating to say. It could be there might be something about his life we absolutely have to know. I doubt it but I’m feeling optimistic today. Writers though, are the angriest, because every time a [teen] celebrity memoir or other literary endeavor is born, the sweet sainted soul of a work of heartbreaking and staggering genius dies and goes to hell. It’s tragic.
The Internet is also angry at Rachel Shukert. An excerpt from her memoir about traveling and living in Europe (it’s more complicated than that), Everything is Going to Be Great, is being featured at Salon. I can’t say that the excerpt is the best thing I’ve ever read but I read it with interest. I might want to read the book now. She tells a story of dating an older man in Vienna while grappling with the tensions of Austria’s Nazi past. Whether you like the excerpt or hate it, there’s nothing, to my mind, in it that should inspire vitriol. But again, the Internet is for anger and so the comment thread for the excerpt is completely out of control, mostly with people who are outraged, simply outraged that Shukert would dare to invoke Austria’s Nazi past in precious Vienna what with its art and architecture and the cobbled streets and those delicious little sausages. Let’s not forget Mozart. He had something to do with Vienna too. Anyway, there’s a lot of “get over it, Jew” going on which is strange because the Holocaust wasn’t like the Crusades, taking place hundreds and hundreds of years ago.Within the scope of history, the Holocaust essentially just happened. People who survived the Holocaust are still alive. Their children are alive. In that, it’s not beyond the realm of reason that Shukert, who is indeed Jewish, would be thinking about the Holocaust and Naziism and how those difficult histories affect her in a city that was all up in the fascism. One person actually said that there were no Nazi ghosts that they could see in Vienna. Another commenter questioned the veracity of her memoir like it was court testimony. Several commenters plainly say that the writing is horrible. I mean, really?
Memoirs, from the Latin memoria, or memory, remembrance, the careful (or not) excavation of the past. I cannot say I love memoirs. They make me uncomfortable, how people cut themselves open and leave their steaming guts on the page begging or daring you to look and sift through the entrails. It’s more palatable, I think, to do that and call it fiction. Have the decency to say it’s a lie, to protect us from the truth, even though most of the time, your stories are probably the truth or some version thereof. I also find that many people who write memoirs aren’t as interesting as they think they are. I’m not sure I care that you slept with the drummer of Tesla in 1987. That’s the other thing about memoir. When a memoir is critiqued, it’s not only the writing that’s being dissected, it’s the memoirist’s life or at least, how they’ve chosen to remember that life. Do we have that right? I just did that myself with the unfortunate Tesla reference. More often than not, when we read a memoir, we are judging the memoirist’s choices, their worth, how much they deserve to share their interpretation of a life lived as if memory is merit-based. The Internet is angry at Bieber because they have judged he has not lived long enough to write much of anything. They’re not wrong. To be fair, the Bieber memoir is going to be an illustrated memoir. That eases the sting, I’m sure. We can look at a picture of the peanut butter and jelly sandwich with the crusts removed he had for lunch a couple years ago and marvel at the precision of the slice down the middle before we remember we’re angry at the unfairness and idiocy of it all. The Internet is angry at Rachel Shukert because she’s digging up the past, refusing to forget, refusing to let her audience forget. She has the nerve to write about sex. She has the nerve to worry and to conjure up painful memories. She is being judged for that, she is being told the past should be the past, precious European cities should not have to look back. She is being edited out of a collective memory that doesn’t want her to reminisce. It’s all so uncomfortable.
Tags: anger, justin bieber, My So Called Life
Thank you, Roxane, for this–you’ve summed up very eloquently something I’ve felt, not just today. It’s interesting as well that this is all directed toward an excerpt, which is by necessity out of context and highly edited (in this case, a narrative strung together from disparate parts over a few chapters) for coherence and to keep down word-count-. (Believe me, the writing is much better in the book.)
Some day, I wonder if we’ll back on the vitriol of what are still the salad days of the Internet with same bewildered horror as we do something like blackface, or the unrelenting sexual harassment of the workplace in the Mad Men era. Like: how did we put up with that? I sort of doubt it though. Public discourse seems to be getting more irrational, not less. All we can hope is that it doesn’t discourage writers from being brave.
Anyway, thank you very much. And all the best to Bieber.
Dolly Parton covered the Bieber issue in Steel Magnolias:
“Oh, get with it, [Roxane]. This is the [2010s]. If you can achieve puberty, you can achieve a past.”
Although Bieber’s achievement of puberty is perhaps questionable.
I promise that the personal attacks launched at me by a bunch of Internet commenters will not interfere with my ability to do good hair.
And thank goodness for that. That comment thread is one of the most out of control things I’ve ever seen. It makes no sense at all.
There’s a lot of “get over it, Jew,” on the Internet (and elsewhere) these days. I find it that attitude callous, disgusting, disturbing, and really kind of horrifying. I hope it’s mostly stemming from ignorance. But then again, I shouldn’t kid myself–there’s still a lot of anti-Semitism in the world, too, and it certainly rears its ugly head aplenty on the Internet. (Not that I’m saying everyone who wrote nasty comments about Shukert’s book is an anti-Semite. Just so we’re clear.) Bravo to Shukert for being brave enough to approach these difficult subjects. I think her book sounds fascinating, and I’ll definitely read it. (Can’t say the same for Justin’s Bieber’s. But I’m sure a lot of people will, and that’s okay, too.)
Well, at least I think they took down the ones that called for my rape!
I’m actually looking forward to reading the book too. I love the idea of the grand tour. It’s nostalgic in a sense.
Salon is a bridge that trolls live under.
I don’t feel like I’m obligated to extend the benefit of the doubt to Justin Bieber. I think it should be his obligation to convince me that he has something worth saying.
That said, I also can’t imagine getting ANGRY that he has the audacity to say anything.
But I guess saying that proves your point. Is righteous anger on the internet still justified, or commenting about hateful comments falling into a trap?
*is commenting*
yall posting in a troll thread
The vitriol is an expression of contemporary anti-semitism. Although the article had nothing to do with Israel, commenters repeatedly invoke Israel, denounce Shukert.as a Zionist agent, etcetera.
One comment asks: Why dwell on Nazis when you can dwell on Mozart instead?
As if one cannot think about the Shoah and Mozart while in Vienna! Whenever the Shoah is discussed – especially when it is discussed in a way that implicates those who carried it out or allowed it to be carried out – there is an outcry, there is anger. Many of the comments accuse her of lying.
Here’s a quick list of anti-semitic comments on that story:
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/3e762dede68a192e6f96a0b4fb952b6a.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/6a43400e06facfa85ce505c93f9b3120.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/87e42b3381a1030e3cd280b3d74c5fa6.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/8e706c612758ecf144fe9a62b0b4c654.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/68c0352651b30f6342b1b5cc7d45f214.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/8250cea1ea22a9f5ec9947bca3a5518b.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/1ad0734fb9df309e1cfce3a5fe195ab3.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/36413d4fd13a46a932246c4743973775.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/a3ff2b1eadb7d45015b5b071cb962262.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/3421f208131c22a091050260c44f2a4e.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/46d3a16fb995f066573a4c57c27ec564.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/19577bcae7e74ed45caecf377b544060.html
I think I missed some, but that’s the bulk of them. These cover the usual stuff – Zionist plots, Jews control the media, any mention of the Shoah is a PR move for Zionism, Jews who talk about the Shoah are dishonest or manipulative, etcetera. These sorts of comments appear on moreorless any article on the web related to the Shoah or Jewish experience. It’s fucked up.
Damn, I made a comment linking to all the anti-semitic comments for that story, and now my comment is gone. Maybe all the links set off Spam alarms.
Unfortunately, it does make sense. Judenhass is alive and well in the 21st Century.
Like Amy and Laurie! When I read Little Women I thought everyone went on a grand tour. I was sadly mistaken, I found out years later.
I do think we’re heading toward a turning of the tide because, to my mind, the vitriol here there and everywhere is becoming uncontrolled and incoherent. There will be a point when people say enough is enough. Anger with ambition is one thing but mindless anger, without purpose, is only tolerable for so long. That is my hope. And you bring up something that’s important about writers and courage because with the Internet, I do think, increasingly that you not only need talent to publish but courage because not only will you be criticized when you dare to put your work out there, you will often be eviscerated and that last thing that those critics will be talking about is your writing. It’s a shame.
My first instinct was to get angry at the Bieber memoir. Actually, my first instinct is to get kind of angry that I know how to spell Bieber without having to check anywhere. I mean, shit. But really, getting angry because Justin Bieber has a memoir coming out is like getting angry because Shrek is on a happy meal. The kid didn’t write a book and then send it out to any slushpile, you know? It was cooked up in some boardroom, or from some agent operating off some kind of teen idol/mouseketeer world domination playbook. They can make some money, so it happens.
The other thing, that’s bananas.
I thought this was going to be another Kenneth Anger post, and I got excited.
I think it’s true that the internet is fertile ground for anger, toward memoirs, yes…
But I don’t see anything too remarkable about the comment thread following Shukert’s excerpt. It’s largely the same mean-spirited or ill-informed nonsense that can be found in almost any comment thread, anywhere. I’m not sure if the thread would change too dramatically if the excerpt came from a novel. Post something about the Holocaust, and you’re bound to smoke out the anti-Semites. Post something about feminism, and the misogynists will get in line. Post something about how cupcakes are the new doughnuts, and a baker’s dozen of folks will say that macarons are the new doughnuts, that donuts are the new doughnuts, that what the fuck do you know about confections, etc.
All of which is to say that while I agree in the polarizing, ick-potential of the memoir, I think what’s more interesting here is how the internet brings out the contrarian in many of us, the perverted in still others, the hatemongers in many more.
Indeed, Kristen. I am often surprised by what the Internet brings out in people, myself included. There seems to be a certain permission there that we give ourselves. It’s worth thinking about.
Non-Nazi Germans and Austrians (in my experience) discuss Jews the way Liberal White North Americans discuss Blacks; without rancor and sometimes even with fascination or bien-pensant care, to be sure, but definitely as an Other. Youngish Jewish Americans who aren’t used to being considered anything other than “white” are sometimes surprised/hurt by this.
There is more tension between the older citizens of either host nation and its resident Turks than between, say, the Lutherans or the Catholics and the Jews… which is complicated by the fact that the obvious mistreatment of the Palestinians is a big issue for younger Germans with University educations. You’re more likely to feel the Semi-Anti-Semitism (Arabs are Semites, too, after all) vibe from a German punk wearing a keffiyeh… but only if they peg you as an American or (obviously) an Israeli. Only the Nazis are absolutely certain they can spot a Jew on sight.
The Turks have a harder time of it, especially in Austria, where, for historical reasons, “native” Austrians consider themselves to be the buffer between Western “Civilization” and The Orient. Vienna is a funny little town; the last time I was there, it was election time and billboards were carrying the image of a stern-looking fellow with Photoshop-blue eyes and this tagline: “Because Vienna dare not become Istanbul”. Not nearly as bad as Arizona but bad enough.
Well played!
Surely the Bieb’s memoir will be ghost-written and surely he won’t see a cent from it until he’s eighteen or something, assuming his parents don’t make off with all of the money.
i posted it, d. spam ate it, sorry bout that.
the ‘get over it, jew’ idea brought to mind a few things. i couldn’t help but think of jean amery saying (and i paraphrase) ‘you don’t want to look? look anyway,’ which was coupled in my head by a few thoughts from the end of notes of a native son by jimmy baldwin: ‘this vision of the world is dangerously inaccurate, and perfectly useless. For it protects our moral high-mindedness at the terrible expense of weakening our grasp of reality. People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence turns himself into a monster.’ i’ve never understood people who insist on focusing on only the positive things in the world when the world is clearly more fucked up than it is refined. i think it is a deadly idea to suggest it is time to ‘get over’ the holocaust or wwII, or any horror, for that matter.
as for the justin beiber memoir, who gives a shit? he’s in the business of making money, not art or lasting meaning. the original poster already said that, basically. i’m probably wrong, anyway.
Thank you, Roxane, for this–you’ve summed up very eloquently something I’ve felt, not just today. It’s interesting as well that this is all directed toward an excerpt, which is by necessity out of context and highly edited (in this case, a narrative strung together from disparate parts over a few chapters) for coherence and to keep down word-count-. (Believe me, the writing is much better in the book.)
Some day, I wonder if we’ll back on the vitriol of what are still the salad days of the Internet with same bewildered horror as we do something like blackface, or the unrelenting sexual harassment of the workplace in the Mad Men era. Like: how did we put up with that? I sort of doubt it though. Public discourse seems to be getting more irrational, not less. All we can hope is that it doesn’t discourage writers from being brave.
Anyway, thank you very much. And all the best to Bieber.
Dolly Parton covered the Bieber issue in Steel Magnolias:
“Oh, get with it, [Roxane]. This is the [2010s]. If you can achieve puberty, you can achieve a past.”
Although Bieber’s achievement of puberty is perhaps questionable.
I promise that the personal attacks launched at me by a bunch of Internet commenters will not interfere with my ability to do good hair.
And thank goodness for that. That comment thread is one of the most out of control things I’ve ever seen. It makes no sense at all.
There’s a lot of “get over it, Jew,” on the Internet (and elsewhere) these days. I find it that attitude callous, disgusting, disturbing, and really kind of horrifying. I hope it’s mostly stemming from ignorance. But then again, I shouldn’t kid myself–there’s still a lot of anti-Semitism in the world, too, and it certainly rears its ugly head aplenty on the Internet. (Not that I’m saying everyone who wrote nasty comments about Shukert’s book is an anti-Semite. Just so we’re clear.) Bravo to Shukert for being brave enough to approach these difficult subjects. I think her book sounds fascinating, and I’ll definitely read it. (Can’t say the same for Justin’s Bieber’s. But I’m sure a lot of people will, and that’s okay, too.)
Well, at least I think they took down the ones that called for my rape!
I’m actually looking forward to reading the book too. I love the idea of the grand tour. It’s nostalgic in a sense.
Salon is a bridge that trolls live under.
I don’t feel like I’m obligated to extend the benefit of the doubt to Justin Bieber. I think it should be his obligation to convince me that he has something worth saying.
That said, I also can’t imagine getting ANGRY that he has the audacity to say anything.
But I guess saying that proves your point. Is righteous anger on the internet still justified, or commenting about hateful comments falling into a trap?
*is commenting*
yall posting in a troll thread
The vitriol is an expression of contemporary anti-semitism. Although the article had nothing to do with Israel, commenters repeatedly invoke Israel, denounce Shukert.as a Zionist agent, etcetera.
One comment asks: Why dwell on Nazis when you can dwell on Mozart instead?
As if one cannot think about the Shoah and Mozart while in Vienna! Whenever the Shoah is discussed – especially when it is discussed in a way that implicates those who carried it out or allowed it to be carried out – there is an outcry, there is anger. Many of the comments accuse her of lying.
Here’s a quick list of anti-semitic comments on that story:
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/3e762dede68a192e6f96a0b4fb952b6a.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/6a43400e06facfa85ce505c93f9b3120.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/87e42b3381a1030e3cd280b3d74c5fa6.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/8e706c612758ecf144fe9a62b0b4c654.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/68c0352651b30f6342b1b5cc7d45f214.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/8250cea1ea22a9f5ec9947bca3a5518b.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/1ad0734fb9df309e1cfce3a5fe195ab3.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/36413d4fd13a46a932246c4743973775.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/a3ff2b1eadb7d45015b5b071cb962262.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/3421f208131c22a091050260c44f2a4e.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/46d3a16fb995f066573a4c57c27ec564.html
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/excerpt/2010/08/02/everything_is_going_to_be_great_shukert/permalink/19577bcae7e74ed45caecf377b544060.html
I think I missed some, but that’s the bulk of them. These cover the usual stuff – Zionist plots, Jews control the media, any mention of the Shoah is a PR move for Zionism, Jews who talk about the Shoah are dishonest or manipulative, etcetera. These sorts of comments appear on moreorless any article on the web related to the Shoah or Jewish experience. It’s fucked up.
Damn, I made a comment linking to all the anti-semitic comments for that story, and now my comment is gone. Maybe all the links set off Spam alarms.
Unfortunately, it does make sense. Judenhass is alive and well in the 21st Century.
Like Amy and Laurie! When I read Little Women I thought everyone went on a grand tour. I was sadly mistaken, I found out years later.
I do think we’re heading toward a turning of the tide because, to my mind, the vitriol here there and everywhere is becoming uncontrolled and incoherent. There will be a point when people say enough is enough. Anger with ambition is one thing but mindless anger, without purpose, is only tolerable for so long. That is my hope. And you bring up something that’s important about writers and courage because with the Internet, I do think, increasingly that you not only need talent to publish but courage because not only will you be criticized when you dare to put your work out there, you will often be eviscerated and that last thing that those critics will be talking about is your writing. It’s a shame.
My first instinct was to get angry at the Bieber memoir. Actually, my first instinct is to get kind of angry that I know how to spell Bieber without having to check anywhere. I mean, shit. But really, getting angry because Justin Bieber has a memoir coming out is like getting angry because Shrek is on a happy meal. The kid didn’t write a book and then send it out to any slushpile, you know? It was cooked up in some boardroom, or from some agent operating off some kind of teen idol/mouseketeer world domination playbook. They can make some money, so it happens.
The other thing, that’s bananas.
I thought this was going to be another Kenneth Anger post, and I got excited.
I think it’s true that the internet is fertile ground for anger, toward memoirs, yes…
But I don’t see anything too remarkable about the comment thread following Shukert’s excerpt. It’s largely the same mean-spirited or ill-informed nonsense that can be found in almost any comment thread, anywhere. I’m not sure if the thread would change too dramatically if the excerpt came from a novel. Post something about the Holocaust, and you’re bound to smoke out the anti-Semites. Post something about feminism, and the misogynists will get in line. Post something about how cupcakes are the new doughnuts, and a baker’s dozen of folks will say that macarons are the new doughnuts, that donuts are the new doughnuts, that what the fuck do you know about confections, etc.
All of which is to say that while I agree in the polarizing, ick-potential of the memoir, I think what’s more interesting here is how the internet brings out the contrarian in many of us, the perverted in still others, the hatemongers in many more.
There is no such thing as a “semitic person”. It is an archaic term leftover from pseudo-scientific racialism and the idea that race is connected to language.
The term anti-Semitism has always referred specifically to Jews. It was coined Wilhelm Marr in 1879 because it sounded more scientific and sophisticated than the term used previously: Judenhass (literally, “Jew Hatred”).
This spells it out well: http://contested-terrain.net/on-the-wordplay-approach-to-antisemitism/
Indeed, Kristen. I am often surprised by what the Internet brings out in people, myself included. There seems to be a certain permission there that we give ourselves. It’s worth thinking about.
Non-Nazi Germans and Austrians (in my experience) discuss Jews the way Liberal White North Americans discuss Blacks; without rancor and sometimes even with fascination or bien-pensant care, to be sure, but definitely as an Other. Youngish Jewish Americans who aren’t used to being considered anything other than “white” are sometimes surprised/hurt by this.
There is more tension between the older citizens of either host nation and its resident Turks than between, say, the Lutherans or the Catholics and the Jews… which is complicated by the fact that the obvious mistreatment of the Palestinians is a big issue for younger Germans with University educations. You’re more likely to feel the Semi-Anti-Semitism (Arabs are Semites, too, after all) vibe from a German punk wearing a keffiyeh… but only if they peg you as an American or (obviously) an Israeli. Only the Nazis are absolutely certain they can spot a Jew on sight.
The Turks have a harder time of it, especially in Austria, where, for historical reasons, “native” Austrians consider themselves to be the buffer between Western “Civilization” and The Orient. Vienna is a funny little town; the last time I was there, it was election time and billboards were carrying the image of a stern-looking fellow with Photoshop-blue eyes and this tagline: “Because Vienna dare not become Istanbul”. Not nearly as bad as Arizona but bad enough.
it’s true–I’ve never understood what it is about Salon that brings out the worst in commenters (or perhaps just the worst commenters), but it does. They are cuh-razy.
A) I don’t believe there’s a scientific foundation for the term “Black” (as in “Black people”) either… perhaps you’d like to argue that there are no Blacks? “Race” as a concept is, itself, pseudo-scientific… that won’t stop everyone reading this from subscribing to the descriptive powers of its Eugenic taxonomies. I’ll stick with the semantics of “Semi-Anti-Semite”.
B) Thanks for the definition. I speak German fluently, thanks. I first moved to Berlin from London (where I’d been living a while) in 1990. Literally.
C) I just read the excerpt in question, with its demonized comment thread, and I have to say: what so many commenters here seem to be abhorring as the unfiltered voice of savagery turns out to be nothing more heinous than Freedom of Speech. Sure, there are semi-anti-semitic comments in the thread, but quite a few of the remarks were made by articulate, intelligent adults who seem to think that Ms. Shukert’s piece is puerile in outlook and inept in execution. Should I cite a few passages? Why not debate *that* instead of the red herring of Comment Ethics.
Expecting (demanding?) unalloyed praise for whatever one writes strikes me as a reliable formula for disappointment. And circling the wagons and looking to the affirmations of consensus to chase the critical boogieman away is a *social* maneuver, not an intellectual response. Just how anti-intellectual (and/or therapeutic) would you will Writing to become…?
I don’t expect an answer to that question (I know how these things go) but I like the idea of letting it sink into a few heads, now and again…
“I do think, increasingly that you not only need talent to publish but courage because not only will you be criticized when you dare to put your work out there, you will often be eviscerated and that last thing that those critics will be talking about is your writing. It’s a shame.”
I agree with this.
Well played!
“…last thing that those critics will be talking about is your writing.”
Well, in this case, it as the *first* thing many of the critics of this piece took issue with, but that didn’t earn the critics many apparent points. What you appear to be arguing for is a Conditional Critical Amnesty based either on your personal tastes or your connections to the author of a given piece. Which is impossible to engineer in a broad sense but can be simulated by sticking within a sheltered consensus of like-minded opinion… ie, the Fan Club dynamic. Which is great fun but somewhat less than edifying, really.
Surely the Bieb’s memoir will be ghost-written and surely he won’t see a cent from it until he’s eighteen or something, assuming his parents don’t make off with all of the money.
Yeah, the semantics of race are difficult. In my experience, the line “Arabs are semites too” line is used to deflect conversations away from acknowledging anti-Jewish racism (er, anti-Semitism).
I don’t care whether or not Shukert’s article is good or not or whether or not people like it or criticize it. I don’t care if people criticize it rudely. But I do care about anti-Semitism, and there is nothing ‘semi’ about the comments I linked to above. If you want to talk about the articulate criticisms of the piece, that’s cool, but it’s not what I’m interested in.
Didn’t mean for the Judenhass definition to be pedantic. I didn’t know you speak German, but I imagine a lot of people reading this do not.
I don’t think I (or anyone else) demanded unalloyed praise for anything. I do, however, think that clearly anti-Semitic (and racist and etcetera) comments/posters/graffiti ought to be deleted/defaced/painted over, because it’s impossible to engage with those things via internet comments and engaging with them gives them legitimacy.
How does one engage with comments claiming Shukert is a lying Zionist agent, writing about the Shoah to deflect criticism of Israel? If it were up to me… the delete button.
i posted it, d. spam ate it, sorry bout that.
the ‘get over it, jew’ idea brought to mind a few things. i couldn’t help but think of jean amery saying (and i paraphrase) ‘you don’t want to look? look anyway,’ which was coupled in my head by a few thoughts from the end of notes of a native son by jimmy baldwin: ‘this vision of the world is dangerously inaccurate, and perfectly useless. For it protects our moral high-mindedness at the terrible expense of weakening our grasp of reality. People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence turns himself into a monster.’ i’ve never understood people who insist on focusing on only the positive things in the world when the world is clearly more fucked up than it is refined. i think it is a deadly idea to suggest it is time to ‘get over’ the holocaust or wwII, or any horror, for that matter.
as for the justin beiber memoir, who gives a shit? he’s in the business of making money, not art or lasting meaning. the original poster already said that, basically. i’m probably wrong, anyway.
I’d buy Justin Bieber’s memoir if it was about him dating an older man while dealing with Austria’s Nazi past.
I’m not sure Roxane was implying that criticism should be bowdlerized or uniformly unoffensive. I think she was referring to the harsh reality of putting yourself out there for others to read.
At least that’s how I read it.
“Well, in this case, it as the *first* thing many of the critics of this piece took issue with, but that didn’t earn the critics many apparent points.”
I noticed that myself. The more ridiculous appraisals scream at you to the detriment of the ones that are offering serious critique.
Steven that’s not even remotely what I was saying. Writing can and should be critiqued, vigorously. I wasn’t addressing the comments about the writing so much, though to say, “The writing was horrible,” isn’t a critique. It’s a silly statement, isn’t it? That’s something completely lacking in substance. A good critique would offer a reason why the writing was “horrible” and would, in the best of all worlds, in a manner that was intelligent and interesting. Anyway, I was addressing the vitriolic personal attacks and anti-Semitism. A lot of discussions about writing these days attack the writer as a person before they ever address the writing itself. This may happen, in part, because writers are so much more accessible to their audiences these days. I don’t know, but I do think you have to be really confident and pretty brave to put yourself out there. People are mean and they have that right and I’m certainly no saint, but it troubles me and gives me pause.
There is no such thing as a “semitic person”. It is an archaic term leftover from pseudo-scientific racialism and the idea that race is connected to language.
The term anti-Semitism has always referred specifically to Jews. It was coined Wilhelm Marr in 1879 because it sounded more scientific and sophisticated than the term used previously: Judenhass (literally, “Jew Hatred”).
This spells it out well: http://contested-terrain.net/on-the-wordplay-approach-to-antisemitism/
Back to semantics and race…
‘Black’, like all racial categories, is a social construct with no biological reality, but it is a useful concept for understanding, for example, American history. ‘Semite’ (in old-school racialist term I guess this would be races speaking ‘semitic’ languages – Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic… of course, Jews in Europe spoke Yiddish, Ladino, German, Russian, etcetera but whatever) is a social construct with no biological reality that is also pretty useless as a concept for understanding history.
Anti-Semitism, from the beginning, has always referred specifically to anti-Jewish ideology. For accuracy and clear understanding, this is how I think the term ought to be used.
“I do, however, think that clearly anti-Semitic (and racist and etcetera) comments/posters/graffiti ought to be deleted/defaced/painted over, because it’s impossible to engage with those things via internet comments and engaging with them gives them legitimacy.”
The fact that you’ve spent several comments on the issue seems to already have given it legitimacy. And as you well know, I don’t think that’s what you’re really concerned with (delegitimization). Anyone with half a brain would realize that such methods of “critique” are illegitimate.
What you seem more concerned with is continuing your battle, perpetuating the cyclical racial semantics which distract from the human experience. Did you even read Ms. Shukert’s story?
Let’s try this:
“[the] ‘Arabs are semites too’ line is used to deflect conversations away from acknowledging anti-Jewish racism (er, anti-Semitism).”
“I don’t care whether or not Shukert’s article is good or not or whether or not people like it or criticize it. I don’t care if people criticize it rudely.”
“How does one engage with comments claiming Shukert is a lying Zionist agent, writing about the Shoah to deflect criticism of Israel? If it were up to me… the delete button.”
This is all politics, and I am glad you don’t have the delete button. And you should be too.
it’s true–I’ve never understood what it is about Salon that brings out the worst in commenters (or perhaps just the worst commenters), but it does. They are cuh-razy.
A) I don’t believe there’s a scientific foundation for the term “Black” (as in “Black people”) either… perhaps you’d like to argue that there are no Blacks? “Race” as a concept is, itself, pseudo-scientific… that won’t stop everyone reading this from subscribing to the descriptive powers of its Eugenic taxonomies. I’ll stick with the semantics of “Semi-Anti-Semite”.
B) Thanks for the definition. I speak German fluently, thanks. I first moved to Berlin from London (where I’d been living a while) in 1990. Literally.
C) I just read the excerpt in question, with its demonized comment thread, and I have to say: what so many commenters here seem to be abhorring as the unfiltered voice of savagery turns out to be nothing more heinous than Freedom of Speech. Sure, there are semi-anti-semitic comments in the thread, but quite a few of the remarks were made by articulate, intelligent adults who seem to think that Ms. Shukert’s piece is puerile in outlook and inept in execution. Should I cite a few passages? Why not debate *that* instead of the red herring of Comment Ethics.
Expecting (demanding?) unalloyed praise for whatever one writes strikes me as a reliable formula for disappointment. And circling the wagons and looking to the affirmations of consensus to chase the critical boogieman away is a *social* maneuver, not an intellectual response. Just how anti-intellectual (and/or therapeutic) would you will Writing to become…?
I don’t expect an answer to that question (I know how these things go) but I like the idea of letting it sink into a few heads, now and again…
“I do think, increasingly that you not only need talent to publish but courage because not only will you be criticized when you dare to put your work out there, you will often be eviscerated and that last thing that those critics will be talking about is your writing. It’s a shame.”
I agree with this.
“…last thing that those critics will be talking about is your writing.”
Well, in this case, it as the *first* thing many of the critics of this piece took issue with, but that didn’t earn the critics many apparent points. What you appear to be arguing for is a Conditional Critical Amnesty based either on your personal tastes or your connections to the author of a given piece. Which is impossible to engineer in a broad sense but can be simulated by sticking within a sheltered consensus of like-minded opinion… ie, the Fan Club dynamic. Which is great fun but somewhat less than edifying, really.
anonymity is toxic to any social environment. there are too many people looking for means to relieve themselves of deep-seeded negative feelings about something, whether they realize it or not. the internet is an environment where you can say anything you are feeling to other actual people without any real repercussion if you choose to remain anonymous. have you ever hated a book so much you threw it against the wall? or said outloud i cant believe how horrible this story/book/movie is? would you have done that if the author was in the room with you? what made you hate it that much anyway? are you sure it wasnt just your mood at the time, or some sort of culmination/climax of previous moods? we are always, deep-down, reflexively vitriolic, its just that we are very quick to remain rational when we are staring someone in the face or have a sense that we may have to be cordial with a person in the future. anonymity is the inevitable yang next to the yin of excessive social grace in environments where a person is very well-known and who depends heavily on people’s perceptions of them; politician, celebrity.
Yeah, the semantics of race are difficult. In my experience, the line “Arabs are semites too” line is used to deflect conversations away from acknowledging anti-Jewish racism (er, anti-Semitism).
I don’t care whether or not Shukert’s article is good or not or whether or not people like it or criticize it. I don’t care if people criticize it rudely. But I do care about anti-Semitism, and there is nothing ‘semi’ about the comments I linked to above. If you want to talk about the articulate criticisms of the piece, that’s cool, but it’s not what I’m interested in.
Didn’t mean for the Judenhass definition to be pedantic. I didn’t know you speak German, but I imagine a lot of people reading this do not.
I don’t think I (or anyone else) demanded unalloyed praise for anything. I do, however, think that clearly anti-Semitic (and racist and etcetera) comments/posters/graffiti ought to be deleted/defaced/painted over, because it’s impossible to engage with those things via internet comments and engaging with them gives them legitimacy.
How does one engage with comments claiming Shukert is a lying Zionist agent, writing about the Shoah to deflect criticism of Israel? If it were up to me… the delete button.
I’d buy Justin Bieber’s memoir if it was about him dating an older man while dealing with Austria’s Nazi past.
I’m not sure Roxane was implying that criticism should be bowdlerized or uniformly unoffensive. I think she was referring to the harsh reality of putting yourself out there for others to read.
At least that’s how I read it.
“Well, in this case, it as the *first* thing many of the critics of this piece took issue with, but that didn’t earn the critics many apparent points.”
I noticed that myself. The more ridiculous appraisals scream at you to the detriment of the ones that are offering serious critique.
Steven that’s not even remotely what I was saying. Writing can and should be critiqued, vigorously. I wasn’t addressing the comments about the writing so much, though to say, “The writing was horrible,” isn’t a critique. It’s a silly statement, isn’t it? That’s something completely lacking in substance. A good critique would offer a reason why the writing was “horrible” and would, in the best of all worlds, in a manner that was intelligent and interesting. Anyway, I was addressing the vitriolic personal attacks and anti-Semitism. A lot of discussions about writing these days attack the writer as a person before they ever address the writing itself. This may happen, in part, because writers are so much more accessible to their audiences these days. I don’t know, but I do think you have to be really confident and pretty brave to put yourself out there. People are mean and they have that right and I’m certainly no saint, but it troubles me and gives me pause.
a great deal of what is perceived as ‘anger’ in another person’s comments written online (anonymously or not) could be just that: perceived, as in: misunderstood, mis-read or just taken completely the wrong way.
and while i’ve only surfaceskim-read a lot of what everybody is saying in here re: anonymity, i will Angry Comment Fight anyone to the death (to the death! i say!) who thinks taking the anonymity option away from “netizens” would somehow automatically be a boon for online discourse.
i could be pointing fingers at a strawman here, but where do you draw the line? a national registry for online comenteering? ala some kind of SSN-like scheme where we each get assigned a number?
i understand the need to maintain civility, responsibility, decorum, etc online, just remember where the line is being drawn. at what point does it become ok to take choice away from others?
Back to semantics and race…
‘Black’, like all racial categories, is a social construct with no biological reality, but it is a useful concept for understanding, for example, American history. ‘Semite’ (in old-school racialist term I guess this would be races speaking ‘semitic’ languages – Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic… of course, Jews in Europe spoke Yiddish, Ladino, German, Russian, etcetera but whatever) is a social construct with no biological reality that is also pretty useless as a concept for understanding history.
Anti-Semitism, from the beginning, has always referred specifically to anti-Jewish ideology. For accuracy and clear understanding, this is how I think the term ought to be used.
“I do, however, think that clearly anti-Semitic (and racist and etcetera) comments/posters/graffiti ought to be deleted/defaced/painted over, because it’s impossible to engage with those things via internet comments and engaging with them gives them legitimacy.”
The fact that you’ve spent several comments on the issue seems to already have given it legitimacy. And as you well know, I don’t think that’s what you’re really concerned with (delegitimization). Anyone with half a brain would realize that such methods of “critique” are illegitimate.
What you seem more concerned with is continuing your battle, perpetuating the cyclical racial semantics which distract from the human experience. Did you even read Ms. Shukert’s story?
Let’s try this:
“[the] ‘Arabs are semites too’ line is used to deflect conversations away from acknowledging anti-Jewish racism (er, anti-Semitism).”
“I don’t care whether or not Shukert’s article is good or not or whether or not people like it or criticize it. I don’t care if people criticize it rudely.”
“How does one engage with comments claiming Shukert is a lying Zionist agent, writing about the Shoah to deflect criticism of Israel? If it were up to me… the delete button.”
This is all politics, and I am glad you don’t have the delete button. And you should be too.
“A good critique would offer a reason why the writing was “horrible” and would, in the best of all worlds, in a manner that was intelligent and interesting.”
You’re expecting people who are voicing opinions in a comment thread to produce professional criticism; still, an opening line, like the following, isn’t absolutely unrecognizable as a gambit in a proper critique:
“Aside from the inane verboseness, emptiness, and ‘cheap’ cliches that characterize the writing here, this article is totally inaccurate in its portrayal of Vienna and things Viennese.”
There was quite a lot of that in the thread and I don’t see how you can turn it into a referendum on Free Speech. Sure, the Internet is host to the free-floating animus of many cultures, but reading material we don’t agree with is the price we pay for being able to publish material that others won’t agree with.
“I don’t know, but I do think you have to be really confident and pretty brave to put yourself out there. People are mean and they have that right and I’m certainly no saint, but it troubles me and gives me pause.”
A pretty large chunk of professional arts/film/lit criticism has *always* been “mean”. Didn’t Leon Wiseltier, in the NYTBR, refer to Nicholson Baker’s “Checkpoint” as a “scummy little book”, for example? Sam Clemens endured some pretty “nasty” reviews of Huck Finn when it first came out, too. Pauline Kael could be as “mean” as they come.
Of course you have to be pretty brave to put yourself out there; you have to be braver still to remain open to the criticism that may, in fact, be accurate. That’s how a writer grows. The Internet hasn’t changed anything about any of that… except the sheer volume of it.
anonymity is toxic to any social environment. there are too many people looking for means to relieve themselves of deep-seeded negative feelings about something, whether they realize it or not. the internet is an environment where you can say anything you are feeling to other actual people without any real repercussion if you choose to remain anonymous. have you ever hated a book so much you threw it against the wall? or said outloud i cant believe how horrible this story/book/movie is? would you have done that if the author was in the room with you? what made you hate it that much anyway? are you sure it wasnt just your mood at the time, or some sort of culmination/climax of previous moods? we are always, deep-down, reflexively vitriolic, its just that we are very quick to remain rational when we are staring someone in the face or have a sense that we may have to be cordial with a person in the future. anonymity is the inevitable yang next to the yin of excessive social grace in environments where a person is very well-known and who depends heavily on people’s perceptions of them; politician, celebrity.
Zus:
I still don’t get where this fantasy of a pre-Internet, public-discourse-Eden of civility and decorum comes from. Writers/politicians/celebrities have been rude in print, TV and radio, etc., since long before (and/or outside of) the Internet. Consider the lofty William F. Buckley’s referring to Gore Vidal as a “faggot” or George Wallace’s “pointy-headed intellectual” riff or Tom Wolfe’s personal attacks on Mailer, Updike and Irving (“the three stooges”) when he was attempting that comeback.
What’s genuinely different now is that even much of “official” expression (sanctioned by the mainstream; ie, elevated by money) is no longer unilateral… the reader can “talk back”. This is an amazing development that should be cherished, not despite but *because* of the rudeness/boundary-crossing.
Also: it’s a myth that online anonymity is a license for irresponsibility; if anything, the closest analogues are the anonymity of voting or of the Suggestion Box or of the Anonymous Poll: it’s more likely to foster honesty. I think that’s valuable… especially to a culture in which Comforting Lies (and Propaganda) have become the default register of “communication”.
Who is Justin Bieber? Apart from that. I thought the echo from my walls where audience as it falls pays attention to my rearing like a horse forced to take a course it never knew it could but knew it were no good and, had it bothered, understood on its own legs it could stand, twitching ears at its command , were where vitriol is at, the internet for chat and chaff into abyss like profound but virtual kiss, yaye, profound butt virtual kiss, iss. Mayhap my mind is but remiss.
right on about “talking back”.
though w/r/t to propaganda, the one thing that does trouble me is how people that are (in fact) maliciously lying through anonymously posted comments (be they on news sites, wherever) can not be identified. and with the right amount of legerdemain, seriously insidious memes can be spread easily enough if the messages are posted in all the right places.
wait. am i sounding paranoid?
“Anti-Semitism, from the beginning, has always referred specifically to anti-Jewish ideology. For accuracy and clear understanding, this is how I think the term ought to be used.”
D, forgive me if I think you’re attempting to stabilize the term in its oldest form for self-serving reasons. You’re attempting to prune the word “Semite” and the word “Semitic” of accepted definitions:
“1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples 2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language”
If you think those definitions are defamatory, perhaps you should ask yourself why.
“…seriously insidious memes can be spread easily enough if the messages are posted in all the right places.”
The only defense against which: well-developed tools of critical analysis! But, hey, I think we should worry more about the Utter Bullshit we’re told by Named Official Sources in Suits and Ties. Like, you know, WMD and that sort of thing.
why worry when equipped with said Well-Developed Tools of Critical Analysis? i try not to. though, i end up lamenting having to work with those who aren’t.
meanwhile, i think we’re meant to be talking about Anger, or something.
do you ever get angry online, ste-?
“…do you ever get angry online, ste-?”
I did, a few times, years ago… on political issues… before I finally realized that my idea of “Truth” is a very, very tiny and unpopular place! laugh.
Stu- “claiming Shukert is a lying Zionist agent” is “politics?” No. It’s not. It’s anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism, which is just the newest form of Judenhass. You don’t like Isreal’s military tactics, politics, agression, etc? Fine, we can discuss that, that’s legitimate. That’s politics. But when every time someone mentions the Holocaust or the way Jews have been fucking persecuted since the beginning of fucking civilization they’re accused of Zionism, that is hate trying to hide as politics. It’s like the birthers claiming Obama wasn’t born here, that he was a Muslim, and that we can have that debate because it’s politics. Hate is hate, predjudice is predjudice, and this “every Jew is a Zionist” bullshit is hateful and paranoid and deserves as little rational discourse as someone who claims every Muslim is a terrorist. Hit the delete button is right.
“A good critique would offer a reason why the writing was “horrible” and would, in the best of all worlds, in a manner that was intelligent and interesting.”
You’re expecting people who are voicing opinions in a comment thread to produce professional criticism; still, an opening line, like the following, isn’t absolutely unrecognizable as a gambit in a proper critique:
“Aside from the inane verboseness, emptiness, and ‘cheap’ cliches that characterize the writing here, this article is totally inaccurate in its portrayal of Vienna and things Viennese.”
There was quite a lot of that in the thread and I don’t see how you can turn it into a referendum on Free Speech. Sure, the Internet is host to the free-floating animus of many cultures, but reading material we don’t agree with is the price we pay for being able to publish material that others won’t agree with.
“I don’t know, but I do think you have to be really confident and pretty brave to put yourself out there. People are mean and they have that right and I’m certainly no saint, but it troubles me and gives me pause.”
A pretty large chunk of professional arts/film/lit criticism has *always* been “mean”. Didn’t Leon Wiseltier, in the NYTBR, refer to Nicholson Baker’s “Checkpoint” as a “scummy little book”, for example? Sam Clemens endured some pretty “nasty” reviews of Huck Finn when it first came out, too. Pauline Kael could be as “mean” as they come.
Of course you have to be pretty brave to put yourself out there; you have to be braver still to remain open to the criticism that may, in fact, be accurate. That’s how a writer grows. The Internet hasn’t changed anything about any of that… except the sheer volume of it.
Steven,
What are my self-serving reasons?
Anti-Semitism referring to anti-Jewish racism is an accepted definition (actually, it is the only definition on dictionary.com). Nobody uses it to refer to anti-Arab racism or Islamophobia, except as a way to change the subject in discussions about racism against Jews. To point this out does not minimize the reality of anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia, which are obviously prevalent in both Europe and America.
The definition of Semite that you give is, again, racialist nonsense.
Stu, what am I concerned with? What is my battle?
I mean, I only work for Mossad on the weekend…
Zus:
I still don’t get where this fantasy of a pre-Internet, public-discourse-Eden of civility and decorum comes from. Writers/politicians/celebrities have been rude in print, TV and radio, etc., since long before (and/or outside of) the Internet. Consider the lofty William F. Buckley’s referring to Gore Vidal as a “faggot” or George Wallace’s “pointy-headed intellectual” riff or Tom Wolfe’s personal attacks on Mailer, Updike and Irving (“the three stooges”) when he was attempting that comeback.
What’s genuinely different now is that even much of “official” expression (sanctioned by the mainstream; ie, elevated by money) is no longer unilateral… the reader can “talk back”. This is an amazing development that should be cherished, not despite but *because* of the rudeness/boundary-crossing.
Also: it’s a myth that online anonymity is a license for irresponsibility; if anything, the closest analogues are the anonymity of voting or of the Suggestion Box or of the Anonymous Poll: it’s more likely to foster honesty. I think that’s valuable… especially to a culture in which Comforting Lies (and Propaganda) have become the default register of “communication”.
D:
“The definition of Semite that you give is, again, racialist nonsense.”
If you believe in the word “Semite” (to the extent that you believe in the possibility of a definition for the word “Anti-Semitic”) yet hold that any definition other than *yours* (including Webster’s) for “Semite” is “racialist garbage”… while the only detectable difference between your apparent definition and the “racialist garbage” definition is that the latter is more inclusive than yours, I have to conclude that you have an agenda and it’s not even rational.
Please note: I use the term “semi-anti-semitic” to refer to anti-Arab sentiments; it’s tongue-in-cheek but also quite deliberate. Look to your Exceptionalist Presets, D… they aren’t subtle or reasonable (much like the website you linked to initially).
“I mean, I only work for Mossad on the weekend…”
You don’t work for the Mossad any more than Rush Limbaugh works for the Klan.
‘Semite’ (in old-school racialist term I guess this would be races speaking ’semitic’ languages – Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic… of course, Jews in Europe spoke Yiddish, Ladino, German, Russian, etcetera but whatever)…”
Disingenuous distinction. Or should a diaspora of African-Americans, Afro-Europeans, Afro-Russians, et al, speaking English, French, Russian (and variations thereof), et al, change the root-concept of “Yorùbán”?
But then, you think “‘Black’, like all racial categories, is a social construct with no biological reality, but it is a useful concept for understanding, for example, American history,” whereas “Semite” is only useful in whatever way *you* choose to use it.
First paragraph, last sentence: interesting use of the term “Semitic languages”:
http://books.google.de/books?id=nTMEirKUw-QC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=%22semitic+languages%22+%2B+Noam+Chomsky&source=bl&ots=-CjSzmMVGU&sig=gCKvL_3_Jk31-br5ykE6FsRjbE0&hl=en&ei=83FZTL28N5OQsAaF_bHCCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Who is Justin Bieber? Apart from that. I thought the echo from my walls where audience as it falls pays attention to my rearing like a horse forced to take a course it never knew it could but knew it were no good and, had it bothered, understood on its own legs it could stand, twitching ears at its command , were where vitriol is at, the internet for chat and chaff into abyss like profound but virtual kiss, yaye, profound butt virtual kiss, iss. Mayhap my mind is but remiss.
“Anti-Semitism, from the beginning, has always referred specifically to anti-Jewish ideology. For accuracy and clear understanding, this is how I think the term ought to be used.”
D, forgive me if I think you’re attempting to stabilize the term in its oldest form for self-serving reasons. You’re attempting to prune the word “Semite” and the word “Semitic” of accepted definitions:
“1 a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b : a descendant of these peoples 2 : a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language”
If you think those definitions are defamatory, perhaps you should ask yourself why.
“…seriously insidious memes can be spread easily enough if the messages are posted in all the right places.”
The only defense against which: well-developed tools of critical analysis! But, hey, I think we should worry more about the Utter Bullshit we’re told by Named Official Sources in Suits and Ties. Like, you know, WMD and that sort of thing.
“…do you ever get angry online, ste-?”
I did, a few times, years ago… on political issues… before I finally realized that my idea of “Truth” is a very, very tiny and unpopular place! laugh.
Stu- “claiming Shukert is a lying Zionist agent” is “politics?” No. It’s not. It’s anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism, which is just the newest form of Judenhass. You don’t like Isreal’s military tactics, politics, agression, etc? Fine, we can discuss that, that’s legitimate. That’s politics. But when every time someone mentions the Holocaust or the way Jews have been fucking persecuted since the beginning of fucking civilization they’re accused of Zionism, that is hate trying to hide as politics. It’s like the birthers claiming Obama wasn’t born here, that he was a Muslim, and that we can have that debate because it’s politics. Hate is hate, predjudice is predjudice, and this “every Jew is a Zionist” bullshit is hateful and paranoid and deserves as little rational discourse as someone who claims every Muslim is a terrorist. Hit the delete button is right.
The comments on this article are tame compared to the comments on news articles about the Mosque renovation in New York: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100803/us_time/08599200843200
Steven,
What are my self-serving reasons?
Anti-Semitism referring to anti-Jewish racism is an accepted definition (actually, it is the only definition on dictionary.com). Nobody uses it to refer to anti-Arab racism or Islamophobia, except as a way to change the subject in discussions about racism against Jews. To point this out does not minimize the reality of anti-Arab racism and Islamophobia, which are obviously prevalent in both Europe and America.
The definition of Semite that you give is, again, racialist nonsense.
Stu, what am I concerned with? What is my battle?
I mean, I only work for Mossad on the weekend…
Perhaps I did a poor job of quotation.
But my charge is that d has a political agenda, and not a genuine interest in discussing Shukert’s writing or the legitimate critiques (positive and negative) that can be found within the comments section.
That’s it.
“Hate is hate, predjudice is predjudice, and this ‘every Jew is a Zionist’ bullshit is hateful and paranoid and deserves as little rational discourse as someone who claims every Muslim is a terrorist. Hit the delete button is right.”
Yes, yes… I’ve heard this all before. My problem is that “deleting” comments or curbing freedom of speech doesn’t make the sentiment go away. If anything, it only burns deeper in those being censored. The idea is simply abhorrent to me.
D:
“The definition of Semite that you give is, again, racialist nonsense.”
If you believe in the word “Semite” (to the extent that you believe in the possibility of a definition for the word “Anti-Semitic”) yet hold that any definition other than *yours* (including Webster’s) for “Semite” is “racialist garbage”… while the only detectable difference between your apparent definition and the “racialist garbage” definition is that the latter is more inclusive than yours, I have to conclude that you have an agenda and it’s not even rational.
Please note: I use the term “semi-anti-semitic” to refer to anti-Arab sentiments; it’s tongue-in-cheek but also quite deliberate. Look to your Exceptionalist Presets, D… they aren’t subtle or reasonable (much like the website you linked to initially).
“I mean, I only work for Mossad on the weekend…”
You don’t work for the Mossad any more than Rush Limbaugh works for the Klan.
‘Semite’ (in old-school racialist term I guess this would be races speaking ’semitic’ languages – Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic… of course, Jews in Europe spoke Yiddish, Ladino, German, Russian, etcetera but whatever)…”
Disingenuous distinction. Or should a diaspora of African-Americans, Afro-Europeans, Afro-Russians, et al, speaking English, French, Russian (and variations thereof), et al, change the root-concept of “Yorùbán”?
But then, you think “‘Black’, like all racial categories, is a social construct with no biological reality, but it is a useful concept for understanding, for example, American history,” whereas “Semite” is only useful in whatever way *you* choose to use it.
First paragraph, last sentence: interesting use of the term “Semitic languages”:
http://books.google.de/books?id=nTMEirKUw-QC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=%22semitic+languages%22+%2B+Noam+Chomsky&source=bl&ots=-CjSzmMVGU&sig=gCKvL_3_Jk31-br5ykE6FsRjbE0&hl=en&ei=83FZTL28N5OQsAaF_bHCCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Stu,
Your charge doesn’t make sense. I said straight up that I’m primarily interested in pointing out the fucked up responses to Shukert’s writing (which was one of the points of the original post). What is my political agenda?
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean let everyone write whatever they want wherever they want. There are thousands of racist and anti-semitic websites and message boards where those ideas can be repeated over and over again. Deleting abusive comments does not silence those commenters. They can start 20 free wordpress blogs in an afternoon and write long essays about why Jews control the world.
If someone comes to a party at my house and starts spouting off crazy racist shit, I’m going to make them leave. Same goes for my website. That is common practice. I mean, Salon.com did that in this case. They deleted comments wishing the author would be raped. I’m glad those comments were deleted, and I think the comment moderation should have gone further.
lol, ‘jews’
The comments on this article are tame compared to the comments on news articles about the Mosque renovation in New York: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100803/us_time/08599200843200
Perhaps I did a poor job of quotation.
But my charge is that d has a political agenda, and not a genuine interest in discussing Shukert’s writing or the legitimate critiques (positive and negative) that can be found within the comments section.
That’s it.
“Hate is hate, predjudice is predjudice, and this ‘every Jew is a Zionist’ bullshit is hateful and paranoid and deserves as little rational discourse as someone who claims every Muslim is a terrorist. Hit the delete button is right.”
Yes, yes… I’ve heard this all before. My problem is that “deleting” comments or curbing freedom of speech doesn’t make the sentiment go away. If anything, it only burns deeper in those being censored. The idea is simply abhorrent to me.
Stu,
Your charge doesn’t make sense. I said straight up that I’m primarily interested in pointing out the fucked up responses to Shukert’s writing (which was one of the points of the original post). What is my political agenda?
Freedom of speech doesn’t mean let everyone write whatever they want wherever they want. There are thousands of racist and anti-semitic websites and message boards where those ideas can be repeated over and over again. Deleting abusive comments does not silence those commenters. They can start 20 free wordpress blogs in an afternoon and write long essays about why Jews control the world.
If someone comes to a party at my house and starts spouting off crazy racist shit, I’m going to make them leave. Same goes for my website. That is common practice. I mean, Salon.com did that in this case. They deleted comments wishing the author would be raped. I’m glad those comments were deleted, and I think the comment moderation should have gone further.
lol, ‘jews’