Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Judaism is a Nationality?

Judaism is a Nationality?
Thread Tools
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2019, 11:52 AM
 
On what planet does this make sense? Is Islam or Catholic a nationality? Baptist?

All my jewish friends are up to here with this mishegas.

https://reason.com/2019/12/11/trump-...e-is-confused/
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2019, 01:18 PM
 
The article can’t decide whether Trump is Hitler or a Zionist.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2019, 01:33 PM
 
I figure they're looking for a way to stop the BDS movement. Denials aside, criticism of Israel's political decisions cannot be allowed.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 11, 2019, 03:19 PM
 
This isn't about Judaism. It's about Trump mollifying his White Evangelical Christian base.

OAW
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2019, 02:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The article can’t decide whether Trump is Hitler or a Zionist.
Have a look at how Yair Rosenberg squares the circle: his thesis is that Trump pushes anti-semitic stereotypes, because in his mind they are positive attributes. In the past Trump said he wants “Jews to count his money”, because Trump really believes “Jews are good with money”. Trump admires Jews, because Trump believes “Jews are good negotiators”. Put another way, Rosenberg stipulates that Trump is a philo-semite who believes anti-semitic stereotypes about Jews but admires them. But that has the effect that Trump shares many of the same basic beliefs about Jews with anti-semites, it is just that Trump and the anti-semite disagree whether or not the purportedly Jewish traits are good or bad. Rosenberg also explains why this form of philo-semitism is so insidious — it reinforces anti-semitic stereotypes about Jews and can easily turn into anti-semitism.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 12, 2019, 06:42 AM
 
It does seem to be a unique status that Judaism is a race, a religion and a nationality. It often seems that people pick and choose which it is at a given time as it suits. Its like the wave/particle duality. Its a triality.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2019, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Rosenberg also explains why this form of philo-semitism is so insidious — it reinforces anti-semitic stereotypes about Jews and can easily turn into anti-semitism.
This implies a causal connection, i.e. being a phile is the cause of the flip.

I don’t know enough about the South Korean example to know for sure, but the article doesn’t show how philia is the reason they flipped, only it was a source of ammo once the flip happened.

If I had to guess, I’d say the South Koreans flipped because they suddenly had some skin in the game. Their philia was performative, so it didn’t take much to topple.


P.S. Sorry this took so long!
( Last edited by subego; Dec 13, 2019 at 03:13 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2019, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This implies a causal connection, i.e. being a phile is the cause of the flip.
No, I don’t think this is Rosenberg’s argument. It is that those philo-semites and anti-semites start with a large, shared set of preconceived notions (e. g. that “Jews are good with money and at negotiating”). So you can go from one category to another without having to change your underlying assumptions. If you have to change your set of underlying assumptions first, that going anti-semite is much harder to do.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 13, 2019, 10:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
... e. g. that “Jews are good with money and at negotiating” ...
Recent decades do not support the bolded part. At least, Netanyahu is not good at negotiating with the Palestinians.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2019, 08:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Recent decades do not support the bolded part. At least, Netanyahu is not good at negotiating with the Palestinians.
Pssst, don’t let reality get in the way of a “good” stereotype.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2019, 04:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, I don’t think this is Rosenberg’s argument. It is that those philo-semites and anti-semites start with a large, shared set of preconceived notions (e. g. that “Jews are good with money and at negotiating”). So you can go from one category to another without having to change your underlying assumptions. If you have to change your set of underlying assumptions first, that going anti-semite is much harder to do.
These beliefs are only superficially related, no?

A phile says Jews are good with money for [reason], a phobe says Jews are good with money for [reason].

The phobe’s reason will be something like “conniving”. That’s not going to be the phile’s reason.

The phile only becomes phobe if they completely change their reasoning.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 14, 2019, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
These beliefs are only superficially related, no? [...] The phile only becomes phobe if they completely change their reasoning.
No, they are not just superficially related. If you had to make someone who doesn‘t share these stereotypes of Jews, you‘d first have to convince them to. That is a much harder ask.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 16, 2019, 10:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
These beliefs are only superficially related, no?

A phile says Jews are good with money for [reason], a phobe says Jews are good with money for [reason].

The phobe’s reason will be something like “conniving”. That’s not going to be the phile’s reason.

The phile only becomes phobe if they completely change their reasoning.
I don't think either cares why they are good with money, its what they use their money skills for. And barely that. The phobe thinks they are hoarding wealth, keeping it from others or conning them out of it and then using it to gain influence etc etc. The phile might admire them for just that instead of resenting them for it. They might even envy them. And envy is about as tiny a step from hate as you get. In this instance, both phile and phobe was probably a right winger in the first place. Theres no personality transplant required to make this switch really.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 25, 2019, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, they are not just superficially related. If you had to make someone who doesn‘t share these stereotypes of Jews, you‘d first have to convince them to. That is a much harder ask.
Unless we’re talking about someone who’s lives in a box, they’re going to hold these stereotypes. We’re designed to hold stereotypes. It’s a survival trait.

At best, one can choose consciously, and with great effort, to reject the stereotypes they hold.

To make someone hold the stereotype isn’t a matter of convincing them to believe the stereotype, it’s a question of getting them to override their conscious rejection of the stereotype they already hold.

This is certainly easier than making someone adopt a position out of whole cloth, and I feel it’s probably easier than getting someone to flip.

If it’s that easy to flip a phile to a phobe, then the act of stereotyping provides no value.

I firmly believe it provides value, otherwise stereotyping wouldn’t be as universal as it is. Behavioral traits rarely become universal unless they’re providing the organism some form of advantage.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 26, 2019, 04:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I firmly believe it provides value, otherwise stereotyping wouldn’t be as universal as it is. Behavioral traits rarely become universal unless they’re providing the organism some form of advantage.
What happens if a trait that develops over millions of years becomes obsolete in a couple hundred? There's going to be a period of time where the trait isn't useful but it's still carried and expressed.

When you had to recognize your tribe and defend it from people who didn't look like you, maybe that type of automatic internal categorization made sense. But today, workforces are global and the ones that succeed are the ones that can thrive in a global world.

Although I suppose if you wanted to make it big in politics, at least during that transition period, all you'd have to do is trigger the vestigial tribalism instinct in enough people. You could run your campaign based on how good the tribe used to be, based on a time when the tribe was perceived to be more successful, as seen through the lens of nostalgia.

I don't know, though, people should be smart enough to see through a con like that.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 28, 2019, 10:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I don't know, though, people should be smart enough to see through a con like that.
They mostly are when they are educated.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 29, 2019, 03:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
What happens if a trait that develops over millions of years becomes obsolete in a couple hundred? There's going to be a period of time where the trait isn't useful but it's still carried and expressed.

When you had to recognize your tribe and defend it from people who didn't look like you, maybe that type of automatic internal categorization made sense. But today, workforces are global and the ones that succeed are the ones that can thrive in a global world.

Although I suppose if you wanted to make it big in politics, at least during that transition period, all you'd have to do is trigger the vestigial tribalism instinct in enough people. You could run your campaign based on how good the tribe used to be, based on a time when the tribe was perceived to be more successful, as seen through the lens of nostalgia.

I don't know, though, people should be smart enough to see through a con like that.
I would argue stereotyping isn’t obsolete. Stereotypes provide the basic road map we use when interacting with society at large. They’re an essential aspect of human cognition.

Those who object to stereotypes are in fact objecting to stereotypes they consider unfair. I make this claim based on those who object still continuing to use them when it suits their purposes. Ironically, I have observed those most strident in their objection to stereotypes are among the most likely to stereotype their political opponents.

I’ve also observed there are cultures who hold many stereotypes Americans would consider unfair and seem to have no issue thriving in a global marketplace. Japan and South Korea come to mind.

Has Trump had issue thriving in a global marketplace?
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:06 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,