With Rise of Far-Right Extremists, N.Y.P.D. Creates Special Unit

[Spectral]

Glad you found one slowclap now let me know how many white nationalists / supremacists incidents of domestic terrorism we have each year talk about whataboutism.

I didn't "find one" - I looked up the centerpiece of the NYT's article because something about their wording seemed odd to me. Their article is structured such that a reader that's unfamiliar with Jersey City's attack would think it's an example of neo-Nazi violence.

I realize it's become kind of a shibboleth for a certain sort of person to just say "whataboutism", but noticing that the people referenced in the very article we're talking about aren't what the paper is implying isn't even in the ballpark of "whataboutism". I think you can probably still do better than this.

[Themius]

This should clear it up. It's in the same post you quoted:

So then no.

There are no stats saying what spectral claimed just a news opinion piece type thing...

[Egomaniac]

Depends on who you ask of course, but in the community the view is that the left anti-semites attack Israel, the right attack individual Jews. To many Jews, attacks on Israel is seen as more worrying... we have been personally attacked for thousands of years, it's expected at this point.

People were really happy about this today in my Synagogue . *shrug*...

Trump to Sign Executive Order Targeting Anti-Semitism on College Campuses
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-t...es-11576028412

Once again, criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-semitic. Just like how the USA can also be criticized without making that person doing the criticism prejudiced against Americans.

[Spectral]

So then no.

There are no stats saying what spectral claimed just a news opinion piece type thing...

Here's the NYPD's 2018 enforcement report. Hate crime data is on page 11.

Hate crime victims are most frequently White (46.1%) while Black (24.7%) and Hispanic (20.1%) hate crime victims account for a significant portion of all hate crime victims. Asian/Pacific Islander hate crime victims (9.1%) account for the remaining portions of hate crime victims.
Hate crime suspects are most frequently Black (55.0%), White (23.6%) or Hispanic (20.0%). Asian/Pacific Islanders accounted for (1.4%) of the remaining suspects.

I don't see a breakdown that's specific to anti-Semitism, but something pretty weird would have to be going on with the data for it to actually turn out to be white supremacists that are primary purveyors of these sorts of hate crimes given the data above. Of course, Page 12 has some highly relevant data that's not technically just "hate", but one assumes that most shooters don't love their victims much:

The race/ethnicity of known Shooting suspects is most frequently Black (72.6%). Hispanic suspects accounted for an additional (24.1%) of all suspects. White suspects (2.8%) and Asian/Pacific Islander suspects (0.4%) accounted for the remaining portion of known Shooting suspects.

Trying to convince people that the real menace in New York City is white supremacists is just plain silly.

More broadly, political violence is concerning for obvious reasons, but just doesn't really stack up to interpersonal violence and criminal activity when it comes to societal harm.

[Kraenen]

So then no.

There are no stats saying what spectral claimed just a news opinion piece type thing...

I'm replying to this because it's odd how you're interpreting the statement that was very clear to me. My interpretation of this specific claim was: "the attackers in the New Jersey attack weren't neo-nazis" but you interpret this as: "most antisemitism across the board doesn't come from neonazis". This claim in particular isn't even about stats, it's a claim about the nature of a single attack, which you seem to agree with anyway.

It's not a huge deal, I just zeroed in on this because I found it so bizarre to take this interpretation when the language was pretty clear, and you seem to actually be in agreement, but perceived it differently.

[Elegiac]

A lot of both religious and secular Jews see Israel as equaling survival, so any attack on it, is by extension, an attack on their security.

I'm curious how you're claiming that "a lot of secular Jews" hold this view using Jonathan Sacks of all people as an example considering the man considers secularism to be responsible for moral decline and all that nonsense.

Playing into the dual loyalty trope is antisemitic because the trope itself is antisemitic in origin, no matter how many Jewish friends you have that say otherwise.

[Elegiac]

Dual loyalty; I am not sure why this is so controversial.

Because there is a long and established history of it being used as justification for discrimination against Jewish people?

If you're as well read as you claim you should know what the Dreyfus Affair is, at the very least.

As for secular Jews... and why they feel that way... because when Jews are attacked, if they are secular or not is irrelevant. Soros is a secular Jew... he is still attacked for being Jewish.

Again, the question wasn't "why they feel that way". The question is "why is an ultra-orthodox Rabbi being used as an example of how secular Jewish people feel?"

The calculus is, if crap "hits the fan" again, Jews, both secular and religious, will have a place to go; Israel.

Yes, we have a word for this: Zionism.

This isn't a remotely mainstream view amongst Jewish people in the US. That's the entire point.

[Zython]

I didn't "find one" - I looked up the centerpiece of the NYT's article because something about their wording seemed odd to me. Their article is structured such that a reader that's unfamiliar with Jersey City's attack would think it's an example of neo-Nazi violence.

I realize it's become kind of a shibboleth for a certain sort of person to just say "whataboutism", but noticing that the people referenced in the very article we're talking about aren't what the paper is implying isn't even in the ballpark of "whataboutism". I think you can probably still do better than this.

Can you people just fucking admit that you don't give a shit if we live or die already? You didn't say shit about the Tree of Life shooting or Chabad of Poway. Why the fuck should we believe you care about this?

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the NYPD's 2018 enforcement report. Hate crime data is on page 11.

I don't see a breakdown that's specific to anti-Semitism, but something pretty weird would have to be going on with the data for it to actually turn out to be white supremacists that are primary purveyors of these sorts of hate crimes given the data above. Of course, Page 12 has some highly relevant data that's not technically just "hate", but one assumes that most shooters don't love their victims much:

Trying to convince people that the real menace in New York City is white supremacists is just plain silly.

More broadly, political violence is concerning for obvious reasons, but just doesn't really stack up to interpersonal violence and criminal activity when it comes to societal harm.

So are you arguing that all gentiles are a threat to Jews and should be treated as such?

[Elegiac]

I know... I am saying I do not understand why its controversial at all... it makes no sense to me.

Congratulations, you've discovered that bigotry isn't rational.

The dual loyalty argument not making sense to you does not mean it isn't an actively harmful trope that exists. Just like anti-miscegenation laws not making rational sense doesn't mean they haven't existed and done massive harm.

And that's why these "but my X friend says..." arguments are idiotic because you're trying to rationalise a viewpoint that is fundamentally counter-rational.

[Elegiac]

Oh, I know... but then why do so many either deny it, as though it's not true, which it is for many Jews, or fear talking about it...

...Because it's a harmful trope that is used to justify antisemitism and isn't true for even a majority of Jewish people in the US?

The problem here seems to be you lacking empathy, not them having adequate justification.

Yes, a lot of Jews support both the nation they live in, and Israel. And? I know its used by people that are bigoted... but telling them they are wrong in saying that at all is not going to change their mind. It will just make them more prone to be upset at you denying something they see.

"Don't present people with facts because it might upset them."

Really?

[Elegiac]

How do you know what a person holds to be true?

They see a lot of Jews pushing for and passing legislation that supports Israel in the US. There are a lot of both Christian (https://www.cufi.org/) and Jewish groups in the US that get a lot of funding from Jewish citizens in the US to push legislation and lobby for Israel... that’s not something you can deny.

If it’s dual loyalty or not, is kind of irrelevant if that’s what it looks like to outside people.

I take your avoidance of the point - as to whether or not this trope is a) true or b) harmful - as a concession that you don't have an argument against it. :thumbsup:

Also, here's a hint; the trick to deradicalizing people is not in fact to entertain their radical beliefs.

[Themius]

I'm replying to this because it's odd how you're interpreting the statement that was very clear to me. My interpretation of this specific claim was: "the attackers in the New Jersey attack weren't neo-nazis" but you interpret this as: "most antisemitism across the board doesn't come from neonazis". This claim in particular isn't even about stats, it's a claim about the nature of a single attack, which you seem to agree with anyway.

It's not a huge deal, I just zeroed in on this because I found it so bizarre to take this interpretation when the language was pretty clear, and you seem to actually be in agreement, but perceived it differently.

What are you talking about?

I think you ignored what I was referring to, which was the last sentence in Spectral's post which was:

So anyway, yes, New York City should track anti-Semites closely because they do have an anti-Semitism problem, but it's mostly not coming from the people that the New York Times wants you to picture when you think "anti-Semite".

that is what I am talking about.

[Kraenen]

that is what I am talking about.

Fair enough! I just misread.

[Themius]

Here's the NYPD's 2018 enforcement report. Hate crime data is on page 11.

I don't see a breakdown that's specific to anti-Semitism, but something pretty weird would have to be going on with the data for it to actually turn out to be white supremacists that are primary purveyors of these sorts of hate crimes given the data above. Of course, Page 12 has some highly relevant data that's not technically just "hate", but one assumes that most shooters don't love their victims much:

Trying to convince people that the real menace in New York City is white supremacists is just plain silly.

More broadly, political violence is concerning for obvious reasons, but just doesn't really stack up to interpersonal violence and criminal activity when it comes to societal harm.

So you’re using data that doesn’t concern your core argument.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

Here's the NYPD's 2018 enforcement report. Hate crime data is on page 11.

I don't see a breakdown that's specific to anti-Semitism, but something pretty weird would have to be going on with the data for it to actually turn out to be white supremacists that are primary purveyors of these sorts of hate crimes given the data above. Of course, Page 12 has some highly relevant data that's not technically just "hate", but one assumes that most shooters don't love their victims much:

Trying to convince people that the real menace in New York City is white supremacists is just plain silly.

More broadly, political violence is concerning for obvious reasons, but just doesn't really stack up to interpersonal violence and criminal activity when it comes to societal harm.

This is some dishonest bull shit. You link the hate crime victims but then instead of linking the arrest which is right under it you jump to a different metric.

The hate crime arrest population is most frequently White (51.3%) or Black arrestees (44.7%). Asian/Pacific Islander arrestees (2.7%) and Hispanic (1.3%) account for the remaining portions of the hate crime arrest population.

[Egomaniac]

That is not how a lot of Jews see it.

This is a video from Rabbi Sacks who served as the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth from 1991 to 2013. As the spiritual head of the United Synagogue, the largest synagogue body in the UK:



A lot of both religious and secular Jews see Israel as equaling survival, so any attack on it, is by extension, an attack on their security.

And again, any criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic. It can be as simple as "Israel can be better than it is"...no different than people saying the same thing about any other country in the world.

People can interpret those actions as being anti-semitic if they really want to...but interpretation is not the same as intent.

[Cthulhu 2020]

America and Israel share a one sided relationship. Nearly all of the US allies we have are two-way, in that both get something out of the deal, whether it's better trade deals or tactical military base location. In the US Israel relationship, the US gives billions of dollars to Israel, along with weapons, and Israel gives the US... nothing. Unless you count the rapture mumbo jumbo as actually getting something from Israel, the US has shackled itself into a one-sided relationship. On top of the, the Israeli government is cruel and is practicing aggressive measures, killing thousands and settling lands that do not belong to them.

The counter argument is that the land "used" to belong to the Jews, but before they owned it, it was owned by someone else. That entire area has been in constant flux of ownership over the last few thousand years. The area once belonging to your ancestors is not an argument that it belongs to you now. Unless US citizens are willing to give up their properties to the native americans.

It's weird that "some" people see not wanting to support the Israeli government as an attack on Jews, when it's absolutely not. If they cannot steal land on their own power, the US should not be helping a bloody regime do it with financial aid. It's just hyper dumb when suggesting that we stop giving Israel money hand over fist is seen as an attack on Jews, and it should be regarded as a joke or a troll any time someone suggests that is the case.

That said, this thread has jumped hyper off the rails, and the first post was accurate. All of the usual suspects can't talk about the topic, it became a "WHAT ABOUT THE MALEVOLENT LEFT" and "WHAT ABOUT ANTIFA". Radical right wing terrorism is on the rise, and they are a threat to the people living in the US.

I wonder what kind of moral conundrum would happen if a radical right group that heavily supported Trump shot up a school and killed a bunch of kids of Trump supporters. It's not something I ever want to see happen, but an interesting thought exercise on how far the right is willing to go to ignore the violence being committed in the name of pushing right wing authoritarianism. Is your kid's life worth it? I know the life of my kids are worth far more than such a disgusting ideology, but I'm also a dirty lefty.

[Wyrt]

The counter argument is that the land "used" to belong to the Jews

The US really, really doesn't want to use that argument considering where all the US' land came from.

[Howel]

America and Israel share a one sided relationship. Nearly all of the US allies we have are two-way, in that both get something out of the deal, whether it's better trade deals or tactical military base location. In the US Israel relationship, the US gives billions of dollars to Israel, along with weapons, and Israel gives the US... nothing. Unless you count the rapture mumbo jumbo as actually getting something from Israel, the US has shackled itself into a one-sided relationship. On top of the, the Israeli government is cruel and is practicing aggressive measures, killing thousands and settling lands that do not belong to them.

Not entirely true. Israel has a very, very large intelligence service, that covers basically the entire middle east (and beyond). For a country that is currently occupying a couple of countries and waging whatever you want to call it in a couple of other countries as well; having access to information from such a intelligence service, is quite valuable.

Still not a good deal, but there is some gains.

[Egomaniac]

Sure, anyone can say anything. But your criticism is viewed the same way Putin’s is, when he criticizes the US, or the West.

Some agree with the criticism, some tell him to F off...

But no one knows what is in your heart but you.

Sure, you can equate valid criticisms of Israel's governmental policies with "Jews will not replace us" if you really want to. I mean, you'll end up looking like an idiot...but it's your choice.