[hebdo]

Serious question, however stupid, ignorant or offensive it might sound: why is the following anti-semitic? Because it was false in Nixon's times? I'm not that familiar with the history of the United States in the 70s.

You know, it's a funny thing, every one of the bastards that are out for legalizing marijuana are Jewish. What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter with them? I suppose it is because most of them are psychiatrists.

[vezzy-fnord]

I think he might have been drawing a rhetorical knife against Abbie Hoffman.

[huac]

Um, how could it not be anti-Semitic?

[hebdo]

Well, what he said is: 1) he does not like pro-marijuana lobbyists/activists ("bastards" as he calls them), 2) all of the pro-lobbyists (from his times) are Jewish, 3) he does not know why is there such a connection, 4) he provides a crappy explanation (psychiatrists? really?). Now I have no idea whether or not 2) is true (probably not), but correlations between ethnicity and lifestyle preferences can and do exist. Take Chinese approach to parenting - clearly different.

To sum up, the only thing that could possibly be offensive is either 2) or the overall tone of the fragment. Hence my question: is it because it's plain false? Or is it because such language is always xenophobic, regardless of available evidence?

[paulsutter]

The quote is labeling a broad group of people with a polarizing issue.

That's prejudicial thinking that can't possibly be correct. And when the statement is made by a person who is opposed to the issue (views it as "wrong"), reasonably is taken as offensive whether the listener is for, against, or indifferent to the issue.

This blog post gives even better insight:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/12/weak-men-are-superweapo...