[ForgotMyPwOops]

Who decides what is antisemitic? It seems to me that based on your logic all speech can be prevented assuming some arbiter declares it antisemitic

Boycotting can hardly be considered protected speech if that's all it takes to silence it

[slg]

It depends on the motives and not the actions.

"Boycott Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians." A perfectly acceptable political statement.

"Boycott Israel because they are a bunch of greedy Jews." An obviously anti-Semitic statement.

The problem is that people who believe the latter will often say the former. This causes opponents of the latter to doubt the authenticity of people who say the former. Some people who oppose the former might also accuse people of the latter to discredit them. It becomes can quickly become confusing, but it should be clear that a boycott can clearly have both appropriate and inappropriate motivations.

[pydry]

>Boycott Israel because they are a bunch of greedy Jews.

There's no evidence of any BDS leaders saying this.

On the other hand, there's a bundle of evidence of vehement racism in the highest levels of the Israeli government (calls for "racial purity", collective punishment against arabs, "all arabs grow up to be terrorists", etc).

The fact that apartheid south africa was closely allied with israel, shared a nuclear project and was taken down by a BDS movement is, of course, not a coincidence.

The veneer of anti-racism has seemingly been co-opted to support a white european colonialist project behind an apartheid state that purports to represent a race (again, like apartheid South Africa).

>it should be clear that a boycott can clearly have both appropriate and inappropriate motivations.

It should be clear that evidence-wise, being anti boycott most likely indicates at the very least stark naiveté and perhaps darker, more racist motives.

[amoshi]

Equally, dismissing various criticisms (including boycotts) about the illegal military occupation of Palestine as "anti-semitic" is exactly what groups as JIDF (defunct), ACT.IL and many others are experts at doing.

[slg]

Yes, I specifically pointed that out when I said "Some people who oppose the former might also accuse people of the latter to discredit them." However that neither exonerates the people who are doing it for truly anti-Semitic reasons or proves that those people don't exist.

[ILMostro7]

Yet they all tend to be grouped into that category when a phrase like "anti-semitic" is used. If jews criticize Israel, they're labelled as self-hating. Whitewashing in the name of holocaust victims is doing a disservice, to say the least, IMHO. Religious zealots on one side are treated with white gloves, while any dissent or uproar (unrelated to Religion, even) on the other side is seen as justification to take any action in the name of security.

When the descendants of victims from places like the Warsaw Ghetto justify and defend their operations of the modern-day ghetto in Gaza...

[noduerme]

When you compare Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto, you're doing violence to history. The Warsaw Ghetto did not have elections to vote in a terrorist group. It was not offered its own nation-state. It didn't receive billions in foreign aid to build bombs. It did not have a charter, nor was the annihilation of German civilians in its charter. Moreover, it existed as a way to round people up in order to exterminate them. That is not the "purpose" of Gaza. Gaza should by now be a successful part of a successful Palestinian state, and the reason it is not has a lot to do with Hamas.

In any case, where you have actual genocide - e.g. the systematic murder of a Muslim minority in China - no one is calling for boycotts or comparing it to the Holocaust, or even labeling it a genocide. Tesla opens a dealership in Xinjiang and the same exact people who want to boycott Israel go out and buy Teslas. Teslas they can charge up at the casinos on Indian reservations between LA and Phoenix. Chatting on their iPhones made by slave labor in China.

But then, where you have nothing remotely similar to systematic murder, as in the Palestinian territories, people call it "genocide" and call for a boycott. Ain't that funny?

[ILMostro7]

You just mentioned a number of the double standards that exist netween the US and countries with immoral policies. There were uprisings in the ghettos. Granted, they didn't have enough time to form a democratically elected government. I am pointing out the irony of using anything similar as the Germans against a people who live in the most densely-populated, walled off land on earth...to say the least. Prolonging that with impunity and pride will certainly not make things better for anyone. You are casting aspersions against what I said, with no reason.

[denton-scratch]

> The Warsaw Ghetto did not have elections to vote in a terrorist group.

HAMAS was not a "terrorist group" when they were duly elected in the Gaza Strip.

> It was not offered its own nation-state.

Neither Gaza nor the West Bank has been offered it's own nation-state.

[ForgotMyPwOops]

Should all opinions based on bad reasons be banned? Should people be compelled to explain their beliefs? Who decides if these opinions are good or illegal?

I don't believe fairly arbitrating expression based on beliefs is feasible, and I do believe it is actively harmful

[slg]

Everyone is free to their own opinions. Actions can and should be banned depending on their motivations. We already apply this to other forms of restriction on speech like defamation. Often defamation will require negligence to harm or intent to harm. Someone who is factually incorrect through an honest mistake generally isn't considered to have committed defamation. I don't know why we are okay trying to ascertain the motive behind speech in one instance and not another.

[worik]

> Actions can and should be banned depending on their motivations

Really? That requires mind reading.

Do you mean "...depending on their effects"?

[slg]

We do this with plenty of crimes. Murdering your spouse to collect their life insurance policy is punished harsher than murdering your spouse after you come home to find them having an affair. Motivations and intent matter.

[worik]

It is the same crime. Motivation does not count to guilt.

Intent does, but intent is different from motivation. Do I need to explain that?

[guelo]

American defamation laws are neutered compared to other western countries because of the 1st amendment.

[denton-scratch]

> Who decides what is antisemitic?

There's a trend towards allowing complainants to define what actions are discriminatory, and therefore criminal. It's weird.

[yonixw]

> Who decides what is antisemetic?

The Majority.

> Some arbiter

Nope. The Majority.

> if that's all it takes to silence it

Nope. anti-semetic is kinda big deal. We all should treat it as such and run from it like fire.

[ForgotMyPwOops]

Should all speech be up for vote? Should all opinions that the majority disagree with be banned?

I believe weakening protections such as free speech, which are used by the vulnerable to call attention to their plights, is much more likely to hurt Jewish people than allowing ostensibly antisemitic expression to exist

[worik]

At one point, in my home land (Aotearoa) it was considered perfectly reasonable by the majority to bring teams of white South Africans into the country to play games. They were whit South Africans because they would not allow black South Africans in their teams.

The minority here fought long and hard to stop it, lost the battle (the team came and played their games against our local teams) but now are recognised as heros.

No. It is not the majority who decides what is right and wrong.

[buzzwords]

Nope, if majority believe A, doesn't make A true. It just means majority believe A. Public opinion is very malleable. Hence the existence of marketing.

[spywaregorilla]

More like the plurality of vocal subset.

[emptyfile]

Shocking comment!