Former Israeli Minister of Education says calling critics "anti-Semitic" is a trick they always use.

[Tsing Tao]

How do you know the critics are right, that they are not twisting the truth and what their motivations are to draw such a deep conclusion of yours? How do you know that the critics are constructive and not engaged in blood libeling? Maybe the "critics" are abject haters after all. Don't you feel that you are already taking sides in your conclusions? Is it ok to criticize Islam as a religion of jihad and conquest or would it be just "islamophobia"?

Did you watch the video in the OP? At all? The woman is saying - point blank - that they just go after anyone that detracts with the label of anti-Semitic. The argument isn't relevant.

Same thing with "racism" these days - forget the argument, just label.

 

[Ricter]

Did you watch the video in the OP? At all? The woman is saying - point blank - that they just go after anyone that detracts with the label of anti-Semitic. The argument isn't relevant.

Same thing with "racism" these days - forget the argument, just label.

And "leftists", too.

 

[gkishot]

Did you watch the video in the OP? At all? The woman is saying - point blank - that they just go after anyone that detracts with the label of anti-Semitic. The argument isn't relevant.

Same thing with "racism" these days - forget the argument, just label.

ok, I would rather argue that the woman is wrong in her case.
So how do you know to distinguish a valid criticism from hate speech?

 

[Tsing Tao]

And "leftists", too.

Yes, and "cons".

 

[Tsing Tao]

ok, I would rather argue that the woman is wrong in her case.
So how do you know to distinguish a valid criticism from hate speech?

That's just it. In order for you to know, you have to have a debate. If debate is not allowed and instantly shut down with name calling (or labeling) then you never know. But hate speech is a bit easier to identify because it isn't attacking process, or philosophy, or ideals - it's attacking people.

Example of idea: There is more black crime in urban areas than white crime because blacks statistically come from broken homes, and the lack of a father figure to black males causes young black males to turn to violence rather than education...

The above is just a theory, but it is an idea based on what is driving the increase in crimes committed by black men.

Example of attacking the people, not presenting the idea: There is more black crime in urban areas than white crime because blacks are more violent.

Calling the first example "racist" is ignoring that there could be a legitimate correlation that could result in a solution (or not).

 

[gkishot]

That's just it. In order for you to know, you have to have a debate. If debate is not allowed and instantly shut down with name calling (or labeling) then you never know. But hate speech is a bit easier to identify because it isn't attacking process, or philosophy, or ideals - it's attacking people.

Example of idea: There is more black crime in urban areas than white crime because blacks statistically come from broken homes, and the lack of a father figure to black males causes young black males to turn to violence rather than education...

The above is just a theory, but it is an idea based on what is driving the increase in crimes committed by black men.

Example of attacking the people, not presenting the idea: There is more black crime in urban areas than white crime because blacks are more violent.

Calling the first example "racist" is ignoring that there could be a legitimate correlation that could result in a solution (or not).

This is the debate: you describe ideology of people who hate your guts and want to destroy you fascistm and anti-semitism. Just calling a spade by its name.

 

[Tsing Tao]

This is the debate: you describe ideology of people who hate your guts and want to destroy you fascistm and anti-semitism. Just calling a spade by its name.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand any of what you are writing here. I can't even follow the grammar. Are you saying I'm labeling people the same way? If so, then you're obviously not reading anything I'm writing.

 

[gkishot]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand any of what you are writing here. I can't even follow the grammar. Are you saying I'm labeling people the same way? If so, then you're obviously not reading anything I'm writing.

ok, let me rephrase it for you:

This is part of the debate when people describe ideology of those who hate their guts and want to destroy them under disguise of criticism as fascism and anti-semitism. Just calling a spade by its name.
Quite a valid argument if you ask me.

 

[Spike Trader]

You're not rephrasing anything,

you're typing the same nonsense.

 

[Tsing Tao]

ok, let me rephrase it for you:

This is part of the debate when people describe ideology of those who hate their guts and want to destroy them under disguise of criticism as fascism and anti-semitism. Just calling a spade by its name.
Quite a valid argument if you ask me.

So go back to my two examples. If we are talking about the rate of violent crimes of African Americans and it's possible correlation to the amount of single parent families in the African American community, and you call me a racist for suggesting this might be a variable, you think that you're using a valid debate tactic in this labeling?