No more Jews
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
- Status
Think again. She already has you all distracted.
She's a psiren and can't be resisted. I am powerless to do anything but obey.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
See if Geoff really believed in the Bible, he woulda stoned that nonPalestinian rejector of God.
No, I wouldn't, because He told me not to.
Bells
Staff member
Denying them their identity. How predictable.
Tell me though Sam. How is you denying them their identity not anti-semitic?
Sam, I have been one of your supporters on this forum. And as one of the few on this forum who actually still likes you, let me say that at present, you are making an arse of yourself.
There is, actually, a real issue here
An interesting point, but I don't think this issue arises in a vacuum.
The whole S.A.M. issue wearies me in a way. To the one, Sciforums has become a haven for bigotry over the years. In the beginning, "bigotry" against Christians came in the form of demanding logic, pointing out contradictions, and noting the disparity between theory and practice. And, yes, it crept and got more vicious. But we always used to demand some sort of logical argument to support the hostility.
That changed slowly after 9/11, as anti-Muslim bigotry ran rampant. No longer did the anger and condemnation require some objective source to be discussed. If one treats Jews, women, blacks, or atheists the same way we've treated Muslims over the years, there are ramifications. Muslims, though? It's nearly open season.
At Sciforums, many of our more respected minds like to appeal to science and the scientific method. So let's consider that as a loose analogy. Someone tells S.A.M. her use of the word "Jews" is making people wary of her threads and posts. So she formulates a hypothesis: Perhaps the discussion can move forward if she calls them something else.
But it's S.A.M., so testing that hypothesis isn't testing a hypothesis. Rather, it's—
The thing is that S.A.M. has stated her reasons. Thus, she is grandstanding, rubbing her clit, being like Hitler, and making an arse of herself because she aims to "highlight how silly the whole antisemitic debate is" because "of advice received from a member whose views I do respect on the fallacy of using 'the Jews' to denote self described followers [and rejectors] of Judaism".
She has answered substantive inquiries (e.g. Enmos regarding Palestinian Jews), and nobody even noticed (or, at least, bothered to point out) the one fallacy she committed. So maybe Enmos overlooked it, or maybe his inquiry is satisfied as such. But look at some of the other voices, namely those I listed above.
Draqon? He's just being Draqon. (Q)? He's just being (Q). Lucy? She's just being Lucy. James? Really, I adore James but sometimes I just don't know what his problem is; he's human, which means there are a couple of issues at least that he's going to flub from time to time. This is one of them.
My point being, Bells, are you sure it's S.A.M. who is making an arse of herself?
Yes, I recognize that people just want her to learn to ignore her idiot critics. And I recognize that for many of those people, the primary benefit to that solution is that S.A.M. should just shut the fuck up and leave the bigots of our community in peace.
So why is this issue important to her?
I actually agree with her. Sciforums is infected with a hateful disease. One symptom is Zionism. And I mean the supremacist Zionism, not that pie-in-the-sky fantasy Zionism people like to pretend. Oh, Israel has a right to exist! Yes, which includes conduct that would be called crimes against humanity if anyone else did it. Israel has the right to be secure! You know, if you don't want to get in a fight, don't go out and punch someone in the teeth.
And here I need to digress because I want your opinion on a general proposition: When we view disparity, what obliges the oppressed/violated/subjugated people to play by the very rules that hurt them?
We're all appalled at the Palestinian/Israeli dispute. But there is some warped lens projecting the fracas, because we're somehow supposed to believe the Israelis are clean in this. Okay, try this ....
When Closet Land—one of my favorite movies ever—came out on videotape, Amnesty International bought an advert in the previews. They talked about a political dissident, jailed and beaten and abused, who walked out of prison one day and became the president of a nation. They were celebrating Vaclav Havel's emergence as the head of the Czech Republic.
Imagine an advert that talks about a military and political operative, who willfully slaughters unarmed women and children, helps jail and abuse dissidents, and works not to liberate a people, but oppress one. Would you celebrate his emergence as the president of a nation? If you ran a news organization, would you adopt his terminology to describe the situation in his country?
Now ... what if he's an Israeli?
In the long run, Bells, I understand that S.A.M. makes some mistakes in her handling of this issue, but what I can't figure out is why she should be held to a higher standard than anyone else.
I'm sick of it. We're all sick of it. But the solution isn't for S.A.M. to shut up so we can consolidate our various bigotries in peace. We need to look beyond the fact that it's S.A.M. asking the question. That way, maybe our objectivity will return.
That said ....
One one thing to consider is that—
—nobody cares.
Or, to be a bit more useful, there are three basic camps: A minority that hears you and agrees, a majority that doesn't care what you have to say (see below), and a non-participating faction that doesn't care one way or another.
Now the thing is that as far as that majority goes, the security checks are nothing more than you deserve for being dark-skinned and Muslim. Palestinian children bombed with white phosphorous get what they deserve because they're Palestinian Muslims.
So if S.A.M. has anything to say about it, she's just grandstanding, rubbing her clit, or whatever. That second master's degree? The international travel experience and perspective? That practical relationship with Islam? None of those things matter, S.A.M., to that majority. You're a dark-skinned, Muslim, Indian woman. The only thing you're capable of, in their view, is stupid bitchy histrionics.
They don't give a fuck, S.A.M.
So watch what happens the next time you or I accuse of white, male, American jingo of stroking his cock over something. Indeed, I think we're both smart enough to not test the hypothesis. Me? I'd see the post deleted and probably get a little note from the admins. You? Probably would go worse.
I've been watching this happen for ten years. And, yes, having crossed that threshold, I intend to invoke it from time to time. I recognize that a large part of the problem is that there are influential figures in this dispute—both members and moderators alike—who engaged it in media res. They went forward without understanding the history. That's actually a long issue at Sciforums, but you happen to be visible for your post count.
If I might suggest some unsolicited advice:
And, you know, keep your chin up. Look at your actual opposition in this thread. Draqon? (Q)? Lucy? I mean, really. Lucy, at least, can talk a good talk, but still.
Okay, think of it this way:
Dave Brown, The Independent, January, 2003
(via Media Backspin)
A lot of people are outraged over this cartoon, and given some of the anti-Semitic propaganda that has gone around over the years, one might be able to see why. But if you look in the lower right-hand corner, the artist's scrawl reads, "from Goya", referring to the 1819 masterpiece "Saturn Devouring One of His Children" (click the cartoon to see the Goya).
So people are really upset that it's a mean cartoon about Ariel Sharon.
Where do such attitudes come from? I recall a thread here a few years back in which I argued with one of our Judeosupremacists because he denounced a former Israeli military figure for lamenting what the government was doing to Palestinian children. It was an ugly row in which our Sciforums neighbor established that, for him, there are no innocent Palestinians.
I can't say it was the first time I've encountered the idea, so there you go.
Europeans and Americans still have fairly fresh memories of all sorts of anti-Judaic propaganda: the Hollywood Jewish takeover, the UN Jewish takeover, the Rothschilds and Jewish domination, and even one that lends to people's discomfort over the Brown cartoon, an old photograph of a minor sect in which the rabbi drank the blood from a circumcised foreskin. If there was something amiss in America, someone would eventually tell you why it's the Jews' fault.
So, yeah, when I called our neighbor a vampire for saying there are no innocent Palestinians, I knew I was treading a line.
At any rate, the Brown cartoon won the Political Cartoon Society's 2003 "Cartoon of the Year" award. I would hope Mr. Brown thanked all the people who freaked out about the cartoon for making it so successful.
If you click the cartoon link, note the Backspin author's transformation of the cartoon from anti-Sharon to anti-Israel, and also the comment contributors further escalation to anti-Semitism. One cannot criticize Israel or its politics, apparently, without condemning Jews. What a convenient defense, eh? Then again, it's not anything you're unfamiliar with, either here at Sciforums, or in the world at large. Looking back to my unsolicited advice, I would simply suggest that you remain aware of this boilerplate translation that Israel = Jews, and accommodate it as best you can. Unfortunately, it's a burden that you should expect to endure for the foreseeable future at Sciforums.
____________________
Notes:
"Evolution of an Outrage". Media Backspin. November 26, 2003. Backspin.Typepad.com. September 4, 2009. http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/11/evolution_of_an.html
Bells said:
An interesting point, but I don't think this issue arises in a vacuum.
The whole S.A.M. issue wearies me in a way. To the one, Sciforums has become a haven for bigotry over the years. In the beginning, "bigotry" against Christians came in the form of demanding logic, pointing out contradictions, and noting the disparity between theory and practice. And, yes, it crept and got more vicious. But we always used to demand some sort of logical argument to support the hostility.
That changed slowly after 9/11, as anti-Muslim bigotry ran rampant. No longer did the anger and condemnation require some objective source to be discussed. If one treats Jews, women, blacks, or atheists the same way we've treated Muslims over the years, there are ramifications. Muslims, though? It's nearly open season.
At Sciforums, many of our more respected minds like to appeal to science and the scientific method. So let's consider that as a loose analogy. Someone tells S.A.M. her use of the word "Jews" is making people wary of her threads and posts. So she formulates a hypothesis: Perhaps the discussion can move forward if she calls them something else.
But it's S.A.M., so testing that hypothesis isn't testing a hypothesis. Rather, it's—
• "wielding sword of Surtr" (Draqon)
• "Grandstanding" (James R)
• "'us and them' .... [T]he Islamic ideology causing much division within [her]" ((Q))
• "just another chance for Sam to rub her clit all over the subject" (Lucysnow)
• "like interviewing Hitler and Muhammad at the same time" ((Q))
• "making an arse of [herself]" (Bells)
• "Grandstanding" (James R)
• "'us and them' .... [T]he Islamic ideology causing much division within [her]" ((Q))
• "just another chance for Sam to rub her clit all over the subject" (Lucysnow)
• "like interviewing Hitler and Muhammad at the same time" ((Q))
(I hereby cite Godwin's Law.)
• "making an arse of [herself]" (Bells)
The thing is that S.A.M. has stated her reasons. Thus, she is grandstanding, rubbing her clit, being like Hitler, and making an arse of herself because she aims to "highlight how silly the whole antisemitic debate is" because "of advice received from a member whose views I do respect on the fallacy of using 'the Jews' to denote self described followers [and rejectors] of Judaism".
She has answered substantive inquiries (e.g. Enmos regarding Palestinian Jews), and nobody even noticed (or, at least, bothered to point out) the one fallacy she committed. So maybe Enmos overlooked it, or maybe his inquiry is satisfied as such. But look at some of the other voices, namely those I listed above.
Draqon? He's just being Draqon. (Q)? He's just being (Q). Lucy? She's just being Lucy. James? Really, I adore James but sometimes I just don't know what his problem is; he's human, which means there are a couple of issues at least that he's going to flub from time to time. This is one of them.
My point being, Bells, are you sure it's S.A.M. who is making an arse of herself?
Yes, I recognize that people just want her to learn to ignore her idiot critics. And I recognize that for many of those people, the primary benefit to that solution is that S.A.M. should just shut the fuck up and leave the bigots of our community in peace.
So why is this issue important to her?
S.A.M. said:
I actually agree with her. Sciforums is infected with a hateful disease. One symptom is Zionism. And I mean the supremacist Zionism, not that pie-in-the-sky fantasy Zionism people like to pretend. Oh, Israel has a right to exist! Yes, which includes conduct that would be called crimes against humanity if anyone else did it. Israel has the right to be secure! You know, if you don't want to get in a fight, don't go out and punch someone in the teeth.
And here I need to digress because I want your opinion on a general proposition: When we view disparity, what obliges the oppressed/violated/subjugated people to play by the very rules that hurt them?
We're all appalled at the Palestinian/Israeli dispute. But there is some warped lens projecting the fracas, because we're somehow supposed to believe the Israelis are clean in this. Okay, try this ....
When Closet Land—one of my favorite movies ever—came out on videotape, Amnesty International bought an advert in the previews. They talked about a political dissident, jailed and beaten and abused, who walked out of prison one day and became the president of a nation. They were celebrating Vaclav Havel's emergence as the head of the Czech Republic.
Imagine an advert that talks about a military and political operative, who willfully slaughters unarmed women and children, helps jail and abuse dissidents, and works not to liberate a people, but oppress one. Would you celebrate his emergence as the president of a nation? If you ran a news organization, would you adopt his terminology to describe the situation in his country?
Now ... what if he's an Israeli?
In the long run, Bells, I understand that S.A.M. makes some mistakes in her handling of this issue, but what I can't figure out is why she should be held to a higher standard than anyone else.
I'm sick of it. We're all sick of it. But the solution isn't for S.A.M. to shut up so we can consolidate our various bigotries in peace. We need to look beyond the fact that it's S.A.M. asking the question. That way, maybe our objectivity will return.
That said ....
• • •
S.A.M. said:
One one thing to consider is that—
—nobody cares.
Or, to be a bit more useful, there are three basic camps: A minority that hears you and agrees, a majority that doesn't care what you have to say (see below), and a non-participating faction that doesn't care one way or another.
Now the thing is that as far as that majority goes, the security checks are nothing more than you deserve for being dark-skinned and Muslim. Palestinian children bombed with white phosphorous get what they deserve because they're Palestinian Muslims.
So if S.A.M. has anything to say about it, she's just grandstanding, rubbing her clit, or whatever. That second master's degree? The international travel experience and perspective? That practical relationship with Islam? None of those things matter, S.A.M., to that majority. You're a dark-skinned, Muslim, Indian woman. The only thing you're capable of, in their view, is stupid bitchy histrionics.
They don't give a fuck, S.A.M.
So watch what happens the next time you or I accuse of white, male, American jingo of stroking his cock over something. Indeed, I think we're both smart enough to not test the hypothesis. Me? I'd see the post deleted and probably get a little note from the admins. You? Probably would go worse.
I've been watching this happen for ten years. And, yes, having crossed that threshold, I intend to invoke it from time to time. I recognize that a large part of the problem is that there are influential figures in this dispute—both members and moderators alike—who engaged it in media res. They went forward without understanding the history. That's actually a long issue at Sciforums, but you happen to be visible for your post count.
If I might suggest some unsolicited advice:
Drop this angle, keep the result close at hand. The next time someone calls you out for using a phrase like "the Jews", ask them what you're supposed to call them. And if they give you a useful answer, make sure it includes whether that's just a S.A.M. standard, or if that's how they think everyone should do it.
Secondly, use the adjective "Israeli" as much as possible, even to the point of overkill, whenever you are referring to Israeli Jews and their theosupremacist state. If anyone brings up that overkill, simply remind them that you need to be specific because, as a female Indian Muslim, you are not allowed by the customs of this community to be as general and casual as everyone else. And then, having answered them, tell them to stop dragging your thread off topic.
Secondly, use the adjective "Israeli" as much as possible, even to the point of overkill, whenever you are referring to Israeli Jews and their theosupremacist state. If anyone brings up that overkill, simply remind them that you need to be specific because, as a female Indian Muslim, you are not allowed by the customs of this community to be as general and casual as everyone else. And then, having answered them, tell them to stop dragging your thread off topic.
And, you know, keep your chin up. Look at your actual opposition in this thread. Draqon? (Q)? Lucy? I mean, really. Lucy, at least, can talk a good talk, but still.
Okay, think of it this way:
Dave Brown, The Independent, January, 2003
(via Media Backspin)
A lot of people are outraged over this cartoon, and given some of the anti-Semitic propaganda that has gone around over the years, one might be able to see why. But if you look in the lower right-hand corner, the artist's scrawl reads, "from Goya", referring to the 1819 masterpiece "Saturn Devouring One of His Children" (click the cartoon to see the Goya).
So people are really upset that it's a mean cartoon about Ariel Sharon.
Where do such attitudes come from? I recall a thread here a few years back in which I argued with one of our Judeosupremacists because he denounced a former Israeli military figure for lamenting what the government was doing to Palestinian children. It was an ugly row in which our Sciforums neighbor established that, for him, there are no innocent Palestinians.
I can't say it was the first time I've encountered the idea, so there you go.
Europeans and Americans still have fairly fresh memories of all sorts of anti-Judaic propaganda: the Hollywood Jewish takeover, the UN Jewish takeover, the Rothschilds and Jewish domination, and even one that lends to people's discomfort over the Brown cartoon, an old photograph of a minor sect in which the rabbi drank the blood from a circumcised foreskin. If there was something amiss in America, someone would eventually tell you why it's the Jews' fault.
So, yeah, when I called our neighbor a vampire for saying there are no innocent Palestinians, I knew I was treading a line.
At any rate, the Brown cartoon won the Political Cartoon Society's 2003 "Cartoon of the Year" award. I would hope Mr. Brown thanked all the people who freaked out about the cartoon for making it so successful.
If you click the cartoon link, note the Backspin author's transformation of the cartoon from anti-Sharon to anti-Israel, and also the comment contributors further escalation to anti-Semitism. One cannot criticize Israel or its politics, apparently, without condemning Jews. What a convenient defense, eh? Then again, it's not anything you're unfamiliar with, either here at Sciforums, or in the world at large. Looking back to my unsolicited advice, I would simply suggest that you remain aware of this boilerplate translation that Israel = Jews, and accommodate it as best you can. Unfortunately, it's a burden that you should expect to endure for the foreseeable future at Sciforums.
____________________
Notes:
"Evolution of an Outrage". Media Backspin. November 26, 2003. Backspin.Typepad.com. September 4, 2009. http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2003/11/evolution_of_an.html
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Tiassa: So she formulates a hypothesis: Perhaps the discussion can move forward if she calls them something else.
No she isn't formulating a hypothesis, you're simply being an apologist. This isn't about her use of the word 'jew' its how she characterizes all jews. There is a big difference Tiassa and I think you already know this. Sam's bigotry doesn't affect the bigotry of others she simply adds to it.
No she isn't formulating a hypothesis, you're simply being an apologist. This isn't about her use of the word 'jew' its how she characterizes all jews. There is a big difference Tiassa and I think you already know this. Sam's bigotry doesn't affect the bigotry of others she simply adds to it.
Help me see what you see
Quite clearly, Lucy, I don't see the world through your eyes.
So:
What does that mean to you? Help me see what you see.
Lucysnow said:
Quite clearly, Lucy, I don't see the world through your eyes.
So:
"This isn't about her use of the word 'jew' its how she characterizes all jews."
What does that mean to you? Help me see what you see.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Well calling oneself or another a jew isn't the issue is it. No. I believe that when she creates a post which says that 'Israel speaks for all jews' or creates a post stating that since jews who do not keep sabbath are 'apes and pigs' and then goes on to ask Geoff if he has kept the sabbath (haha-add little smilie
-). Or when she goes on to start a thread on how jews reconcile themselves towards their religion and then goes on to use Kapos or mother's 'handing their children over to the gas chamber' she does nothing but characterize jews in a negative light, maliciously so I might add. You know this already. The fact that there are people who dislike muslims is no reason to use jews as a stepping stone to make her point. It doesn't work. Sam wants to be treated with respect but she isn't inclined to show any. Sam wants to be treated like other's yet she is the first to say"because I am a dark female Muslim, I probably get leeway to say more about Jews than any white male here would [or even white female]. People have been banned for antisemitism here for making really silly posts which were more idiotic than offensive."
Except she WAS being offensive and not just 'silly'. She wants to highlight the plight of her clan or tribe or religious affiliation but she cannot do so for others who have or do similarly suffer. It was like in the racism thread when she turned herself towards denial that the Irish were used as slaves and instead characterized it as 'economic incentive'
As if all slavery wasn't economic incentive. Asked if she could not sympathize she simply did not respond which is at least honest. I say Sam's idea of 'plight' doesn't deserve anymore consideration than anyone else's. If you cannot as a muslim sympathize with the holocaust don't expect an Israeli jew to sympathize with palestinian suffering.But hey. Sam? She's just being Sam.
Yeah, trust you. Like that's a wise move.
Ah, I see.
So I should just take your word, then, eh?
Lucysnow said:
Well calling oneself or another a jew isn't the issue is it. No. I believe that when she creates a post which says that 'Israel speaks for all jews' or creates a post stating that since jews who do not keep sabbath are 'apes and pigs' and then goes on to ask Geoff if he has kept the sabbath (haha-add little smilie
Ah, I see.
So I should just take your word, then, eh?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Oh congratulations you found the right thread where you asked this:
"What does that mean to you? Help me see what you see."
Now unsatisfied with my response you ask if you should take my word for it. Well her posts are open and you are a mod and others have seen them also so you don't have to 'take my word' for it. You are biased on the issue and wish to see Sam as this wilted, suffering minority, hunkered down against the plight of all the islamophobes and anti theists which is a load of bullshit. It clouds your sense of fairness and you no longer seem capable of seeing Sam's flaws, inconsistencies and bigotry as well as her assets as a member.
- Status