Legit criticism is not spamming, Franklin. If you think Zionism deserves no criticism, then you see the exact reason why all forms of identity politics most certainly do need to be criticized. Which is supposed to be what FAIR is all about.
It doesn't matter what Zionism means to this artist personally. What it does to the world in practi…
Legit criticism is not spamming, Franklin. If you think Zionism deserves no criticism, then you see the exact reason why all forms of identity politics most certainly do need to be criticized. Which is supposed to be what FAIR is all about.
It doesn't matter what Zionism means to this artist personally. What it does to the world in practice in terms of war, apartheid, and authoritarianism is what matters to those who are affected by that and care about things such as world peace and equality among all people. That, again, is what I signed up for FAIR about. I didn't sign up to defend or promote any form of identity politics.
Let's take a look at that passage you cited from FAIR's Principles:
"We seek to understand opinions or behavior that we do not necessarily agree with."
I believe it meant economic issues, which I am fine with. I do not believe it was referring to identity politics. If we can promote Zionism here, then why not articles by actual FAIR members promoting Black Lives Matter or Critical Race Theory? Or Fourth Wave Feminism? Or Gay Pride? And claims that if you do not support those ideologies, then you're guilty of at least second order racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc?
"We pursue the objective truth through honest inquiry."
And pointing out how any form of identity politics tends to lead to war and authoritarianism if promoted on a national level isn't doing that?
"We are tolerant and consider points of view that are in conflict with our convictions."
Then, number one, listen to my critiques of Zionism, a form of identity politics, and be tolerant of them.
And secondly, I point out that opposition to identity politics is what FAIR is supposed to be about. I do not think those passages you cited were in any way referring to toleration of any form of identity politics, but to other matters -- such as economic, or social values, etc.
Accordingly, I accept and listen to your dislike of socialism. That is fine. But Zionism or any form of identity politics is a whole other ball of wax. FAIR is either against that or promotes it. I thought this was already decided.
This essay, and this organization, do not promote Zionism. The essay is critiquing anti-Zionists, and I have to say that the anti-Zionists in the comment section are doing a great job demonstrating why they should be critiqued.
"Then, number one, listen to my critiques of Zionism, a form of identity politics, and be tolerant of them."
I tolerate them in the sense that I don't think you should be killed for espousing them, but they're still belligerent foolishness and FAIR has no reason to accommodate them. Zionism is not identity politics. If you disagree, so be it, but you have mistaken your judgment about the matter for fact. As for this "you espouse toleration, so tolerate me!" attitude, and the other that "FAIR is either against [Zionism] or promotes it," this is the kind of rhetorical and emotional blackmail that identitarians lifted from the socialists and should be ignored as such.
If you critique anti-Zionists on an essay published in a group that is supposed to represent opposition to identity politics, then you are promoting Zionism. Anti-Zionists should be expected to critique Zionism in an organization opposing identity politics. And considering what the world is suffering at the hands of Zionism right now, I think Zionism deserved to be critiqued -- while the government still allows it.
This is not the same thing as saying that Zionists should not have a voice and be denied a platform. I have no problem with Zionists posting essays on Substack, or Medium, etc. The problem is doing so within a publication by FAIR.
"Zionism is not identity politics. If you disagree, so be it, but you have mistaken your judgment about the matter for fact."
Zionism specifically promotes the identity of the Jewish ethnic demographic and the Jewish religion. It demands exceptional treatment for them, including an entire apartheid state giving them favoritism, including waging war in their name (even though war is really a big money-laundering operation hidden behind an altruistic virtue shield). It plays the Victim Card to rationalize victimizing others to "right" wrongs from the past. It seeks and obtains power, both social and financial, to the point that lobbyist groups espousing the ideology can literally make or break the careers of politicians in the duopoly. It demands the banning and de-platforming of anyone who opposes the ideology. claiming that is tantamount to hating the identity group and/or religion that it latches on to.
That sounds like textbook identity politics to me. The fact that it's supported heavily by the Right does not mean it isn't identity politics.
"As for this "you espouse toleration, so tolerate me!" attitude, and the other that "FAIR is either against [Zionism] or promotes it," this is the kind of rhetorical and emotional blackmail that identitarians lifted from the socialists and should be ignored as such."
First of all, what "socialists" would these be? If you mean the Stalinists of the former Soviet Union, that came long after Marx and had nothing to do with a classless and stateless economy. That is you latching together two different things that you dislike into one. I see capitalist firms headquartered in the USA like Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, and J.P. Morgan promoting authoritarian identity politics, not Classical Marxian socialists. And many execs of those orgs are Zionists as well.
Saying that FAIR should both promote or oppose Zionism is not emotional blackmail, it's asking the org to *stay on its mission of opposing identity politics.* Otherwise, you get the same type of contradiction as the Democrats claiming to be for the working class yet supporting capitalist policies, including war, at every opportunity. There are some things that cannot be jointly accommodated and opposed by a single organization if its mission statement is firmly against something.
Zionism is a response to a sordid history of host countries turning violently on their Jews, dating to the early days of Christendom, by establishing a Jewish homeland on the one spot on earth where Jews are indigenous. It shares none of the priors of identity politics, particularly not the main one, that identity is ultimate lens through which human experience must be viewed. It demands none of those things that you're complaining about regarding it.
If you insist on complaining about them anyway, then all the downstream effects of Marxism are on the table as well, including Stalinism, Maoism, Palestinian nationalism (which is expressly socialist), and identity politics, which grafted race struggle onto Marxian class struggle and talks about it identical revolutionary terms. Kendi has written of racism and capitalism as conjoined twins.
As for which socialists I was referring to, there are plenty examples, but you'll do.
Zionism as such doesn't concern FAIR. Anti-Zionists antagonizing and deplatforming Zionists, as in the article overhead, does.
In other words, Zionism is a case of "turnabout is fair play," creating a power base for a Perpetual Victim group where those at the top of the class, economically speaking, can wage war and demand exceptional treatment on the alleged behalf of a certain ethnic and/or religious group. Look how well that is working out for the world right now considering Israel's war-mongering ways and AIPAC's financial control over the government. Look at how well that "solution" to past grievances is working for various race and gender identity groupings in America right now.
No specific group of people should ever get a "homeland." They should live peacefully among everyone else by striving to create a better world order for everyone... not create a "safe space" for them and them alone.
"It shares none of the priors of identity politics, particularly not the main one, that identity is ultimate lens through which human experience must be viewed. It demands none of those things that you're complaining about regarding it."
It shares every single one of those characteristics, and I pointed out above and elsewhere in this thread. Especially when you demand that I stop criticizing it; if I get de-platformed or kicked off a university campus for doing so; if a presidential candidate cannot get elected for doing so; and if a government is willing to practice apartheid and create a genocide event on its behalf. We need to learn the right lessons from a sordid history, not repeat them in our name.
"If you insist on complaining about them anyway, then all the downstream effects of Marxism are on the table as well, including Stalinism, Maoism, Palestinian nationalism (which is expressly socialist), and identity politics, which grafted race struggle onto Marxian class struggle and talks about it identical revolutionary terms. Kendi has written of racism and capitalism as conjoined twins."
First off, Stalinism and Maoism are offshoots of Leninism, i.e., state-based class rule, not Classical Marxism. Secondly, grafting identity politics onto an economic system predicated upon class was an act of liberals, not actual Marxists. A few are guilty of that, but this is a problem, not something that most of us embrace.
"As for which socialists I was referring to, there are plenty examples, but you'll do."
Yes, an example of someone who sticks to the classical principles, which doesn't work for anyone who wants to peg the original conception of it as something it is not, but something other tendencies have twisted it into.
"Zionism as such doesn't concern FAIR."
And it really should, which is my complaint, especially if FAIR is going to outright promote it. Is BLM or Proud Feminists going to infiltrate the group yet and demand to be an exception to the mission statement because of this or that?
"Anti-Zionists antagonizing"
Translation: Anti-Zionists criticizing.
"and deplatforming Zionists,"
One, that's the pot calling the kettle black, considering what the U.S. government is doing on behalf of AIPAC.
Secondly, asking an org dedicated to combating identity politics is not tantamount to "de-platforming" Zionists. I have no problem with Zionists being free to speak their minds in a general sense on any social media forum, including Substack.
"as in the article overhead, does."
Why not publish the article on Substack on its own? Or as part of another publication that is not a conflict of interest? Why publish it in the FAIR publication? That is my point.
The conflict of interest regarding supporting a war-mongering state that hides behind a Virtue Cloak of textbook identity politics in an org that is supposed to be against identity politics is hardly an invention. It is pointing out the obvious and asking what it's about.
Sorry that we had to knock heads on this, Franklin. But I suspect this will occur a lot more between many members of FAIR until they make a decision one way or another. If they make a wrong decision, then many members will have to leave and start a new and similar organization that makes no exceptions to the anti-identity politics principle. Be well.
Legit criticism is not spamming, Franklin. If you think Zionism deserves no criticism, then you see the exact reason why all forms of identity politics most certainly do need to be criticized. Which is supposed to be what FAIR is all about.
It doesn't matter what Zionism means to this artist personally. What it does to the world in practice in terms of war, apartheid, and authoritarianism is what matters to those who are affected by that and care about things such as world peace and equality among all people. That, again, is what I signed up for FAIR about. I didn't sign up to defend or promote any form of identity politics.
Let's take a look at that passage you cited from FAIR's Principles:
"We seek to understand opinions or behavior that we do not necessarily agree with."
I believe it meant economic issues, which I am fine with. I do not believe it was referring to identity politics. If we can promote Zionism here, then why not articles by actual FAIR members promoting Black Lives Matter or Critical Race Theory? Or Fourth Wave Feminism? Or Gay Pride? And claims that if you do not support those ideologies, then you're guilty of at least second order racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc?
"We pursue the objective truth through honest inquiry."
And pointing out how any form of identity politics tends to lead to war and authoritarianism if promoted on a national level isn't doing that?
"We are tolerant and consider points of view that are in conflict with our convictions."
Then, number one, listen to my critiques of Zionism, a form of identity politics, and be tolerant of them.
And secondly, I point out that opposition to identity politics is what FAIR is supposed to be about. I do not think those passages you cited were in any way referring to toleration of any form of identity politics, but to other matters -- such as economic, or social values, etc.
Accordingly, I accept and listen to your dislike of socialism. That is fine. But Zionism or any form of identity politics is a whole other ball of wax. FAIR is either against that or promotes it. I thought this was already decided.
This essay, and this organization, do not promote Zionism. The essay is critiquing anti-Zionists, and I have to say that the anti-Zionists in the comment section are doing a great job demonstrating why they should be critiqued.
"Then, number one, listen to my critiques of Zionism, a form of identity politics, and be tolerant of them."
I tolerate them in the sense that I don't think you should be killed for espousing them, but they're still belligerent foolishness and FAIR has no reason to accommodate them. Zionism is not identity politics. If you disagree, so be it, but you have mistaken your judgment about the matter for fact. As for this "you espouse toleration, so tolerate me!" attitude, and the other that "FAIR is either against [Zionism] or promotes it," this is the kind of rhetorical and emotional blackmail that identitarians lifted from the socialists and should be ignored as such.
If you critique anti-Zionists on an essay published in a group that is supposed to represent opposition to identity politics, then you are promoting Zionism. Anti-Zionists should be expected to critique Zionism in an organization opposing identity politics. And considering what the world is suffering at the hands of Zionism right now, I think Zionism deserved to be critiqued -- while the government still allows it.
This is not the same thing as saying that Zionists should not have a voice and be denied a platform. I have no problem with Zionists posting essays on Substack, or Medium, etc. The problem is doing so within a publication by FAIR.
"Zionism is not identity politics. If you disagree, so be it, but you have mistaken your judgment about the matter for fact."
Zionism specifically promotes the identity of the Jewish ethnic demographic and the Jewish religion. It demands exceptional treatment for them, including an entire apartheid state giving them favoritism, including waging war in their name (even though war is really a big money-laundering operation hidden behind an altruistic virtue shield). It plays the Victim Card to rationalize victimizing others to "right" wrongs from the past. It seeks and obtains power, both social and financial, to the point that lobbyist groups espousing the ideology can literally make or break the careers of politicians in the duopoly. It demands the banning and de-platforming of anyone who opposes the ideology. claiming that is tantamount to hating the identity group and/or religion that it latches on to.
That sounds like textbook identity politics to me. The fact that it's supported heavily by the Right does not mean it isn't identity politics.
"As for this "you espouse toleration, so tolerate me!" attitude, and the other that "FAIR is either against [Zionism] or promotes it," this is the kind of rhetorical and emotional blackmail that identitarians lifted from the socialists and should be ignored as such."
First of all, what "socialists" would these be? If you mean the Stalinists of the former Soviet Union, that came long after Marx and had nothing to do with a classless and stateless economy. That is you latching together two different things that you dislike into one. I see capitalist firms headquartered in the USA like Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, and J.P. Morgan promoting authoritarian identity politics, not Classical Marxian socialists. And many execs of those orgs are Zionists as well.
Saying that FAIR should both promote or oppose Zionism is not emotional blackmail, it's asking the org to *stay on its mission of opposing identity politics.* Otherwise, you get the same type of contradiction as the Democrats claiming to be for the working class yet supporting capitalist policies, including war, at every opportunity. There are some things that cannot be jointly accommodated and opposed by a single organization if its mission statement is firmly against something.
Zionism is a response to a sordid history of host countries turning violently on their Jews, dating to the early days of Christendom, by establishing a Jewish homeland on the one spot on earth where Jews are indigenous. It shares none of the priors of identity politics, particularly not the main one, that identity is ultimate lens through which human experience must be viewed. It demands none of those things that you're complaining about regarding it.
If you insist on complaining about them anyway, then all the downstream effects of Marxism are on the table as well, including Stalinism, Maoism, Palestinian nationalism (which is expressly socialist), and identity politics, which grafted race struggle onto Marxian class struggle and talks about it identical revolutionary terms. Kendi has written of racism and capitalism as conjoined twins.
As for which socialists I was referring to, there are plenty examples, but you'll do.
Zionism as such doesn't concern FAIR. Anti-Zionists antagonizing and deplatforming Zionists, as in the article overhead, does.
In other words, Zionism is a case of "turnabout is fair play," creating a power base for a Perpetual Victim group where those at the top of the class, economically speaking, can wage war and demand exceptional treatment on the alleged behalf of a certain ethnic and/or religious group. Look how well that is working out for the world right now considering Israel's war-mongering ways and AIPAC's financial control over the government. Look at how well that "solution" to past grievances is working for various race and gender identity groupings in America right now.
No specific group of people should ever get a "homeland." They should live peacefully among everyone else by striving to create a better world order for everyone... not create a "safe space" for them and them alone.
"It shares none of the priors of identity politics, particularly not the main one, that identity is ultimate lens through which human experience must be viewed. It demands none of those things that you're complaining about regarding it."
It shares every single one of those characteristics, and I pointed out above and elsewhere in this thread. Especially when you demand that I stop criticizing it; if I get de-platformed or kicked off a university campus for doing so; if a presidential candidate cannot get elected for doing so; and if a government is willing to practice apartheid and create a genocide event on its behalf. We need to learn the right lessons from a sordid history, not repeat them in our name.
"If you insist on complaining about them anyway, then all the downstream effects of Marxism are on the table as well, including Stalinism, Maoism, Palestinian nationalism (which is expressly socialist), and identity politics, which grafted race struggle onto Marxian class struggle and talks about it identical revolutionary terms. Kendi has written of racism and capitalism as conjoined twins."
First off, Stalinism and Maoism are offshoots of Leninism, i.e., state-based class rule, not Classical Marxism. Secondly, grafting identity politics onto an economic system predicated upon class was an act of liberals, not actual Marxists. A few are guilty of that, but this is a problem, not something that most of us embrace.
"As for which socialists I was referring to, there are plenty examples, but you'll do."
Yes, an example of someone who sticks to the classical principles, which doesn't work for anyone who wants to peg the original conception of it as something it is not, but something other tendencies have twisted it into.
"Zionism as such doesn't concern FAIR."
And it really should, which is my complaint, especially if FAIR is going to outright promote it. Is BLM or Proud Feminists going to infiltrate the group yet and demand to be an exception to the mission statement because of this or that?
"Anti-Zionists antagonizing"
Translation: Anti-Zionists criticizing.
"and deplatforming Zionists,"
One, that's the pot calling the kettle black, considering what the U.S. government is doing on behalf of AIPAC.
Secondly, asking an org dedicated to combating identity politics is not tantamount to "de-platforming" Zionists. I have no problem with Zionists being free to speak their minds in a general sense on any social media forum, including Substack.
"as in the article overhead, does."
Why not publish the article on Substack on its own? Or as part of another publication that is not a conflict of interest? Why publish it in the FAIR publication? That is my point.
There is no point in interacting with someone who engages in such "translations" and then argues against the caricatures.
There is no conflict of interest except the one you invented for yourself and want to impose on the rest of us.
Goodbye.
I think those translations were apt, Franklin.
The conflict of interest regarding supporting a war-mongering state that hides behind a Virtue Cloak of textbook identity politics in an org that is supposed to be against identity politics is hardly an invention. It is pointing out the obvious and asking what it's about.
Sorry that we had to knock heads on this, Franklin. But I suspect this will occur a lot more between many members of FAIR until they make a decision one way or another. If they make a wrong decision, then many members will have to leave and start a new and similar organization that makes no exceptions to the anti-identity politics principle. Be well.