= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on Stranger Than History - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (329)
By hypothesis, progressive anti-Semitism is verbalized in different ways. The things I described weren't verbal.
If someone loudly says "I am against policies which prohibit discrimination on the basis of religon" I would assume he subscribes to progressive viewpoints. Actually doing it would be pretty much neutral, at least in the context of Jews.
That's an interesting distinction. Let's break things down. First of all, do you agree that a significant part of the reason there is less discrimination against Jews (at least in the United States), is because society has become less tolerant of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, age, etc.?
Actually doing what? All I asked about was the hypothetical person's beliefs.
Just so we are clear, you are saying that if a person is against policies which prohibit job discrimination on the basis of religion, it gives you little or no information on the probabilities that he holds modern progressive political views?
There are several factors which operate in different directions for Jews. There's a larger increase in tolerance among the left and a smaller increase in tolerance among the right which is progressive and is for religion in general, but there's also a decrease in tolerance among the left and an increase among the right specifically for Jews. Add them together and the results are still positive for both the left and the right, but can no longer be called progressive
Policies which prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion in general are associated with progressive views. Policies which specifically prohibit discrimination against Jews but not religion in general aren't.
Umm, does that mean "yes" or "no"?
Ok let's make this a little more concrete with an example: A WASPY country-club is having an internal debate over whether to admit Jews to membership. One club member takes the position that the country club should let Jews join; another members states that the club should continue to exclude Jews. According to you, this information tells you little or nothing about which of the two members is more likely to have progressive political views. Right?
ETA: By the way, if you object that membership in such a country club affects the chances that one will have modern progressive political views, you can imagine that it's two members of the community who may or may not belong to the country club. One believes that the club should start admitting Jews; one believes that the club should continue to exclude Jews.
It means "yes according to what you literally said, no according to what you'd have to mean for what you're asking to make any sense".
The reduction in discrimination against Jews has a progressive component and an anti-progressive component. So literally speaking, a "significant part of the reason there is less discrimination" is progressive. But the whole thing is not.
Since you have specified that the club is WASPy, you are no longer asking whether someone would approve of discrimination against Jews, you're asking if they would approve of discrimination against Jews and in favor of white Christians--a subcategory of that. It is entirely plausible that that subcategory of discrimination is more supported by the right, while discrimination against Jews in general is not
Also, the question asks if P(not progressive|discrimination) is large. Even if this is true, it would not imply that P(discrimination|not progressive) is large.
I didn't ask about the whole thing -- I asked about a "significant part." But anyway, let's do this: Please tell me the three most prominent American industries over the last 50-years in the United States where (1) there has been a reduction in employment discrimination against Jewish people; and (2) the reduction was primarily anti-progressive in terms of its' "component."
So are you saying that reduction of discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians probably is, for the most part, consistent with modern progressive political views?
And even if that were true, it wouldn't matter. Because the real question is which is more consistent with modern progressive political views -- continuing to keep Jews out of the country club or letting them in. I take it you concede that it's the latter?
But I brought up the example. To refute the example, you have to show that discrimination against Jews in general has gone down due to progressive thought, not just that a component of it has.
Now you're asking about whether P(no discrimination|progressive) > P(discrimination|progressive), which is a different question. The answer to this one is also "yes to what you just literally asked".
It's also true that P(no discrimination|not progressive) > P(discrimination|not progressive).
That may be so, but I was asking a question in order to understand and scrutinize your position. When I ask a question, and instead of just answering it you guess or imagine what argument is behind the question, and then respond to the argument and don't answer the question, it increases the confusion and makes me suspect you are trying to dance around the issues.
Actually not, I was asking exactly what I asked. Anyway, I take it you concede that reduction of discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians probably is, for the most part, consistent with modern progressive political views?
When you ask a question that is very peculiar as a request for information, but completely understandable as an attempt to make a fallacious argument while maintaining plausible deniability about exactly what your argument is, that increases the confusion too.
Perhaps, but I have not done so. Anyway, the simple way to respond to such a question and deal with the issue is to say "Yes, I agree with X but I don't think it undermines my position for reason Y. Are you trying to make argument Z?"
I don't claim that there is an industry where the reduction in discrimination against Jews is primarily anti-progressive, but rather where the reduction is in approximately equal measures progressive and anti-progressive.
Ok, can you give me 3 examples of such industries?
Also, are you saying that reduction of discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians probably is, for the most part, consistent with modern progressive political views?
Pretty much every industry that has a lot of people who aren't progressive.
Same answer as before: the answer to the literal question you asked is "yes", but the answer to a version of it that is meaningful would be "no". That question as you ask it has no bearing on what you're using it to prove.
So can you please name 3?
Well perhaps it does and perhaps it does not, but it's useful to understand what we agree about so as to get a bettter handle on what we disagree about.
So, just so we are clear, you agree that just looking at discrimination against Jews in favor of White Christians, reduction of this type of anti-Semitism is consistent with modern progressive political views. Agreed? (And yes, I totally understand that you don't believe that this fact rebuts your position.)
That not the only relevant question. Let's say someone named Rothschild runs for a congress primary. There are people from whom that's enough to choose to vote against that person. Those people aren't necessarily politically on the right.
Even when I personally wouldn't call it anti-semitism there are plenty of people on the left who want to boycot Israel economically after the example of South Africa. On the other hand someone like Mencius Moldbug is quite all right with Israel.
Political correctness leads to a lot of things not being said and the historical reasons for why someone might be take a political position are complicated.
I'm not sure that "Rothschild" is the best example here since the name is far more evocative of extreme wealth than of religion. But let's suppose that someone named "Shapiro" or "Cohen" is running for Congress. Would that automatically disqualify him for people on the Left? For the most part, I would say "clearly not." If he supports the traditional Leftist positions, it won't be a problem.
And a desire to boycott Israel is indeed consistent with modern progressive politics, agreed?
Are you really saying that judging someone that way isn't a form of antisemitism?
On of Hitlers main talking points against Jewish was that the big evil Jewish bankers control the world economy and have to be fought. People like the Rothschilds. That talking point was one of the essential elements of antisemitism.
I had the experience talking with someone about Jeffrey Sachs and that person immeditaly going for an ad hominem based on the name. There a point where it's simply clear that one's confronted with antisemitism.
"I'm no racist, but..."
Yes, people like Naomi Klein are progressives in good standing.
Don't let your culturally trained pattern-matching go astray. Judging people for being extremely wealthy is not per se antisemitic. Only judging people for being extremely wealthy jews (while being okay with extremely wealthy non-jews) is.
If I know that someone's lastname is Rothshield I don't even know that the person is wealthy. I'm effectively judging them by actions of their ancestors.
Yes, but that is entirely orthogonal to the question of whether it's antisemitism. brazil's point was merely that "Rothschild" brings to mind excessive riches more saliently than it brings to mind Judaism, and so any judgment of that may not be genuinely antisemitic.
You also don't know if they are Jewish.
Not necessarily. Let me ask you this: Imagine your hypothetical left-winger who won't vote for a Rothschild. Do you think that person would vote for a "Rockefeller"? My guess is he probably wouldn't, but even if he would, he would probably invent some rationalization for it so he could pretend to himself and his peers that he is not an anti-Semite.
By the way, I do agree that much of the time, criticism of "Bankers" or "Wall Street Bankers" or "Elites who Control the Media" etc. is tinged with anti-Semitism, even when it comes from the Left.