Thanks to Josh, we witness a new subphenomenon--blogcommentofascism.

/snark

Israel Lobby Watch

As a sometime violator of these new rules myself, I hardly think that civility and fascism have much to do with each other

Are you being serious, or is your belief that all blogs should be completely anarchical? I'm not being sarcastic by that, as I know some people sincerely believe that.

As I read the First Amendment, it gives the freedom of printing/publishing to he who owns the press. Especially with the minimal entry cost of blogs, I think it's fair to say that if someone doesn't like a "press", they are free to start their own.

No one seriously proposes, other than perhaps the Unabomber, that the First Amendment requires a publication to print whatever they are sent. There is an accepted concept of editorial judgment. Josh's policy is actually far more permissive than a typical print "Letters to the Editor" column, and it doesn't seem funny to me, even in jest, to suggest it's fascist.

Fascism is a rather ugly thing, and applying it to almost anything takes away from its aura of evil, an aura that warns us.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I may have been unclear here. Clearly, all discussions involve expressing viewpoints. What I've seen recently though are cases where a particularly commenter clearly doesn't like the point of view of the original post and in reaction they do two or three comments where they paste in other articles from a different viewpoint. Certainly posts are the place to react and express viewpoints. My issue here is the sort of 'reading into the record' i just described or perhaps in some cases where comments are completely off topic.

Brian: In support of your request, I believe it would be helpful to get a couple of examples from management of what it does--and does not--mean by "extreme cases (racist views, threats, attacks on particular ethnic groups, calls for violence, etc.)." Particularly helpful would be a couple of examples as applied to comments about Israel and the ME, as these seem to be among the most contentious topics discussed at the site.

It's not that easy for me to answer in the abstract since I don't think we've deleted anyone's comments strictly for their political views, not during this recent dustup. We did delete a comment calling out "zionist c--kscukers". But that to me was a gimme on offensive language. I think someone's view would have to be very, very extreme for the person to be banned from the site. I think the break point is more likely the conjunction of impassioned views and harsh speech.

I read stuff all over the site and I also get tons of email. It's a bit hard for me to differentiate all of it in my head and remember what was in reaction to what post. Certainly some things I've read struck me as containing anti-Semitic animus.

I don't really want to get into a debating match about what qualifies for this one label. I think you can read something into the fact that little if anything has been deleted at the site. But suffice it to say that I think there's been a lot of harsh, ad hominem and inflammatory rhetoric that I don't think belongs here.

I hope that doesn't sound like I'm dodging the question. But you're right, it's not an inquisition.

Actually, the line in the movie draws from a real one from Herman Kahn: "Gentlemen, you do not have a war plan. You have a wargasm." (For a more technical discussion, see Rung 43, "spasm or insensate war", in his book On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios.)

A personal gripe about certain language, which, frankly, annoys me more than profanity directed at me personally. While I hope, someday, to meet some posters here, to the best of my knowledge, no one knows me in person. They certainly don't know what is in my mind and heart.

It's one thing to say "you are describing a neocon position," or "that idea would appeal to Karl Rove." That's fair comment.

What seems out of bounds is when someone claims to know what I am thinking, and tells me my words are lies about my beliefs. I think many of us can laugh at the early attempts to call me a Republican provocateur, and my self-description as a recovering Republican is accepted by a lot of regulars. Continuing to announce I am a Rove clone here to instigate, or a self-hating Jew when I'm not Jewish, or someone that loves to kill, is, to me, rather offensive.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I believe a lot of the heat comes from the Israel/Palestine or Israel/Lebanon threads, due to the intensity of feelings of Israel supporters, and somewhat of Israel detractors.

I believe that it would be worthwhile to establish specific ground rules for how they can or should talk to each other.

I'd like to make a suggestion that the terms "anti-semite", "israel hater", "america hater" etc. be stricken from the dialogue.

In my view, these sorts of appellations to persons or views do not contribute to dialogue, but are an attempt to stop it.

How do you respond to a person who takes your arguments and declares you are a racist? Such a person reserves the right, not simply to dialogue, but to set the terms of discussion and brand and burn anyone not conforming to their terms. This is unacceptable. It is cheapjack rhetorical bullying and I will not cater to it.

If a position is truly anti-semitic, then it and its lack of merit can be demonstrated through rational argument. The retreat to appellations is nothing more than dirty pool. I will not reply politely to such tactics.

I think those words and phrases should be used very, very sparingly. And often they get thrown around too freely. But I'm not going to ban them because sometimes I think they are accurate. I think there should be an effort to discuss rather than provoke and inflame on both sides.

I quite agree. Last Fall, while commenting on Hurricane Katrina reconstruction issues, some of my comments referred to my experience having previously lived in New Orleans, working with construction contracts, and administering Federal contracts that had Davis-Bacon Act Clauses. Another commenter (since banned) created a fantasy "me" who owned a construction company in Louisiana who was busy looking to hire illegal immigrant labor on reconstruction contracts and make a fortune. What an active but malignantly applied fantasy life.

Dude, did you not see the "/snark" appended to my post? Of course, I was joking, that's why I closed my pseudo-HTML snark tag.

I think we all saw it. But "snark" is not a good natured joke, as your objection seems to imply. It is "snidely derisive" (according to Wikipedia.) And that is the impression I took of it.

I think your impression is correct.

Josh says:

Some readers post extensive portions or articles and/or links into their comments.  This isn't what the comments section is for.  Clearly, quoting portions, even sometimes lengthy portions of other works, is important in the context of a conversation.

I include the links mainly to direct attention to essays, articles, websites, definitions, and the like, either to buttress the case I'm trying to make or provide some information which those interested in the topic under discussion might like to pursue.  Sometimes I add links to rebut links the person who wrote the article included.

For me, the links are ways to both avoid quoting huge chunks of text and to allow the readers access to the things from which I quote, just to make sure that I'm not cherry picking or making things up.  I do it as a way to avoid the kind of thing you're trying to tamp down--endless rounds of name calling or "yes I am/no you're not" ping-pong ball posts. With the links, nobody has to demand I back up the assertions I make.  I've preemptively backed them up. 

I'm happy to cut down on the linking, if you really want that, but I'd like to have your thoughts on when linking is appropriate and when it is not.   

Mike

I sometimes use humor that may be a bit jarring in a thread, but try to do things that are clear. In political threads, I'm apt to use classic quotes from Churchill or Mr. Dooley or Mark Russell, which, with attribution, are usually safe.

There are other usages that really are unwise within a certain context. My original training was as a chemist, and, while I was intently working with an explosive mixture, my hands under a blast shield, some wit, or possibly half-wit, popped a paper bag behind me, and started laughing. On hearing the laughter, I make no excuses of spinning around on my stool and delivering a quite solid punch to his midsection.

In like manner, while there is more gallows humor in operating rooms than most laymen believe, it is generally frowned upon for a surgeon to chortle "oooops".

On perhaps the brighter side, I have a colleague who was on the UN WMD inspection teams in Iraq. His specialty was conventional explosives, as in boobytraps and the like -- he was the person that made sure a shell was safe to handle before the chemists and biologist sampled it.

He has a T-shirt, with a motto on the back, not the front: "I am a bomb technician. If you see me running, do your best to keep up."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I disagree whole-heartedly with point #2.

That's never acceptable. Comments like that will be deleted and members will have their posting privileges revoked. There are other more damning and engagin ways to express disagreement. Again, if you were in a Coffee House, would anyone think that was acceptable?

Actually yes. Look, whenever someone posts on the main pages (i.e. not in a personal blog) what they are doing is akin to giving a reading at a coffee house, getting up on the little stage and speaking while the rest of us chat amongst ourselves and listen. I think if I was sitting in an audience and someone said something spectacularly wrong it would be just fine to say "Wow, where'd they find this moron?" to those around me.

For example, suppose someone posted something like Mike Ledeen's "faster please" I mean, how can you deal with something like that except saying "that's crazy!"

On some level stupid discourse is really not deserving of intelligent response because it dignifies to a point where it's actually given value. It does add little to the discussion but I don't think it merits deletion and banning. (For how long anyhow?)

Links are useful.   

I think Josh was referring to extended excerpts included in comments.  As I understood Josh, those are better placed in one's blog instead of thread a comment .

Of course, Josh may speak for himself.

What is your policy about posts that are either all links, or perhaps a provocative headline and a link, but no original content in the post? Does it make a difference if the link is to the poster's "main" blog somewhere else?

To me, that's the equivalent of getting advertising and giving nothing back. There's one egregious case where the poster will then put up comment after comment on his own post, so it stays visible in the Tracker.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

i'm not sure exactly where we are on what the policy is precisely. But I agree with you that that is an abuse. Or can be. I mean, I sometimes just post a couple words and a link at TPM. So I don't want people to think I'm micromanaging their blogs. But I share your concern, not sure where we should go on a policy level.

I have been one who in 2 instances added comments to my own reader blog to keep them updated with information of interest to me and perhaps of interest to others.  I don't do it to keep it high on the tracker list but that is the result. 

How do others here view that use of a reader blog (i.e., 2 blogs are Presidential signing statements and Quality of life in Iraq)??

That raises one last question, however.

Is it acceptable to refer to someone posting a critique, however harsh (as long as citing facts or apparent facts), of Israel as an "anti-Semite" without any direct explanation as to the reason for that label being applied?

I will willingly refrain from using the phrase "Zionist thug" here as long as I'm not called an "anti-Semite."

In fact, compared to some others who have apparently declined to follow your rules, I agree to follow your rules and will not refer to anyone as a "Zionist thug" EVEN if I am called an "anti-Semite."

I'd just like to know if it is to be considered acceptable to call someone an "anti-Semite" even when the accused individual has explicitly disavowed any such attitude.

Otherwise I see no problems with your rules, they seem eminently fair.

You might want to specify exactly what the process will be for enforcing them, however.

I think if I was sitting in an audience and someone said something spectacularly wrong it would be just fine to say "Wow, where'd they find this moron?" to those around me.

I agree with you in principle, but in practice, what Josh is talking about has become one of the most annoying phenomena on this site.  I mean, it's not as though I've never though 'damn, that was a stupid post.'  And if this bloggy thing were less of an anti-social activity, I might turn to my companion and say as much.  But when you post that as a comment in response to the post, what you are doing is more along the lines of standing up and shouting it.  That, in a coffee house, would mark you as a bit of a nut.

There are two fairly distinct reasons why I think that this kind of comment is worthy of being deleted.  The first is that it is uncivil.  The second, and in some ways more important reason, is that it is often kind of pathetic.  There are too many comments lately that , to continue the metaphor, whisper their derision loudly, as if to impress everyone around them in the audience with how discerning and brilliant they are, compared to the shabby minds up on stage.  To my mind, the reason that this is a problem is that it is a discredit to this whole enterprise - when I read those comments, I find myself wondering if this whole think isn't just a sad exercise in ego-inflation.  It's not, of course, but you know how, when you're embarassed enough for someone else, it's actually painful to you, too.

"But I'm not going to ban them because sometimes I think they are accurate."

Ah, here we go.

I should have known this was coming. Unfortunately I didn't see this post before asking my questions upthread.

Well, Josh, I will refrain from using the term "Zionist thug" against those who refer to me as an "anti-Semite" ANYWAY.

Perhaps I can establish the nature of my critics more effectively that way.

One thing I think you're missing is being clearer about personal insults/ad hominens.

You might take a look at your own Ratings Guidelines, I thought they were quite good, you set out some things in quite clear language there, not just pertaining to comment ratings.

(BTW, your introtext is missing with that link because of the archive glitch, it was only an introductory sentence or two & you can fid it by scrolling back to Aug 22, 2005 on your Stories list.)

edit to add: I very much like devon's idea upthread if you are still considering leaving your guidelines to be mostly self-policed & I believe someone on the other thread did suggest software language that could be used to make "hidden comments;" it's toward the end of the thread.

I say this in praise Josh...you have been very permissive in the comments that have been allowed to be posted here.  And I do fully agree that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed.  I sincerely have the utmost confidence that only the most noxious and intentionally offensive comments will be purged.  But when the denizens partake in too much of the house brew sometimes the mood in the Cafe can get "edgy"...lol.

But your point is taken.  I have the earplugs out because of some of the exchanges lately.  Discussion of politics or religion can lead to heated arguments...the only thing that is more likely to lead to heated arguments are discussions about religion and politics. ;-)

That is my primary concern here, given that Josh appears to have copped out on whether using a term like "anti-Semite" as an insult to another user is apparently acceptable.

I don't intend to take the bait, however.

It will be interesting to see how this goes, because the current wider war in the ME isn't going away any time soon, and we can expect numerous more arguments of the sort seen on this site over the last few days.

If Josh thinks this issue of "anti-Semitism" here is going to die down, he's probably being naive.

At some point, he's going to have to come clean and point out what he thinks is "anti-Semitic" and what isn't.

If he just wants to point to certain posts and so declare them - with reasons, hopefully, to back up his opinion - I have no problem with that.

If he just starts deleting stuff he doesn't like, we'll be back discussing these rules pretty fast.

I'm perfectly happy to restrain myself from using those terms any more. Ivo Daalder can relax.

I'd also be interested to see if Josh intends to apply these rules to contributors like MK Rosenberg who deliberate insulted most of the TPM Cafe readers in what could only be described as a "rant."

Even then, most of the readers who responded to that rant were FAR more polite and nuanced than the contributor.

I cut Larry Johnson some slack - he isn't a "pundit" and doesn't write like one. I know some other people are irritated by his frequently direct and combative response to some posters who criticize him with ad hominem attacks of their own. But at least he responds to the posters, and doesn't treat them like "hoi polloi" to whom he is dispensing "pearls of wisdom" that we should all automatically respect and agree with.

If we all need to obey these rules, I'd like to see Josh confirm that the contributors need to as well.

I agree irishkg...

I do hope the enforcement will be rare...mainly because the members here don't give site managment cause to enforce it.

I tend not to be the most "politically correct" person on the face of the planet or at this site but I would hope no one would intentionally try to offend another member...unless said member was a Yankee fan and I was insulting the Evil Empire, lol.

I agree with Artappraiser. This isn't a hot kitchen type of site we're you've gotta be man enough or something to take the heat.

A lot of this is chicken and egg. One person says something inflammatory. Someone else calls that person an anti-semite where it's an overstatement. In that case I don't like either. But, candidly, if this is a place where you're big issue is pushing the envelope on anti-Israeli rhetoric, maybe it's not a place for you. It's sort of like in college. There were always a couple folks who in the name of free speech were always getting bent out of shape about how there was no open forum for discussing, say, studies into differential intelligence between the blacks and whites. Just want to be able to discuss it, that's all, not coming to any conclusions or anything, etc. At a certain point, I have to think, what's your point exactly?

Uhm, Berkowitz, this appears to be in response to my post.

Are you sure that's what you intended?

 About all I have to say on this subject is that Josh's guidelines are a very good start.  The goal should be to treat people the way we want to be treated. I doubt that anyone objects to someone disagreeing with them and pointing out the mistakes they made.  But, I certainly do object to people who make a strong effort to insult someone they disagree with.  So, I will try hard to follow the rules, and hope that others do the same.

Hoppy in Sacramento

It's your site. You can run it anyway you like. I'll refrain from replying to Berkowitz.

The publishers of the site can go through people's past posts and comments. I haven't done it here. What I'm doing is expressing a certain weariness and concern. I think I've made my point pretty clear. I think most people understand where I'm coming from. When it devolves into stuff like, 'Okay, does that mean I can't say 'zionist war criminal' or 'arab-killer'' then I start to wonder if maybe the message isn't quite getting through.

I'm glad to see this discussion taking place, since I'm one who complained about the tone of some dialogs.

If the subject of a comment is another person rather than that person's ideas I think that is inappropriate. If you can't make your point without insulting or ad hominem remarks then you probably don't have a good handle on your own position.

Another sign of abuse, in my opinion, is commenting too much. If you have made your point and been contradicted and then made you point again, it's enough. Continual debates between a very few people are unproductive and make the contributions of everyone else hard to follow. To use the coffee house metaphor it's like standing up on a table and shouting out your opinions so that everyone else is forced to hear them.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Oops. Was intended for Selfinterest. Sorry about that.

I didn't look carefully enough at the indentations, and thought the attribution would be clear given the text to which I was responding. My fault.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

It's a great site, I enjoy it. Although sometimes I think you don't like me and ignore me...(just kidding)

I agree that it's not the whole answer - in fact, my sense is that the fat middle of the problem isn't in comments that should be troll rated, but in comments that are fine in content, and not especially worth downrating for derisiveness etc., but still enough over the edge that they inspire similar responses, and lead to a lot of unnecessary hostility and fights taking up space.  But I think that the old ratings system did a better job of dealing with the outlying cases, and dealing with those might chip away a bit at other problems.  

Josh,

I really appreciate what you are trying to do here but these threads are beginning to remind me of the squabbles involved in settling two estates simultaneously a few years ago.  Or even worse, a Homeowner's Association from Hell meeting. 

There is no way everyone going to agree and probably no way to avoid hurting someone's feelings.  You've been more than considerate in asking for suggestions and engaging in discussion.  It's your establishment, do what you think best and we'll adjust.

-Emma

As you have had the experience of both types of comments aimed at you, the obvious question is whether those comments have succeeded in opening or changing your mind?

Surprise and insult both work with me. Obviously, there's something in my make-up which causes me to pursue the truth(?), reality(?), or, if Berkowitz is correct, sadistic gratification(?), dominance(?), in the political arena pretty fiercely. Otherwise I wouldn't be posting to radically different sites, using provocative names, stating contrary views.

There's something personal in all our actions, something which determines what we pursue, how we pursue it and why. I recognize that what works for me might not work for others...but I have to have a pretty good reason for abandoning the direction and approach which I feel to be true.

This is my first post at TPM Cafe, though I've been reading TPM since 2002, The Cafe since it opened and I check my Muck first thing every morning. The reason I'm posting today for the first time, is I have to say, I am extremely disappointed.

I stopped reading comments after the Semite / Anti-Semite Hate Festival last week. Where a TPM Contributor libeled every member of this community as Anti-Semitic. Or at least that's how I felt slogging through the slime of that commenter's article.

I read today's comment thread, Rules of the Road, hopeful that some of those wrongs would be righted.

Without even tacitly admitting that the exchange was set off by the Article, and not the TPM Community. Instead of righting what happened last week, Josh has decided to make rules for the Community to follow when responding to such vitriol. But he’s failed to a mention TPM Policy regarding such attacks on the community by contributors.

The sleeze from those articles hangs over TPM Café like a fog. I say your readers deserve more than this.

Shame on you.

I think if I was sitting in an audience and someone said something spectacularly wrong it would be just fine to say "Wow, where'd they find this moron?" to those around me.

Well this is a place where I think the coffee house analogy is useful, TH, if applied correctly. You are describing the situation as though the commentators are all sitting together in the coffee house, while merely viewing or listening to the main poster, who is on television, or performing on a stage. But I prefer to think of the main poster as sitting around the table in the coffee house with us - and would like more of them to think that way too.

If the main poster is addressed in the third person, and in insulting terms - especially right out of the box - they are in a sense being excluded from the conversation. The commentators are discussing them as though they weren't there. So it is only natural to expect that they won't participate further. Saying "who is this jerk?" is in this respect even worse than saying "you're a jerk."

I have been frustrated in the past by the reluctance of some of the main contributors to participate in the discussion started by their own posts, and I'm pretty sure you agree with me on that. Several other commentators have remarked on this phenomenon as well. But if the first response from the comments section is to throw up a wall between the poster and the commentators, then you can kiss the main poster goodbye for the remainder of that thread. I know that if the main poster was me, I would probably think, "I don't have to put up with this bullshit. I have a real job."

However, in defense of the commentators, some of the posters do seem to think of themselves as on stage. So it's a two-way street. If they comport themselves like performing artists and prima donnas, then they are very unlikely to be treated that way by the commentators. The commentators will act as though only they are in the coffeehouse, and the pundit-performer is likely to be treated in the way such celebrities are often treated - with sniggering asides among the audience and the occasional rude catcalls from the peanut gallery.

Some of the posters also might have been used to levels of professional courtesy and approval that amount to flattery and indulgence. They are easily miffed and offended when someone refuses to be dazzled by their peacock feathers.

I also wouldn't want to see the coffee house metaphor taken too far. People are much more frank and blunt in an online discussion format than they are in a public, social setting. And although that bluntness has its drawbacks, as we have seen recently, I think overall it has been very good thing. It has had the effect over the past several tears of helping a large community of politically engaged citizens tear down the barriers of privileged discourse, undermine certain orthodoxies, get past stultifying proprieties and pieties, and inject some real intellectual and political dynamism into what was a stagnant, rigid and class-biased "progressive" scene.

So, a coffee house? OK. But how about a coffee house where everyone is strapped into their seats, and are less intimidated by the physical presence of others? I've been in plenty of stimulating classroom and coffee house and dinner party salon dicussions in my life. But in all those circumstances, one often has the feeling that there are important things being left unsaid, due to the unspoken ground rules. Shouldn't the online rules be at least a little bit looser?

I agree. While a personal attack impedes debate and is wrong on its face, sometimes it is informative to respectfully hash out feelings of perceived prejudice or at least to be able to consider the issue. But accusations of racism have the effect of chilling speech and limiting debate. I think last weekend’s clash made it clear that it’s not difficult to ascribe meanings to a text that were not intended.

An accusation of racism or anti-Semitism is itself hate-speech and has been used as a tool of censorship (criticize Israeli action = criticizing Israelis = criticizing Jews, therefore criticizing Israel is racist hate-mongering). Even if there is a remote risk that condemning Israel (just as you might condemn the U.S. for Iraq or whatever) may get you banned, you will tone down your argument or rephrase it so that it doesn’t really say what you would have said otherwise.

I agree - let's just see how it all plays out over the next few weeks, what additional rules are made, what enforcement procedures are implemented, and the like.

If Josh is correct, almost nobody is going to be banned right away. So let's relax and be ourselves - a more conscientious version of ourselves, perhaps, but ourselves.

LOL, suddenly I'm reminded of Marcus Corvinus saying to Tanis in "Underworld: Evolution", "There's no need for this to be unpleasant" - right before he sinks his teeth into the guy for lying to him...

Josh- But, candidly, if this is a place where you're big issue is pushing the envelope on anti-Israeli rhetoric, maybe it's not a place for you.

Really? Well, If I’m reading between the lines correctly, I’m sorry to hear this.

In a post up now, Matt Yglesias says of a Charles Krauthammer column, "That's moronic."

I can see a difference between saying a person is a moron and that an idea is moronic, but as a matter of interest, would Matt's statement be permitted in comments under the new rules?

Even genius's can make moronic comments, but are not morons.  So, there is an obvious difference between me saying your comment is moronic and saying you are a moron.  The first, in my opinion would be marginally acceptable, just barely, but the second would be totally unacceptable.

As far as the comment by Josh, " ..if this is a place where [your] big issue is pushing the envelope on anti-Israeli rhetoric, maybe it's not a place for you." is concerned, in my opinion, the statement holds whether you are discussing your opinion of the French, the Saudis, the Jews, the Catholics, the Gays, etc.  It just isn't appropriate to use this site to further your bigotry, no matter to whom you are bigotted.  But, Josh can speak for himself on that one, if he choses to.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Transhuman,

Though I appreciate your patience, and willingness to give TPM Management the benefit of the doubt, it is my opinion that this, “Rules of the Road” post is wholly inappropriate in its timing and message to the Community. What it implies is TPM thinks that it’s time to get serious about moderating the comments thread.

Why is it time? Because a Contributor not a Commenter set off a firestorm last week.

How did he do it? He appeared to be calling anyone who is sympathetic to the Occupation of Palestine, Anti-Semitic.

So why is it time to moderate the comments? Because they responded to this pathological dishonesty, and angrily insisted that said contributor be a little more civil.

My conclusion: I refuse, with every fiber in my person to be called a racist, anti-Semite, bigot or any other such slander, because of my sypathies with Palestine (and frankly with Isriel). I am enraged that the contributor's premise and comments have been allowed to stand.

That said, I want to offer a couple of disclaimers.

I take no objection to the rules themselves. Just their timing and the lack of accountability held against the contributor. They are good rules and thoughtful. And I like blogs that apply these rules. All of them.

Finally, a big part of my emotional response to this is the fairness Josh himself usually uses when posting about Israel / Palestine issues. He is always judicious when speaking about these issues on TPM. Yet on TPM Café he’ll let this kind of rhetoric remain unchallenged, at least publicly.

Its very upsetting. And I think Josh ought to come out on this one.

Let me offer one factor that may or may not be involved here. Josh, as I understand, was not intimately involved with TPMcafe operations until Kate's recent leave of absence. I don't want to presume on what Josh does or doesn't do, but it strikes me as possible that this was the first significant controversy he encountered since getting back into the day-to-day operations.

I'm certainly aware when I've suddenly stepped into a new job, especially one in an organization where I already worked and am expected to know the culture, I would find surprises in particular subcultures.

Yes, there were an assortment of inflammatory things going on. An odd thing sticks in my mind. Dennis Smith, a former member of the Fire Department of New York and the author of the stunning Report from Engine Company No. 82, visited Moscow, and met with firefighters there. A colonel of fire service, probably roughly equivalent to a New York borough chief, was proud to say he had fought 90 fires in -- I can't remember if it was the last year, or something as dramatic as his career. Engine 82 was the busiest company in New York, and might fight that many fires in a week.

I'd like to watch Josh for a bit as he acclimates to TPMcafe as it is now.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

the 17th-century rules
(these go with the TPMCafe website illustrations).

Excerpts from "The English Coffee Houses" from the Waes Hael Poetry & Tobacco Club

....The patrons of the coffee-houses agreed to conform to the strict rules of the establishments. According to the posted "Rules and Orders of the Coffee House," all men were equal in these establishments, and none need give his place to a "Finer" man. Anyone who swore was made to "forfeit twelve pence," and the man who began a quarrel "shall give each man a dish t'atone the sin." "Maudlin lovers" were forbidden "here in Corners to mourn," for all were expected to "be brisk, and talk, but not too much," "Sacred Things" must be excluded from conversation, and the patrons could neither "profane Scripture, nor saucily wrong Affairs of State with an irreverent tongue." In many establishments, games of chance as well as cards were prohibited, and any wager was limited to five shillings, a sum which was to "be spent In such Good Liquor as the House doth vent."....

this description sounds quite familiar:

The London coffee-houses provided a gathering place where, for a penny admission charge, any man who was reasonably dressed could smoke his long, clay pipe, sip a dish of coffee, read the newsletters of the day, or enter into conversation with other patrons. At the period when journalism was in its infancy and the postal system was unorganised and irregular, the coffee-house provided a centre of communication for news and information. Runners were sent round to the coffee-house to report major events of the day, such as victory in battle or political upheaval, and the newsletters and gazettes of the day were distributed chiefly in the coffee-house. Most of the establishments functioned as reading rooms, for the cost of newspapers and pamphlets was included in the admission charge. In addition, bulletins announcing sales, sailings, and auctions covered the walls of the establishments, providing valuable information to the businessman who conducted much of his business from a table at his favourite coffee-house.

Naturally, this dissemination of news led to the dissemination of ideas, and the coffee-house served as a forum for their discussion. As the eminent social historian G. M. Trevelyan observed: "The 'Universal liberty of speech of the English nation'...was the quintessence of Coffee House life."

Vaguely remembering some 19th century French coffeehouses...or were they wineshops? Anyway, they had a convenient dueling ground in the back. Seems somehow appropriate.

"Barista! Two espressos!"
B*A*N*G
"Make that one [death rattle]"

Alternatively, this could be an Amsterdam coffeehouse, where some pundit goes on, and patrons periodically observe "groovy, man. Did you know you look like a purple rose?"

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I think yours is a very good question and I hope Josh Marshall thinks on it. Some points to consider:

It is why I mentioned here upthread:

....One thing I think you're missing is being clearer about personal insults/ad hominens.

You might take a look at your own Ratings Guidelines,....

Member rdf said something related in his comment @6:52pm:

If the subject of a comment is another person rather than that person's ideas I think that is inappropriate....

Quite some time ago, I worked a volunteer moderator on another site. With a partner, we came up with the following rule, at request of a fed-up management embarassed of the site:

Not allowed: abusing or vilifying other members. "Flaming" of fellow members, called "verbal abuse" in the brick-and-mortar world, or insulting a fellow member rather than his or her argument.

Believe it or not, that was the result of a lot of thought & research. We ended up looking at lots of psychology sites about verbal abuse, and we couldn't believe how many examples we found on those sites that sounded exactly like some of the members. It became very clear that people in internet discussions that cause trouble use verbal abuse techniques; these can be unlearned, as any marriage counselor knows.

You can really get nitpicky if you want to make sure language is not abusive. As to Matt's example, I could easily say it would not be abusive if it wasn't contracted, if it said "I think that's moronic" instead of "That's moronic." But the latter is kind of borderline, the difference is real to most folks, the latter sounds a teeny bit derogatory. But neither is as clearly abusive as "He's a moron" or "what a moron" or "you're a moron."

The reason I really think it's a good question, though, is because some of the things Josh Marshall has said here implies he would like to discourage the kind of debate where people call each others' arguments moronic or some such, that he would really like to encourage totally civil discussion. That is really a step quite beyond the rule I cited above that I helped write; that would sort of be revolutionary, going beyond where internet discussion groups have mostly been stuck since they started--check out this 1999 article for example: Flame Wars and Thread Nannies: Political Debate in a Virtual Public Sphere. People have grown accustomed to the "old ways," political discourse methods popularized by talk radio starting in the 80's.

I can see a difference between saying a person is a moron and that an idea is moronic,….

I once made my case against a position taken by a contributor. I concluded by saying that one of us had come to idiotic conclusions. In his response to me he included the message that he would let everyone else decide which one of us was an idiot.

I admit that I got a bit snarky with my later exchanges with him and even later I was very tempted to apologize, and might have except I decided he was an idiot.

Ad hominem insults are valueless in any debate predicated upon logic, and they are generally used in an attempt to prop up weak arguments.

• ad hominem

Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.

I've read everybody's remarks and this discussion is the same can of worms that all standards bodies and discussions come to.

The literalists want exact definitions, "What is anti-semitism?"

 The people who just want to explore ideas don't care about the strict definitions because they've trained themselves to exercise dialogues in the field of ideas.

 In the field of ideas people are free to say what they mean as well or poorly as they like.  Who cares? These are disposable ideas used for learning, exploring, discussing, arguing to the death of the conversation.

When I am teaching, my classes take place in this field of ideas.  I stopped teaching when I encountered a generation of students intolerant of anything but vanilla factoids.

What is so exhilarating about the internet is that these avatars we use to speak through eliminate personal insults.  Call Liberal Voice anything you like.  He is nothing more than an actor following an intellectual muse or calling trying to educate his master.

Self-interest and I went at it pretty good but LiberalVoice was little more than pursuing a satiric escalation of juvenile name-calling to clear the field of ideas of the notion that a LiberalVoice had to be politically correct, had to give a shit about the other guy, had to play fair, had to care, and so on. That's what the audience wants, the doormat.  The self-reinforcing cliche that self-interest wanted to define.

The silly drama of the name-calling didn't hurt either one of us and in reality there's no animus either.  But there was an intellectual wrestling match worth fighting and hopefully worth reading. 

Liberals [using LiberalVoice as an example] don't "have to" fall into those personnas AT ALL.

I don't worry about the ubiquitous ad hominum stuff, and theatrics about hurt feelings on the internet.  This is just digital ether and there's way too much worry about rules, loopholes, and thought police. 

Gonzo writers, Nabakov, Beats, and others use the salt of the earth language to express the heart of communication.  Nobody should mistake this vernacular for inferior quality of thought.

 I respect Josh and what he's trying to say which is "Love your neighbor's ideas."  If you do you'll participate in respectful dialogues that may be completely unpresentable at any given moment - like Thanksgiving Dinner at the in-laws home but satisfying as that contented feeling of being unable to move because you ate [thought] so much. 

If we're to get smarter then this place has to stay contentious, raucous, and at times extreme. Lop off the inappropriate and the mundane and there ain't a better Liberal blog on the web.

Stop sweating the details. 

Far back in the thread I made a general comment. But to some extent the devil is in the details so taking each of Josh's 5 rules.....

#1 YES. A general statement and as such is fine.

 #2 NO . Re: abuse of other users . I disagree. If any pain is caused it is to one individual and that's a price worth paying for the benefits of uninhibited discussion. Leave it to the community to comment , as I do , if we think some one has gone too far.

 3. YES .Re: profanity. Personally I don't consider it a problem but neither do I think that excluding it is harmful.

 4. NO .Re: extensive quotes . I disagree. It ain't broke,don't fix it. I value them and if they are relevant to the topic it would be a loss of information to have to go to the user's blog to find them. As a compromise suggestion Josh could simply establish a maximum limit and quotes that exceed that could be simply cut off. The more long winded of us would quickly learn to prune .

 5. YES and NO. Re: Extreme views.

 I agree that racist generalizations should be banned.Unlike #2 these can cause pain to a whole class of people and are always erroneous since no generalization applies to an entire class. And substituting "most" for "all" isn't adequate . They should be prohibited .

But otherwise extremity is in the eye of the reader. If someone wants to deny the Holocaust , as with #2 leave it to the Community comment .

Finally : a nit picking suggestion. Change the rating system to rifle shoot at civility which is the immediate problem . e.g. #0 abusive- should be deleted # 1 insulting- user should be blocked if this continues . #3. Bad taste # 4 OK. 

My interpretation of this has nothing to do with anti-semitism or any racism in general. "Pushing the envelope", I believe is the key phrase. This could be about Northern Ireland back in the 80's. There are some people to whom the fight is what it is all about. There are those that have gone beyond even ideology on certain issues and the only contibution they can make is a distructive one. But also, based on this, I think that people need to be aware that these people exist because they are a part of whatever the problem is. Stuff like this probably needs to be repetitious before being censored.

Ratings

I agree that the civility has deteriorated lately Josh, most especially around the Israel situation.

I also appreciate the forum you have provided for us to discuss current events. Thanks.

Using the ratings system has never been one of my stronger points in the past but I think its time we all start marking trolls down. Programatically removing troll comments would require minimal effort and we would all have a better environment as a result. Say 4-5 troll ratings gets your comment expunged?

Don,

I agree with you and would like to add another thought. The very nature of "discussing" ideas via the key board changes the context enough so that people tend to feel less inhibited and maybe more reckless in their assertions than they would in a real, face to face discussion (discussions sans alcohol that is). It is important to compensate for this by explicitly stating some guide lines. Afterall, we should all keep in mind the fundamental reason in participating in this means of exchanging ideas- to advance the general understanding of our world.

I'm not sure if thia is really the best place to ask about the rating system, but since there is some thought that the proper use of the rating system may help in the context of the rules of discussion I'll go ahead and ask.

I've tried to use the system to give high marks to comments that I thought were well argued and thoughtful, whether I fully agreed with the point being made or not. This is not always easy and I only rarely actually give a rating. Is this the intended use of the rating system or is it to be used as a means of registering agreement with the commenter's point?

I've seen what appeared to be tit for tat low ratings and would very much like to have a means of avoiding this, is there some way?

To some extent, anti-Semitism is in the eye of the beholder.

By my lights, the claim that Israel gives orders to the United States is classical Jew-hating, straight from the Protocols. Others may disagree, and still others may make a similar claim in a non-anti-Semitic way. The idea that the United States' foreign policy works to the advantage of Israel in ways that aren't necessarily in the United States' interest is a reasonable claim, and sometimes I agree with it. Other times, I think that's a cheap cop-out that evades the question of what the United States' interests in the Middle East really are.

(If and when the United States establishes permanent bases in Iraq, I suspect we'll see significant diminishment of the United States' uncritical fervor for supporting Israel, as its strategic importance lessens.)

On the other hand, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian sentiment of a similar sort is harder to tease out. We don't have, in the United States, the same history and scale of struggle (often less than successful) against that bigotry as against anti-Semitism.

On the gripping hand, I saw Rosenberg's point about anti-Semitism. It may have been overstated, but it wasn't just crying wolf.

I don't always assume that remarks which smell of bigotry automatically come from a bigot. There's a fair amount of hiding bigotry under reasonable-sounding arguments by sophists and opportunists, and reasonable people often fall for that trick.

"When you believe in things that you don't understand, and you're suffering, superstition has a way." --how I always heard Stevie Wonder's "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way." That's pretty good, too.

You know why it's important to get this settled and move on?

Because this heartbreaking and important post somehow managed not to hit the front page: There Is No Neighborhood

(There's a connection in there somewhere between what Boyd says in his post and what's being said here, but I'm too tired to tease it out.)

This is for you and artappraiser to consider.

A kitchen is a place where things get made. A cafe is a place where people eat what gets made, blab about it, and fart.

More prosaicly. People go to a cafe with like-minded friends to eat and drink, and amuse themselves by trashing ideas and people they don't like. They generally leave feeling happy, satisfied, and safe.

But that's not political discussion.

Political discussion is a form of fighting. People deliver blows which hurt and confuse. Many leave feeling angry, defeated, scared.

Put crudely. At a cafe discussion might go like this; "George Bush is an idiot". response "Oh I wouldn't saw that. I'd say he's an uneducated hick with pretentions". Guffaw, Guffaw. daring response " I think the two of you are not being nuanced. He's been poorly advised and has made some bad moves in foreign policy". Shocked silence.

In the kitchen it would go like this; "George Bush is an idiot" response "How would you know? You're too dumb to find your way home without aid." end of friendship.

gonzone,

Say 4-5 troll ratings gets your comment expunged?

Great.  So anyone who disagrees with a particular comment can get 3-4 friends together and have it expunged.

May I offer a bit of defense of the memory of two dearly departed serpentine friends, Heathcliffe the boa constrictor and Talis the carpet python? Snakes take quite a bit of care as pets, and I have to admit Talis was large enough to worry me in a house with children and cats. Nevertheless, constrictors seem smarter than most snakes, and definitely can learn to recognize certain people as friends.

Heathcliffe's sad end, and his memorial, vaguely relates to one of the threads. He was the pet of my high school biology teacher. In those days of innocence, the teacher often invited several students to his home for bull sessions about biology and life in general. Heathcliffe, if let out of his aquarium, had a favorite spot on a bookcase, under a warm light, and seemed to like being at the discussions.

One sad day, someone, not thinking of the habits of constrictors, brought in a wind-up mechanical mouse. Unfortunately, Heathcliffe immediately pursued and swallowed it. Emergency surgery at a local veterinary hospital was unsuccessful.

Since Heathcliffe also visited the school, he was well known and liked. There was a sense that there should be a memorial, and someone remembered a foundation that took donations to plant trees in Israel.

A collection was taken up for the Heathcliffe Deitch Memorial Grove, and sent in, with but one stipulation. We didn't care where the grove was located, but it absolutely had to be composed of apple trees.

The charity wrote back and said they didn't usually plant apple trees, but they would find a way to do it. They inquired as to our reasons, and we returned a polite letter saying "Trust us. There's nothing disrespectful of anyone, but, in this case, consider further inquiry as eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You really, really don't want to know the details."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Great. So anyone who disagrees with a particular comment can get 3-4 friends together and have it expunged.

I have a high enough opinion of the community here to believe you are describing a hypothetical, as opposed to a genuine concern.

I would need to think pretty poorly of someone to believe that he or she could be persuaded to zero a comment purely on the basis that one of their "friend's" suggested it. This is not a kindergarten.

Even if that did occur except as an extremely isolated example, it could be easily reported as abuse to the moderators, who could deal harshly with those involved.

Sweet.

Actually, though, I was thinking of this, especially the first video.

Tom,

Your criteria are well worth adopting.

But wrong to suggest they serve no other purpose.

That's not what she's suggesting.

She's saying that the ratings system has been misused quite often in the past, and will be in the future...despite attempts to prevent such abuse.

It's an argument against bureaucracy and the apparatchik mentality. A very conservative argument. :)

I sometimes use humor that may be a bit jarring in a thread, but try to do things that are clear. 

The term blogofascism has been a bit of a joke arond the blogs, ever since someone from The New Republic coined it (describing how awful as left wing bloggers are). The joke seemed clear to me, but I can understand how others may have missed it. 

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

As another poster mentioned, it need not be automatic.
It could flag an admin or forum moderator who would make the choice while considering all the variables involved.

I can see how you would be concerned about the misuse of the troll rating and it is a likely scenario since we've already seen abuse of this discussion forum with unproductive flame wars and personal insults.

Meanwhile, how about we all start using the ratings system a little more? That includes the great stuff that gets posted!

I must congratulate you, if you have correctly divined that meaning from the exchange since nowhere therein is it evident.

There is nothing wrong with the way you're using or updating your blog space. artappraiser uses it the same way. I've done it as well. It's one or two comments. 

Not the marketing arm of your personal blog.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

They're a sick, morally depraved society

The context is what matters. We don't need it if it is the sum total of the comment, a generality contributing nothing to the conversation. But if this phrase is in the context of a writer talking about a bunch of actions that can be summed up as sick and depraved then the phrase is find with me.

------

We don't need perfect rules. We just need to get rid of most of the personal, nasty and  prejudicial. Lots of comments about the rules are into the nits instead of on the main point - how do we act to have the best possible conversations. And no I won't define best! 

What I find interesting is how people want to make sure they can attack Israel and Jews by carving out a clarity that will permit it.

That seems to me a very personal slant on the issue. It presupposes, as some are wont to do, that Israel and Jews are virtually indistinguishable so that an attack on the policies of Israel is necessarily an attack on the Jewish people.

As you are of course aware such a view on that issue is hardly universal.

I believe there is a great deal of concern that the highly derogatory term "anti-semite" is being flung around rather liberally in some contexts, and I believe a number of people are keen to avoid being labelled with the epithet.

Such people want to clarify where the boundary lies between criticism of Israel and its policies which will be generally accepted as legitimate and that which will be widely considered anti-semitic and hence illegitimate.

I hope it can at least be conceded that this is not an entirely straightforward question, and recognized that many people feel a legitimate need to at least express a desire for some clarification.

On a not entirely dissimiliar note, I just this morning finished reading Richard J Evans book "Lying for Hitler" written about his experience as an expert witness on the David Irving/Deborah Lipstadt UK libel trial in 2000.

Even arch Hitler fanatic and revisionist Irving denies during the trial that he is a "Holocaust Denier". And asks is it now illegitimate to question a detail that relates to that horrific period of Europe's history?

That of course was a misleading question, since (a) it's clearly not illegitimate to in good faith question details of history yet (b) plainly Irving is an example par excellence of the bad faith practice of Holocaust denial.

But the question outside of that context is a valid one. People must be allowed to examine details of history even the Holocaust with a critical eye.

Thus legitimate debate on the area of the Holocaust should not be foreclosed by the fear of being unfairly labelled a "holocaust denier", or we as a society are poorer for it. And debate on the legitimacy of certain actions of the Israeli state should not be foreclosed by the fear of being labelled an anti-Semite.

If a European commentor makes statements on a pro-Bush site which takes a critical attitude of the Iraq War that person is likely to be labelled "anti-American". Such a label is an intent to close down legitimate debate by impugning the motivations of the commentor. Being labelled "anti-American" is annoying, but it is not viscerally offensive in the sense that being labelled "anti-semitic" is.

Perhaps some supporters of Israel might even find cause to be glad that the term "anti-Semite" is considered so offensive that there is this much concern about avoiding it. Shouldn't the real concern arise when we can be blase about incurring the accusation?

I agree Devon.  But it is a difficult call when someone who generally is a contributor in good faith also likes to get right to edge and incite disagreements.  I just try to recognize who those members are and steer clear of them when they try to do that.

You're right, I wasn't careful enough in my reading.

But when you use irony bordering on sarcasm in a reply I don't think you can complain about my lack of civility.

Ah I see you deleted your own remark. So.

I don’t understand your question. I am taking Josh’s statement at face value. That is, I am reading it in the context of this and related discussions and other statements, specifically the conversation with TH. I do not doubt that I understand him correctly. I’m not dodging the question, but you’re trying to get me to make a completely unambiguous statement out of something Josh said when he did not say it that way himself. He says, “candidly” because he has been tiptoeing around the issue. He will not state his thinking directly because it is a touchy subject (I don’t blame him). I think it has just enough qualifiers to be parsed out by someone who wants to read something else into it.

I do think that censorship is editing. It’s the cutting out of subject matter, language, types of images, etc. It may be justified or it may not, but deleting a comment is censorship. It is often coercive but sometimes subtly so. Sometimes it is self-imposed. Taboo subjects are learned (as are things like being honest about your boss’s intelligence). Chilling speech is a subtle art and it produces self-censorship. Israel is a subject that already has some soft taboo lines. Many limit criticism by using the anti-Semitism epithet. And it is “crying wolf” when a Daniel Greenbaum calls half of the commenters on a thread racist because they address a taboo subject honestly but not to his liking.

Jews as a group have been subjected to horrible atrocities like the Russian pogroms and the holocaust. But some use the past brutalities as a shield for Israel. I won’t play that game and I’m not racist because I don’t genuflect to Israel. You’re free to believe that Jews are the chosen people or Christians or Muslims but I’m not bigoted when I take issue with that belief.

Of course, there are real Jew-haters who should be denounced as adamantly as haters of any group. But I think cries of anti-semitism against critics of Israel have and are meant to have, consciously or not, a chilling effect. And, regardless whether the denouncer truly believes that the commenter is racist, unless the commenter has made unambiguous racist statements, he or she should not be called that.

Reading is interpretating. When you say, “the claim that Israel gives orders to the United States is classical Jew-hating,” it can be taken many ways. If I soften the “gives orders to” to “overly influences” then you’re saying anyone who buys into the W-M paper is anti-semite. I wouldn’t presume to say that you’re out of line with the comment because it is not clear that you’re calling anyone racist (I know you’re not- just making a point). I’m using this as an example of the kind of thing that some people will latch onto, so they can call names and squelch an opposing view.

I happen to think W-M was a very good paper and made a valid and substantial case for a “Lobby” that exerts undue and dangerous influence on U.S. foreign policy. In fact, I have been accused of anti-Semitism just for thinking that. In the same thread, an earlier comment of mine got this response: “YOU’RE A STUPID FUCKING IDIOT”. It was left up there and probably still is. Now, I can only laugh when someone starts calling me names, but I take exception to whole groups of people being told in so many words that they are racist if they criticize Israel.

It goes without saying that Hezbollah is murdering civilians, or rather it is said all of the time. I have not heard anyone argue against that. Yesterday, reports were that a consensus was reached between the WH and Israel. Israel will continue bombing for a week or so and then Condi will go over and jumpstart the negotiations. In other words, my country thinks Israel should continue murdering civilians for a while longer. I happen to think that we also murdered civilians in, say, fallujah. To me, that is what they are doing and that is what we are abetting. Saying so is not racist.

The discussions on immigration policy also got quite heated, with various posters being described in terms close to "neocon" and "capitalist tool", which to some ears are as bad as "anti-semite". Some of the debates between liberal hawks and doves also.

For my part I would be curious to learn where various people in this thread *do* draw the line. Where does "sympathy for the Palestinian people" stop and "anti-Semitism" begin? MJ Rosenberg started out identifying anti-Semitism as "simple, you want the Jews dead" but muddied the water with "Anti-Zionism, as used by the likes of the posters here, is anti-Semitism". No one here *wants* to be called anti-Semitic; I think it's safe to assume that no one here considers him or herself to be anti-Semitic. So maybe we should air our differences in a thread devoted to that topic. If your disagreement is with the Israeli regime, versus the Israeli citizenry, versus people of the Jewish faith or of Jewish ancestry, where does anti-Semitism begin? If you feel that Israel has a right to exist as a secular state, versus as a Zionist state, are you anti-Semitic, and if so, why? If you feel that the UN partition action was a mistake, but either that it is now a historical fact and must be accepted, or that even now that mistake should be rectified -- which of these combinations of beliefs is sufficient to make you anti-Semitic? If you feel that both Israelis and residents of Gaza have a right to defend themselves, where does that put you?

Finally, I want to take issue with something "selfinterest" wrote upthread. He or she may come here to persuade others, and with some of my beliefs, especially as regards pacifism, I do too, but more often that that, I come here to learn: to test my beliefs and opinions against those of others, and to re-examine them. That's why I am an infrequent poster as compared with many others. Selfinterest is wrong -- things other than gas are made in a coffee shop, and even the kitchen does not have to be hot.

Thank you. I also agree that this is an opportunity to begin a useful debate.

You make an eloquent case. I hope also to hear from others.

Josh,

May I also suggest the "rule" #6 that people try as hard as they can to make clear whom they are replying to? I think the software interface makes it pretty easy to reply to a specific post, though some people seem to have trouble with it, but when reading the thread it is not easy to tell which post a given reply is responding to.

This wouldn't resolve all of the legitimate differences people have, but might lower the temperature a bit.

-- Ned

Zionista writes:

I believe charges of "antisemitism" is a chance to begin a worthwhile debate, and not stifle one.

Now that you have provided your definition of antisemitism in terms of national rights of Jews I wonder what equally-strong word you would use to describe those who would deny equivalent national rights to the Palestinians living in the Palestinian Territories. There are far more Americans in the latter category than there are in the former.

That's a good piece of gristle to chew over. What it reveals, I think, is that it's not the person/idea distinction that is key to understanding what's acceptable or not.  It's the difference between using derisive terms to comment or to name-call.

I think that Matt's comment, in this case, is perfectly acceptable in a way that maybe it wouldn't be if he were posting a comment to a Krauthammer blog post, because the connection is attenuated.  Semantically, the 'where'd they get this moron' comments on TPM Cafe posts are no different that Matt's post - what distinguishes them is that the comments are direct responses to the post, and hence are really attacks on the poster.  Talking about something that someone wrote somewhere in the world is not talking to the writer, and surely it's legit to say that stupid things are written.  Using derisive terms to tell the writer directly what you think of the piece is surely what crosses the line.

What in heaven's name is going on here?!

There is certainly a mentality that is quite sure that anyone that doesn't wholeheartedly support Isreal is an anti-semite.

That type of nonsense should simply be ignored. Not given any creedence whatsoever.

Mr. Marshall has my utmost respect, but this crisis in the Middle East needs serious consideration. If the kids won't let the grown-ups talk, perhaps they should be sent to another room.

Just my two cents. I wasn't here for the food fight-- Not that I don't enjoy a good food fight (heh, try me)-- but some things, like innocents dying, is beyond my capacity for banal nonsense toleration.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

No, his reaction is correct.

Josh has a personal problem with my posts and primarily my posts.

That's what was meant by "reading between the lines."

"Candidly", Josh wants me to stop posting what he considers to be "anti-Semitic" material because he thinks that I'm some sort of "troll" who is only here to push an anti-Israeli viewpoint.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Josh.

First of all, as I explained to Josh elsewhere, I have posted on NUMEROUS topics here in the last three months on all sorts of subjects. If Josh can't be bothered to determine what my range of interests are, that's not my problem.

Second, since Josh runs the site, he is certainly welcome to make his own determination of what is "anti-Semitic". And there's no requirement by anybody that he has to be correct in his appraisals.

Over in the Discussion tables, I made reference to my standard "worst case" ME scenario where Israel gets nuked by terrorists and the result is a spasm war and the UN moves in and takes over again.

Josh interpreted this as some sort of "denigration" of Israel, which makes absolutely no sense. I assumed he wasn't aware of my previous posts on the topic, so I explained it all. I don't know if he's been over there to read the explanation yet.

My point is that if Josh can't be bothered to determine what someone's overall position is, and he's just going to be deleting individual posts that push his hot buttons without any sort of context, we're going to find the new rules aren't very useful.

UPDATE:

Let's get this out in the open, okay, Josh?

Do you or do you not consider me an "anti-Semite"?

I don't care one way or the other, that's on you, but I would like us to be candid about this. You have every right to run this site as you choose, ban anybody you choose and criticize anybody you choose for any reason you choose.

I'd just like to know where I stand, so that I can measure my posts, if for no other reason than to avoid pushing your hot buttons.

So state it explicitly: am I or am I not?

You don't need to supply reasons, but they would be nice.

UPDATE:

No response from Josh.

I'll take that to mean "no" and continue on.

What I find interesting is how people want to make sure they can attack Israel and Jews

Is it possible to differentiate between "attacking" Israel and "criticizing" Israel?

Do we "attack" America when we say the war in Iraq is not working?

And, once again, when you say "people" -- wouldn't it be more constructive for this whole discussion if you called someone specifically out on this? I find the whole "some people say" argument incredibly unproductive -- not everyone reads every post you do. Not everyone interprets every comment the way you do.

Maybe I have read things that initially don't seem like it's "attacking" anyone. If you think it is, I'd rather understand where you're coming from and learn from it, rather than me wondering just what the heck you're talking about.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

The problem with the phrase "pushing the envelope" is that it's contentless.

What does it constitute? What is an example?

I've seen Josh respond to what I thought were fairly tepid comments (certainly compared to the sort of stuff we've seen elsewhere here) with "that was an extreme slur" and "that was deeply ignorant." And there was little explanation for those responses. They were just made.

My concern was that if Josh starts taking posts out of context simply because they push his hot buttons about Israel, when other comments equally as strong against whoever are not commented on, this tends to imply a bias.

And if you're doing that while saying everybody else needs to be more restrained in their language, well, what's the rationale here?

And I lift my espresso in toast to the idea of limiting endless "reading into the record." Rather than trying to prove Israel or the Palestinians 'objectively' suck/rule, just offer up your own opinion and leave it at that - no one can dispute what you think - you're the expert on one person: yourself.

Also endless tit for tat quoting of previous posts of one's "nemesis," i.e. "Here, you said x and refused to respond to my saying y and then there's this part where you said z, not to mention, blah, blah and blah...

Maybe this belongs to the "take it outside" category. The comment thread shouldn't be a 100 post affair with two people posting 50 times.

LiberalVoce Says:

In the field of ideas people are free to say what they mean as well or poorly as they like.  Who cares? These are disposable ideas used for learning, exploring, discussing, arguing to the death of the conversation.

I suggest that the person who says them, at least, should care.  And maybe the person who holds a similar idea might care as well.  A poorly expressed idea is hurt by the poor expression, and someone following after has twice the job he or she might have had otherwise.  First, he/she has to fight the negative impression created by the poor expression; only then can he/she try to move the core idea forward. 

When I teach, I tell my students to respect their own ideas enough to clothe them in the most powerful language at their command.  Let me be as clear as I can:  by this I don't condemn  using the vernacular. "My bad" won't get a raised eyebrow. I do condemn the vernacular used through laziness and not by deliberate intent for effect.  I do condemn the classical rhetorical sins, such as ad hominem attacks as a substitute for argument.  When I encounter grammatical bugaboos which my students should have junked years before, I make their papers bleed.

I'm still doing this as I enter in the thirty-fifth year of my career.  Some students "get it".  Some don't.  Those who do become better writers and adept advocates for the ideas dearest to them.  I want my students to make a distinction between the idea and the holder of the idea.  This makes it possible to dispose of a cherished idea without suffering too much ego loss.  It also allows friends to argue and remain friends.

I always tell them to play with ideas.  But I follow that by asking them to consider the nature of play itself.  Play is as serious and as focused as about anything humans do.  Kids run through every emotion in their arsenals in the course of an afternoon of hard play.  Kids?  Adults, even hardened professional athletes, cry when they lose and cheer when they win.  What makes playfulness possible is that playing isn't "for keeps".  Bang Bang!  I fall down:  but I'm not really dead. 

So what I guess I'm saying is play with ideas certainly, but don't treat them as disposable as if they were fast food containers.  Accept responsibility for ideas...I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of saying through an avatar what I wouldn't say in my own person.  Ultimately that may be the one rule which this site needs.  "Write as if what you wrote mattered:  mattered so much you'd give it nothing but your personal best, and as if people who extend the courtesy of reading your words matter enough to deserve that personal best."

Mike

SI

Does psychotherapy work through a keyboard? Do you have a clinical psychology degree? If you did, could you really take the measure of a man on whether he advocates social security privatization? Would any shrink worth his salt claim he could make a diagnosis on someone he's never met personally?

I've been in several fistfights as an adult - at least two of which were ostensibly to defend mi'lady's honor, yet I remember on a NYTimes forum some revved up winger said that if I didn't support the Iraq war, I would stand idly by as thugs raped my wife.

Frankly, if someone is going to make fightin' words behind the safety of a keybaord, how is that anything other than the most despicable crowardice, repackaged as tough guy bravado?

People can dress up ignorance and hate as "perception." If you really want an ad hominen slugfest, maybe this CAFE just isn't your cup a' tea, or coffee.

Depending on the definition of the concept of "national rights", as an anarchist even (although I never use the term "rights"), I can accept that principle.

HOWEVER, the issue, if I remember correctly in that thread was: what constitutes "national rights"?

As I recall, the argument on the side of the Zionists was basically: anything we do is within our "national rights."

This is on a par with Daniel wanting to declare that ANY criticism with Israel is "anti-Semitism" because it is "impossible" to criticize Israel WITHOUT BY DEFINITION "opposing Jews". His reason is that "Israel is the Jewish homeland."

Berkowitz has been devastating that argument over in the Discussion Tables, and I've devastated the logic that one can't oppose, even in normal discourse term, "America" without also opposing "Americans."

In other words, by sneaking in an undefined concept like "national rights", you hope to tar and feather anyone who criticizes Israel as being "anti-Semitic."

Sorry, won't wash.

Besides, as an anarchist, I can deny your "national rights" until the cows come home. Which I've really never bothered to do here, since nobody here cares about my anarchism. I've confined my arguments mostly to the original illegitimacy of the UN partitioning, and the subsequent expansion by land expropriation.

At NO TIME have I said anything against Jews as a people, either within Israel or outside of Israel. I have explicitly recognized that the current Jewish population in Israel is a given and should be recognized as such by any and all parties to the issue.

According to Wikipedia, there is a concept called "New Anti-Semitism" which has been defined as "taking anti-Zionism to extremes", as it were.

"The European Commission on Racism and Intolerance formally defined some of the ways in which anti-Zionism may cross the line into anti-Semitism. "Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:

* denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor;
* applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
* using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis; and
* holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel."

Taking each of these characteristics in turn shows that while some are clearly holdovers from "classic" anti-Semitism, some appear to be ambiguous - i.e., dependent on one's view of the EXPRESSION of it, exactly as we are discussing here.

The third point and fourth points are clearly anti-Semitic - and I've never used either of them here or elsewhere.

The first point depends on whether the example cited is valid or not. And that depends on whether the PRIMARY purpose of establishing Israel by the Zionists from the original conception to its implementation was a "racist endeavor". I would say that was clearly not the PRIMARY purpose, but I don't have enough experience with original Zionist literature or its development to be sure. Certainly there were racist comments by Zionists over the years, and certainly the behavior towards the Palestinians would be considered "racist" if the same actions were taken by whites in the US against blacks, for example (and they were, of course.) (This also goes to the "double standard" argument.)

So the first point is ambiguous IF you take the example as the only expression. If you take the first point sans the example, obviously the Israeli population should have the right of self-determination.

In other words, it's merely the example that is ambiguous, not the principle.

The second point is ENTIRELY ambiguous. What exactly is "a behavior not required of any other country" (Josh has referenced this point, too, if I remember correctly.)

Here, as an anarchist, I obviously have a lot of problems with this notion, since most actions of most countries I can easily take issue with. The fact that a country has responded against an attack on its sovereignty by attacking another country with its military and achieving civilian casualties does not in my view make a similar action by Israel, the US or anyone else legitimate.

To my mind, this is the elevation of a debateable point to the status of a "get out of jail free" card for the Zionist side. As long as a debater can claim "double standard", the opponent is automatically cast as "anti-Semitic."

This is unacceptable intellectually.

And it certainly does not establish the notion that ANY criticism of Israel's - or any other country's actions - qualified as a slur against that country's population as a whole, still less that of ethnic or religious Jews anywhere else as a class.

Wikipedia has a further article on this concept that states the following:

"However, Klug argues that this is a new outbreak of old anti-Semitism, not the emergence of a new phenomenon. He writes that proponents of the concept see an "organizing principle" that allows them to formulate a new concept, but Klug argues that it is only in terms of this concept that many of the examples cited in evidence of it count as examples in the first place. That is, the creation of the concept may be based on a circular argument or tautology. [14]

What puts the "new" into "new anti-Semitism," writes Klug, is anti-Zionism. The proponents of new anti-Semitism vary in what they regard as legitimate criticism of Zionism or Israel, but the line between "fair and foul" tends to be drawn in such a way, argues Klug, that it rules out criticism "that goes much beyond a gentle rap across the [Israeli] government's knuckles or finger-wagging at the laws of the land." If most anti-Zionist arguments do cross the line, and if crossing the line is anti-Semitic, it follows that most attacks on Israel are anti-Semitic, as is any attack on a Jewish target that is inspired by the line that has been crossed. This is compelling logic, writes Klug, but the effect of it is "to produce, at a stroke, a quantum leap in the amount of anti-Semitism worldwide, if not a veritable 'war against the Jews'," given how much controversy Israel currently inspires. [15] As compelling as the argument is, he argues that it is invalid, because it conflates the Jewish state with the Jewish people. "In fact," he writes, "Israel is one thing, Jewry another. Accordingly, anti-Zionism is one thing, anti-Semitism another." [16]
[edit]

New, but not anti-Semitism

Steven Zipperstein, professor of Jewish Culture and History at Stanford University, argues that Jews have a tendency to see the Jewish state as "more vulnerable, less powerful, and less culpable, as victim and not as an actor" because they were very recently themselves "the quintessential victims." He writes that Jews were "all but wiped out" in much of Europe and yet "within the blink of an eye ... became masters of their own state ..." [17] He writes: "We were mostly undefended and overwhelmingly friendless, and this trauma continues to haunt and perhaps at times to distort our sense of the world around us now. When we encounter antagonism — especially outsized, disproportionate antagonism — the memories of horrible times, whether personally experienced or imbibed secondhand, elicit reactions that are often sincere, acute, and disorienting." [18]

Zipperstein writes that, increasingly, a belief in the State of Israel's responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict is considered to be "part of what a reasonably informed, progressive, decent person thinks." [19] He argues that a disproportionate criticism of Israel is not the result of new anti-Semitism, or even classical anti-Semitism, but is rather a "by-product of the wildly disproportionate responses that mark the post-September 11 world." [20] Referencing Earl Raab, Zipperstein distinguishes between the phenomena of "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Israelism", arguing that the latter is shaped by "a much distorted, simplistic, but this-worldly political analysis devoid of anti-Jewish bias". He adds that "[s]uch prejudice against Israel is not the same as antisemitism, although undoubtedly the two can and at times do coexist".[17]

Old and new: the fourth wave

Yehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, contends that anti-Semitism has always been a "mixture of Christian and Moslem theological opposition to Jews, traditional economic jealousy and competitiveness, and racial, biological, and nationalistic ideological motives." The term does not allow us to differentiate between these motives, between mild and moderate periods, or between incidents that demonstrate a general dislike of strangers, rather than Jews in particular, and as such is "essentially erroneous." [21]

Notwithstanding that the term is a blunt instrument, Bauer writes that there have been three waves of anti-Semitism since 1945 — 1958-60; 1968-1972; and 1987-1992 — and that we are now experiencing the fourth, which he estimates started in 1999 or 2000. [22] Each wave has had different causes, some of them to do with economic downturns. The common ground, however, has been "an underlying latency of anti-Semitism that waits to explode when aroused by some outside crisis."...

Anti-Zionism need not be anti-Semitic, 'but only if one says that all national movements are evil, and all national states should be abolished. But if one says that the Fijians have the right to independence, and so do the Malays or the Bolivians, but the Jews have no such right, then one is anti-Jewish, and as one singles out the Jews for nationalistic reasons, one is anti-Semitic, with an attendant strong suspicion of being racist.'"

It is the latter proposition that I cannot agree with. Most critics of Israel are NOT talking about a "right to independence" here - we are talking about national actions initiated by a specific ideology.

To equate ALL actions of a nation with "the right to independence" is simply not defensible. In that respect, Hitler and the Nazis would be allowed to justify the Holocaust! This is hardly correct.

AS STATED, the proposition is correct - the population of Israel has justification for national independence in some form. Whether that form be an Israeli state or a binational state is another issue. The same applies equally to the Palestinians. This was precisely recognized by the UN in 1947 as my lengthy post in Matt's "Mistakes" thread showed.

The issue is whether Israeli ACTIONS toward the Palestinians and their desire for THEIR "right to independence" is legitimate according to reason and commonly accepted international law.

Bauer is quite correct that people seeking to deny the Israeli population their "right to independence" to the exclusion of any others are probably anti-Semitic at heart.

And this is the heart of the "double standard" concept.

But this does not apply to criticism of Israel's ACTIONS historically or currently.

No one who is critical of those actions on the grounds of legal, moral or rational principle is going to accept the label "anti-Semitic."

So get used to it.

This article at IslamOnline is interesting in that regard.

And this article emphasizes it.

[NOTE: I generally don't recommend IslamOnline for anything, as they tend to take a very distorted view of the ME that might rightly be considered "anti-Semitic." However, these articles quote established persons of both Jewish and on-Jewish backgrounds.]

"Do we "attack" America when we say the war in Iraq is not working?"

This is exactly what Daniel is arguing over in the Discussion Tables. He says if you attack "America" you attack "Americans" and therefore if you attack "Israel" you attack ALL Jews, whether resident in Israel, a member of the Israeli state, or anywhere else.

As I've just indicated in my lengthy post above, this is now the basic talking point of the Zionists - that "Israel" is IDENTICAL to being "Jewish" and criticizing "Israel" is now AUTOMATICALLY "anti-Semitic."

It's called in intellectual circles a "get out of jail free" card.

The intellectual dishonesty of the Zionists, as I've said before, knows no bounds and no shame.

However, there is a difference between commenting on the issues of the day from a specified position - or even "pushing that position", and only being here to push that particular position on that particular issue.

As I've pointed out to Josh, I've posted on MANY issues here. It's not my intent to be here pushing the "anti-Israeli" issue to the exclusion of everything else.

Actually, it's not clear to me how you would determine that in any event, other than whether a poster has been posting on numerous issues.

And what about someone whose only real interest is in a given issue? We have contributors here who only seem to post articles about women's rights, or Democratic politics, or whatever. If someone is only interested in those issues, are they not to be allowed to "push their position" if that's the only thing they're interested in?

I think the issue is in HOW those positions are stated, not what those positions are. If being "anti-Israeli" is to be a taboo subject here, then say so. I can understand "anti-Semitism" or "anti-black" or "anti-gay" as expressions of actual bigotry being deprecated here - but the statement was "anti-Israeli", not "anti-Semitic."

And "anti-Israeli" is not "bigotry" in normal discourse last I looked.

Naturally, however, it COULD be. If the issue is merely the RHETORIC, fine. If the issue is the TOPIC, however, then we're looking at taboo subjects, not bigotry.

If that's the case, say so.

UPDATE:

"And "anti-Israeli" is not "bigotry" in normal discourse last I looked."

It is now - see my lengthy post upthread.

The Zionists are deliberately trying to establish it as such in order to be able to use it as a "get out of jail free card" for their positions on anything.

The intellectual dishonesty is staggering.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNN!

AAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMEEEEEEEENNNNNNN!

AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.

"There is certainly a mentality that is quite sure that anyone that doesn't wholeheartedly support Isreal is an anti-semite."

See my lengthy post upthread.

This is no longer just a "mentality" - they have elevated it to a CONCEPT called "New Anti-Semitism" and are busy establishing it in the normal discourse and even the laws of the EU.

The goal appears to be to establish a "get out of jail free card" for anything Israel wants to do and anything a Zionist wants to say.

Who but Jews and Israel are discussed in the way you are asked about?

I personally find some of the generalizations made about Arabs also "push the envelope." We've all heard people talk about the "pathologies" of the Arabs. How would people react if we talked as freely about the "pathologies" of the Jews? Personally, I wouldn't ban any such statements---but if we're going to restrict such comments about one particular group, shouldn't we restrict similar comments about other groups? To have two standards is to have a double standard and to betray a bias in favor of one group. Josh has come down clearly against pushing the envelope in making anti-Jewish comments. What isn't clear to me is whether he has similar concerns about anti-Arab statements or whether Josh is willing to tolerate statements about Arabs that he won't tolerate about Jews. I suspect Josh wants to be even-handed, but his examples so far have pointed only in one direction. I wish he'd clarify.

A few comments and questions for Zionista:

1. What is the difference between a people and a legitimate people? Whether some given people or nation or tribe exists is a sociological or anthropologial fact. I don't see how one can be any more or less "legitimate" than another.

2. I personally am skeptical about the concept of national rights, no matter what nation the rights are purported as belonging to, unless we are simply talking about national legal rights, that is, positive rights grounded in some treaty or argeement or compact or law. Then such rights exist as a matter of law within the broader community that granted them.

3. If a people has a right to some homeland, then how long does that people have to be separated from its homeland before it loses its rights to that homeland? Surely there must be some time limit in the interests of sane global government and stability.

4. Suppose one grants that that people has a right to some homeland. What follows about all the individuals who belong to that people? For example, every year in my state a bunch of people of Scots heritage gather for their highland games. These people all clearly identify with and perpetuate Scots culture, are presumably descended from Scots, and maintain their identity and connection with the Scottish people. If the Scots have a right to their historic homeland, then do all of those individual people have a right to return to that homeland and take up residence there?

5. I am not an anarchist. Completely the opposite actually. I believe firmly in the rule of law, and the necessity of states and coercive government as a foundation for civilized life. However, that is independent of the rather latitudinarian principle that every people or nation has a "right" to a unique national state.

Ultimately, these are all quetions of political and legal philosophy. I can't see how the determination of antisemitism can be made to hinge on how they are answered. Your conception antisemitism seems idiosyncratic to me. I thought it was generally accepted that antisemitism consisted in some sort of hostility or ill will toward the Jewish people. There is no necessary logical connection between the political philosophy you articulate and the hatred or ill will at issue.

If someone claims a right, and I deny he has that right, then perhaps I am right or perhaps I am wrong. But denying he has that right doesn't make me "anti"-that person, or show I hate him or bear him ill will. Of course, my denial may have no principle behind it, and be based solely on ill will. But that doesn't follow simply from my disagreement with him about what his rights are.

Its a small world and there are lots and lots of people in in. Those people fall into thousands of of tribes, peoples, nations, ethnic groups and clans. It simple can't be plauisble to grant that they all have a "right" to form a state, much less than that they have the right to form a state on some particular homeland that there ancestors might have once inhabited. That is a recipe for chaos.

Now in the case of Israel, a state was formed, and most members of the international community have since recognized that state's existence, and opened relations with it. That's all the "legitimacy" any state ever gets. I don't see why "national rights" need be involved.

No but it is rare that is what is actually done in the case of Israel. Either is Israel is depicted as an illegitimate interloper in the Middle East or Israel is endlessly attacked for behavior that ignores either want Israel faces or what any other nation would do.

For example. Bush's conduct in Iraq from start to finish has been inept and dangerous. That might lead to an discussion of how, why and what should be done. What would be the equivalent about Olmert? He came to office committed to withdrawing from a large part of the West Bank so he should ignore the attacks on Israelis. Why? What are the consequences of his doing so? What other nation would do so?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I don't think that's true. Most people have said they'd be all for a two-state solution. I think that's still the prevalent opinion, even of most people who are greatly opposed to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

It's odd.  Josh proposes some very simple and easy to follow rules for commenting here, but the discussion of those rules degenerates into just the type of donnybrook that Josh is trying to short circuit.  Folks, we should be discussing the simple rules, not everyone's motivation for favoring or not favoring those rules.  And, I find it beyond belief that anyone has enough unique things to say about this to have posted the many, many repititive comments that I read here.  Surely we can express our thoughts in a single comment, followed, perhaps, by a single rebuttal?  Methinks a lot of what is being posted here  is well within the definition of troll behavior.

However, proceed and enjoy yourselves. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

I'm reminded of the feeble joke about the travelling salesmen who have spent so much time together they have no new jokes and have just numbered the old jokes

"Number 23 "
Ha, ha , ha.

"Number 81"
Oh that's a good one

This thread which started as a discussion
of Josh's Rules has been switched into the
the usual imitation of that approach. Can't you guys just number your arguments . It would save a lot of time.

You know what:
we've heard all those arguments , we understand them , and if they were ever going to affect our positions we passed that point long ago.

Just use a number.

I missed the "/snark" completely, as I tend to overlook anything that approximates a signature line, and even if I had seen it, I'm not sure I'd have understood it as you say you meant it.

Probably not a good idea to get snarky in a thread that deals with a serious and sensitive topic unless you're prepared to be misunderstood. 

i do not find it controversial at all. Zionism is the nationalist movement of the Jewish people. It ia the belief of the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral home. Despite some who attack Israel wanting to redefine it that is Zionism's definition. It is therefore rather difficult to see how you can separate the existence of Israel from the Jewish people and thus it seems to me that by definition to be opposed to the existence of Israel is on its face anti-Semitic.

This makes little sense Daniel. There have been many nationalist movements throughout history, and many times those nationalist movements and its aims have been opposed, for a variety of reasons. But surely you can see that there is a vast difference between opposing a nationalist movement and its aims, and opposing the very existence of the national group involved in the movement.

I was opposed to the breakup of Yugoslavia. Part of that breakup was driven by a Serbian nationalist movement that wanted to create an independent state of Serbia. I opposed the creation of that State. Does that mean I was opposed to the very existence of the Serbian people?

(Perhaps I was the only person who was afraid that was where things were headed, regardless I am glad to feel otherwise assured.)

No, you are not the only one who was concerned.  Not that I thought it was Josh's first inclination to carry out such a purge, because his own writings certainly don't put him in the absolutist camp, but I was a little disturbed that the only TPMCafe posts that seemed to come in for official criticism (at least among the discussions I was reading) were those expressing opinions that were critical of Israel or seemingly unconditional support for it.

Having been burned on that topic on a couple of occasions, perhaps I have been overly sensitive. 

On the other hand, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian sentiment of a similar sort is harder to tease out.

Maybe that depends on what you mean by "tease out".  There's certainly no shortage of it around here.  

Correctly for me, too, now that I look back, but I never had any doubt as to who was being addressed.

I'm surprised you wasted any words on this person.

Tell me honestly, Tom, do you think you are exempt from the new rules on civility? Do you think that you have the right to rude ad-hominems like this while I don't? Don't you realize that I adopted the approach I did precisely because I saw so much of this double-standard, blindly hypocritical posting on this site? This attitude that "I'm right and anyone who holds views which I dislike is a moronic, deranged, war criminal like George Bush". I was just giving it back to you in spades.

"Actually, I've seen comments on this site which said, clearly and unambigously, Israel (or Olmert, or whatever flavor of the moment) gives orders to the United States (or Bush, and so on), and I do regard such statements as classically anti-Semitic."

What is the meaning of "gives orders to the United States"? Calls up the President and say, "Do this or else!"? Pays bribes to the President or Congress? Organizes letter writing campaigns to influence Congressional votes? Tells Congressmen they won't get any campaign money from certain big donors if they don't vote a certain way - or they will if they do? Organizes conferences at which the Vice President attends? Organizes junkets to Israel for Pentagon officers?

Any of that might be referred to as "giving orders to the United States" in normal discourse.

One can make such a claim in normal discourse without literally meaning it in the sense of the first example given above - or having any interest whatsoever in Jews as a class.

This sounds more like "mind reading" absent the context of the specific statement. More importantly, it sounds like the concept of "New Anti-Semitism" which is the new "get out of jail free card" for Zionists who don't want to have to defend Israel's actions from anybody.

"Whether or not the people who've made those statements are anti-Semites or suckers (or particularly cynical apologists for United States policy, but let that pass) is impossible to determine with certainty, but in at least a couple of cases, I would say they're anti-Semites."

In other words, you're not sure, but you decided on the basis of - what? That one phrase simply because it SOUNDS like something you're heard someone else you've identified as "anti-Semitic" say? Or sounds like something it's even obvious that an anti-Semitic would say?

Go read some of the relationship books where "mind reading" is described and why it isn't a good idea.

In any event, even in the most blatant cases of Zionist intellectual dishonesty I've seen here, my response, at least from here on out, is to call them on their mechanisms of intellectual dishonesty - not to call them "Zionist thugs".

This is more effective. And I'd say it applies to the term "anti-Semite", too.

In other words, if someone thinks someone is an anti-Semite, they should state the reasons why. They shouldn't rely on the term as a "shut-down" to the discussion and a smug means of dismissing arguments they can't rationally respond to.

That's on a par with "you are deeply ignorant".

Really?

Why?

Anybody with no intellectual depth can play that game.

Liberal Voice Says: 

But let's assume something completely new is happening. Let's assume that this virtual communication domain is replacing all former social convention. The rules are in play. The playing field isn't geographic - it's cyber. We are in something totally new. You all want Josh to give you permission but Josh doesn't really own this.

You're a far better assumer than I am.  Unless you're reinventing language something "completely new" isn't happening.  Something elaborative is happening, something complex is happening, but it isn't completely new. 

All communication begins with an act of faith, and perhaps the greatest act of faith is believing that language actually works.  I have to trust that what you encode in your brain and articulate with your fingers or larynx reaches my eyes/ears and thus my brain where I can decode it, extract the meaning from it in a way which brings your reality and mine into some kind of contact with each other.  It isn't perfect, and we never really do much more than brush each other's interior worlds.  But if i really care about the conversation and am not just dawdling away an afternoon or evening, what I don't understand I seek to clarify.  I ask questions.  I paraphrase and say "do you mean that???"

But if I can't trust that there is something authentic being conveyed at the root of the conversation--some grounding in a shared "common tongue" I'll simply abandon any attempt to communicate.   I'm like Alice telling the Red Queen "I've Lost My Way," only to receive the retort, "What do you mean your way?  All ways here are my way." 

Historians are deeply suspicious of the "completely new". Not only us.  I had a physicist friend who  said that the only true novelty in the universe was the "Big Bang"  Everything else is evolution and elaboration.  I ask my students to come up with a new idea...something they've never thought of before.  Not a big idea, not a good idea, just a new idea.  What we discover is that we create "new" with a deceptively simple set of tools--observation (sensory input) and synthesis/memory. 

So today isn't "now" and yesterday "then".  Today is yesterday absorbed into "now" and tomorrow will be built onto this edifice by accretion.  The "today" in which you wrote  your response (which I enjoyed, BTW) will probably be yesterday by the time I get this posted.  (I find editing on in this little window excruciatingly hard and time-consuming, but I've decided that typing on a word processor and then cutting and pasting would be cheating.) But until the words are lost, the backup systems fail, whatever, what you wrote isn't just in "the past".  The words are out there...part of the "now" instant of everyone who reads them.  These won't be synchronous nows, either.  Any more than they are with any form of communication beyond direct encounters in "real time." Written language has many deficits.  When we speak we speak with our whole bodies.  But what is gained is the opportunity for asynchronous communication.  I can "hear" and you can "speak" at our individual convenience. 

"That was then, this is now" is a bit of a lie.  The concept of "now" itself is pretty elusive.  How long does "now" last?  In one sense, an instant, in another, forever.  Jefferson's Declaration is "now".  Milton's Areopagitica is "now".  LiberalVoice's words of July 20, 2006, 10:22 pm. are "now".  Mine at whatever time this is posted will be "now".  (My what august company we  keep).   

So there you have it.  That's the way my mind works, and I'm/you're stuck with it.  {insert rueful smile here} 

Mike

p.s.  I hope I didn't give the impression that I want Josh to give me permission to speak what's on my mind.  That was not my intent.  What I was trying to do was explain what my own guidelines are--a sort of rhetorical credo, if you will.  For me, it applies to writing beyond the academy.  It applies whenever I want to make an argument which is convincing.  When I shift to vernacular mode I still hew to the same principles

• respect your own ideas enough to clothe them in the best argument you can
• respect your reader enough to give him/her your best effort.  Believe he/she has a mind worth changing.
• Write as if the only thing people will know about you in 1,000 years is what you leave on the page (in the data bank), and as if you care about what they'll think.

To which I should probably add...

• If I can't convince someone, I probably should entertain the thought that, just perhaps, the great idea wasn't all that great an idea.  (insert second rueful smile here)

Exactly my point when I asked about clarification.

All the examples are of supposed "anti-Semitism" - and tepid ones at that.

Meanwhile the clear application of the "New Anti-Semitism" concept against the critics of Israel has been blatant by most of the supporters of Israel here - and I find it at least as offensive and anti-intellectual and destructive of valid discussion as "anti-Semitism" itself.

Too true.

Stil, I think mine is the longest since I quoted a lot of Wikipedia stuff. Search for "Wikipedia" using your browser's search on the page function.

How is that different than audiences hurling tomatoes?

I suppose it really isn't different, but the bottom line is that the proprietor of this particular cafe chooses not to foster the sort of atmosphere that condones either shouting insults OR hurling tomatoes.  And quite a lot of us would prefer not to hang out in places where those kinds of things are the norm.

"You know what:
we've heard all those arguments , we understand them , and if they were ever going to affect our positions we passed that point long ago."

Uhm, I guess you're saying Josh should shut down the Cafe because it's all been said before and better.

You're probably right.

I've spent the last three days on this site responding to posts. If I don't get some money coming in, I may not be here for much longer.

An accusation of racism or anti-Semitism is itself hate-speech

The finest example of Orwellian double-speak, of the apparatchik mentality, I've ever seen. You want to be an anti-semite without getting called for it. That four readers thought your idea was wonderful tells me all I need to know about this site.

Yes, more than gas can be made at a coffee shop...but usually isn't.

Yes, it's possible to learn about politics and perform political acts without conflict...but it's unusual. Paraphrasing a proverb "Don't talk about politics or religion if you don't want to fight". That's the collective experience of mankind.

Can a line be drawn between sympathy for the Palestinian people and anti-semitism? Of course.
Can one take the Palestinian side without being an anti-semite? I doubt it...since the Palestinians want to destroy Israel.

Can one wish for the destruction of Israel - either literally or by advocating transformations which Israelis don't want or whichcan't realistically be achieved - without being an anti-semite? No, the destruction of Israel implies the death of literally millions of Jews and an entire culture.

Are people who focus exclusively on the sins of Israel and the neocons, who almost never mention the sins of others - and then only in passing - anti-semites? Abso- fucking - lutely!

But these are only my opinions...and contrary opinions are also just opinions. There are no short cuts. Either you believe in the value of free speech and allow these very divisive, painful subjects to be discussed. Or you don't.

The URL leads to nothing, but that is the expected result to anything published by one of the right's favorite American traitors, David Horowitz.

This is not an exaggeration. That link leads to a story authored by Davey, where he admits to treason, and not for any higher good, but only to hurt America.

There is no statute of limitations on treason...

You don't get it at all.

I posted Ann Coulter's remark precisely because it was in such extreme opposition to artappraiser's. What better way to show that her observation was wrong?

True Coulter was being provocative, knowingly bating her opponents, smiling while doing it. But her article was not a joke and she is not extreme.
Hard for you to believe, I know, and that's one of the problems I have with the denizens of this site - they seem to think their world is the entire world.

Coulter is dead serious about her attitudes towards Muslims and Democrats and these are the attitudes of somewhere between one third and one half of all Americans. Her books are regular best sellers, she is a sought-after guest on the talk shows, writes for many high-circulation publications. She is mainstream by any reasonable measure.

You take no position on Coulter’s insanity, but my sarcasm proves her point. Oh, please. Now, you can’t have it both ways.

What does this mean? She claims that Democrats will not fight, oppose all combat. Your sarcasm led me to believe that you think almost all combat is a form of insanity. Possibly I was wrong about that but, if not, then you validate her point.

I didn’t know you were so sensitive. Like I said, my mistake. In view of the newly-installed air conditioning system, I will not engage in rhetorical tit-for-tat again.

It's not easy for me to conform to the new rules so possibly I am too sensitive...but I doubt it. I thought about whether or not your post was a joke and decided it wasn't. It reminded me of the old Georgy Jessel joke about Hollywood;

You know what's under all that phoney Hollywood tinsel? Real tinsel.

Can a line be drawn between sympathy for the Palestinian people and anti-semitism? Of course.
Can one take the Palestinian side without being an anti-semite? I doubt it...since the Palestinians want to destroy Israel.

Can one wish for the destruction of Israel - either literally or by advocating transformations which Israelis don't want or whichcan't realistically be achieved - without being an anti-semite? No, the destruction of Israel implies the death of literally millions of Jews and an entire culture.

Are people who focus exclusively on the sins of Israel and the neocons, who almost never mention the sins of others - and then only in passing - anti-semites? Abso- fucking - lutely!

I realize this is your opinion and maybe a precisely approxiamate opinion of most Zionists and therefore you see anti-semitists everywhere - a self-fulfilling vision of humanity.

To me I just see someone with no imagination trapped by self-maufactured hate, despair, and bigotry equal to that of any real enemy they see.

Those you call anti-semites may just be dreamers and optimists. And all that your closed minded hatred does is marginalize and handicap the possibilities of a new day.

What you advocate is not the right to exist but the right to hate and exterminate without accountability to mankind because your cause is of a higher order.

Call me anti-semitic til you're blue in the face but you will never have my support on that extermination bit.

Did you hear about the constrictor that ate its rabbit but continued eating the blanket the rabbit was holding onto? Surgery was successful in removing the blanket (and associated rabbit) and the snake is doing fine. (12 ft. and 60 lbs.)

The vet figured the snake probably spent about 6 hours hauling in the blanket.

No but it is rare that is what is actually done in the case of Israel. Either is Israel is depicted as an illegitimate interloper in the Middle East or Israel is endlessly attacked for behavior that ignores either want Israel faces or what any other nation would do.

So if we prefaced every criticism of Israel with "of course Hezbollah is wrong" or "of course terrorists are wrong," would that suffice?

Isn't that like saying we have to start every conversation about our government with "Of course I love my country, but..."

I don't think anyone is ignoring what Israel faces, but I think we can have a conversation around here without pointing out that, yes, there are plenty of people in the Middle East that want to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. It is my impression that people here get that.

And if it doesn't happen to be explicitly stated, my impression is that you often read into that a somehow anti-semitic position.

But the bigger point I was attempting to make is that general statements are very unproductive. If you have a problem with what someone says, you should attribute that to someone directly, rather than make a sweeping statement about how people at TPMC think. That just confuses the issue.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

From Reuel March Gercht, formerly of the CIA from "The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life' on May 24, 2005.

"That is one reason I don't mind talking with the Islamists, because they have a uniform view toward Israel, and that is: may it go away. It's easy; you can get past that issue immediately. To the extent that the Islamic movements in the Middle East are what some people call the Arab street, the notion that they are actually desirous of a settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians I just think is absurd. I don't see it." (p. 30)

As I have mentioned before this is consistent with my cousin's discussions with dozens of Islamists, in Arabic, they want to destroy the Jews of Israel.

You may want to deny this or ignore it. However, it is your fantasy not those of Jews.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

It is not my not seeing it. No one I have discussed it with, no definition I have found online or in books makes it controversial. I understand Brian you want to be able to attack Jews and Israel without being labelled an anti-Semite. I believe that effort is both bigoted and intellectually dishonest.

From the Oxford American dictionary:

Zionism |?z???niz?m| noun a movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.Zionism |?z???niz?m| noun a movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.

The above definition makes it clear what every definition by honest people makes clear Zionism is the national movement for a Jewish homeland.

I wonder why you are so bent of being free to attack Jews? HCB, Transhuman, DK and you have all attempted to redefine Zionism as something it is not to insulate yourself from the charge of bigotry. You cannot define away what is the case.

You don't like being called on it, so what.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'm a sometimes artist as well as what I do at other times. When I was in Art school the epiphany that broadened my outlook on creating art was the assertion by my instructor that artists are creating a [in my case] visual language.

My example of pointing out that language changes, was intended to imply that language expresses ideas. I don't want to get hung up on cosmetics.

What has been proven in physics that as we peer into the depths of our atomic world, physics is not the same down there as it is here. Books like Information,The New Language of Science by Hans Christian von Baeyer explains that what is happening to humankind at this point in history is completely new.

Knowledge is doubling exponentially quickly, even faster. This is not just speed, this is a cumulative saturation that renders all our instincts about knowing obsolete. And the examination of everything we know is being turned on its head all the time.

And, despite your reservations, we are already wired with the first symptoms being post-modern information load. Walk into a bar and multiple televisions blast the senses.

I humbly submit that you are misinterpretting the scope and importance of our first glimpses of a radically different future in our lifetimes (which may last forever).

Daniel Greenbaum

I understand Brian you want to be able to attack Jews and Israel without being labelled an anti-Semite. I believe that effort is both bigoted and intellectually dishonest.

Josh Marshall

Ranting and fighting words might be okay at a bar or in a public park, not at a coffee house. If it's out of line there, it's out of line here. To continue with the Coffee House metaphor, take it outside.

It’s been correctly pointed out that this is all off topic, so the short answer: I really wasn’t thinking of you in particular and could have said “someone” instead. My point was that those two statements of “national rights in their historic homeland” are mutually exclusive if the homeland is the same land. It’s a land dispute and if you say one particular group has right to that land, then the other group loses. Like a comedian said the other night, they should stop dropping bombs over there and drop real estate agents.

I cannot see what is in your mind and heart, but where in

Zionism |?z???niz?m| noun a movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.Zionism |?z???niz?m| noun a movement for (originally) the reestablishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

But a Reform family that settles in Israel doesn't get this protection.


There are claims that all Jews are a nation, although it gets very confusing about conversion, those who do not move to the Jewish state, and those who formally renounce the religion. Again from the UDHR:

Article 15

1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

"Self-hating Jews" are not free to change their religion, and those who may have had distant Jewish relatives, but an atheist or Episcopalian mothers, are always Jews?

I have no objection to you saying some Jews believe it is their destiny and religious obligation to belong to a Jewish State. My objection is your applying this to Jews who have not participated in any ratification process that Zionism is universal among Jews.
You are personally resident in Israel, with an Israel-only passport, I trust?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Seems like you're just back tracking and parsing words. How can you say you know someone "better than they know themselves" without ever laying eyes on the person?

Misdirection is a common winger tactic, I say "We shouldn't invade Iraq."

Then a winger says "I know your REAL problem - you say you don't want to invade Iraq, but what you really mean is you are gay/poor/dumb/weak/ugly and you're just taking out your personal self hatred on our glorious, manly leader Bush."

Take a man at his word, and give up the pathetic tack of insult through "psychology" or uncovering "hidden motives." Then your opponent isn't just wrong, he's 'bad.'

C'mon buddy, we know that number.

Lots of people work CIA and if you were to interview hate groups here they too would uniformly want to harm someone yet they haven't destroyed the US or Israel or anyone else.

Nobody is denying that Israel has enemies who hate her. That factoid does not give Israel license to kill everyone in the vacinity.

To make matters worse, that would be the Aryan nation being anti-semitic.

Neoboho