I appreciate your eloquent and measured approach to a topic where the latter is often absent. I will withhold comment about the specific situation with WHEELER because I have not read through the material, nor applied the due dilligence that would be required before a valid comment could be made. The important points do indeed go beyond this specific person's claims.
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Reading various people's response to my charge of anti-Semitism (on my talk page and here) I realize that some people either do not understand my basic assumptions about hate-speech. Since this matter extends beyond WHEELER or the early National Socialism talk page to a matter of general policy, I want to clarify my assumptions here.
It's in that spirit that I would respond.
- hate speech is categorically different from offensive or uncivil
remarks. Many people have pointed out that there is often a certain level of incivility at Wikipedia; sometimes people make unfortunately offensive remarks in the heat of an argument, and sometimes remarks are offensive because they are controversial and play a constructive role in an argument. I agree with these points in principle, but do not think they apply to hate speech. ... Anti-Semitism is not wrong because it is hurtful on an individual or personal level; anti-Semitism attacks a whole group. Anti-Semitism is impersonal by nature. .... You do not have to feel personally injured to oppose something that is wrong.
It is important to look at many of these incidents in context. A person who has made remarks that may be interpreted as anti-semitic needs to have opportunities to recognize his errors, particularly if those comments come in the heat of editorial battle. Last year here in Canada an important leader in the First Nations community made some obviously anti-semitic remarks in the course of a single speech. The outcry was immediate. As a result he lost his job, and his credibility in the community was shot. He soon after publicly apologized for his remarks. That should have been the end of it, but militant Jewish organizations continue to insist that the matter be continued in the criminal justice system. These very vocal and very public organizations manage to promote a public image of Jews as completely insensitive and unforgiving. The same can be said of the Nazi hunters who continue to seek punishment on old men 60 years after the fact, often at great expense. There comes a time when these events need to be put behind us so that everyone can go on with life. Anti-semitism was pandemic before WWII, and not just in Germany. The shock of the Nazi crimes resulted in a lot of good will toward Jews, but I'm afraid that that good will has been rapidly eroding.
- hate speech is never about factual accuracy. This is because facts
are contingent, but racism is based on essentialism. ... To then talk about "Jewish concentration camps" is simply not about a factual claim we can research or question. There is no point in even questioning it as a factual claim. It is absurd on its face and the only point of the claim is to lump all Jews together, to treat them not as individuals but as members of a class. By the way, sometimes such correlations may be valid. Criminologists often look for correlations between behavior and race, class, or gender. ...
When I read the reference to "Jewish concentration camps" on the previous message, it was unclear whether the writer meant camps "for" Jews or "by" Jews. Your last comment above looks almost like support of racial profiling. (Blacks commit more common crimes; all Arabs are potential terrorists, even after the mistaken early claims in connection with the Oklahoma City bombing, etc.)
Hate speech can be based on transplanted facts. There is adequate reason to be critical of the activities of the Israeli state, but there is no basis for extrapolating those facts into a basis for criticising all Jewry. Unfortunately, those Jews who are quick to condemn anti-Israeli claims as implicitly anti-semitic do a disservice to their cause. The true anti-semites feel that their position is bolstered.
- There is a difference between what one feels or thinks, and how one
expresses it publicly. Regulating hate speech (through a ban, or an apology or retraction) is not about regulating how someone feels. I don't think it is possible to control someone else's feelings -- hell, I am not sure it is possible to control one's own feelings. And if it were possible, I don't think it would be desirable. But we (not just government, but society or community) regulates how people express there feelings all the time. We can think what we like, but we know that in some contexts it is inappropriate or even dangerous to say what we think; we regulate ourselves, personally, as well. ...
Of course it's up to the members of a community to regulate these things. When governments and other bureaucracies get involved, the people lose that control. On the other hand I get worried when people cry out that they want to see justice done. I am concerned that the philosophy that underlies their sense of justice may be somewhat less than scholarly.
- Wikipedia should not tolerate hate speech. I think an open society
should limit such regulation as much as possible. Some people have pointed out that even WHEELER has a right to free speech. I agree. But that does not mean that someone can say whatever they like, here. We should tolerate a certain level of offensive remarks as unavoidable byproducts of heated exchanges, just as we should tolerate a high level of ultimately empty chatter on talk pages as necessary byproducts of the editing process. We should certainly encourage controversy. But there is simply no benefit to Wikipedia from hate speech, and there is no need for us to provide people with an outlet for hate speech. .... Wikipedia policy is not nor should be the same thing as state or federal law.
Intolerance has its extremes, and we do have one other well-known Jewish Wikipedian whose cries of anti-semitism have become legendary. Not all such cases are as clear as he would have us believe. Some otherwise well-respected Wikipedians can easily wander into forbidden areas, but that is not enough to brand them as bigots. The person's entire pattern of behavious is far more instructive.
Ec