--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste(a)ohiou.edu> wrote:
First, Chris, I never claimed that you don't know
what you are
about. Also, although it isn't always easy to tell from an e-mail,
believe I am pretty calm (pulse and bp seem about normal).
Never said you had. calm is good.
But I do think you misunderstand me, and WHEELER.
WHEELER was not
that some Jews were communists (indeed, many were), nor was he
some of the people who established and ran Soviet prison camps were
(certainly, some were). He wasn't arguing these things, because
issues are not relevant to the article under discussion. He was
responding to anyone's argument that "no Jews were communists" nor
suggesting that the fact that some Jews were communists (or, some
communists were Jews) should be included in the article. He made
assertions solely in the context of a personal attack against
Ah, ok. In context, it makes more sense.
More importantly, he did not (as you suggest) claim
that some Jews
communists, or some communists were Jews, or that communists
Christians (I wouldn't take issue with any of these claims, and
don't think any of them are anti-Semitic).
Rather, he identified
communists, thus repeating a Nazi slur. He singled out "Jewish"
as guilty for destroying the Russian Orthodox Church.
If his aim was to offend, then it's ok.
If I said: "Bush is an asshole". Does it offend? If my purpose is to
offend, I'm going to use an offensive term. I would not rephrase it
as "I disagree with Bush policies".
for two reasons: first, for a very long time it is the Orthodox
Church who persecuted Jews and promoted anti-Semitism; secondly,
Revolution the Communist Party as a whole was involved in
Church. Why single out Jews? It is such singling out that is
offensive. He also referred to "Jewish concentration camps," which
to be anti-Semitic. I have no objection to calling the gulags
concentration camps; I do object to calling them "Jewish"
camps as if "Jews" in general are responsible. This is offensive
on its face.
Which means he was effective in his communication.
If you still have trouble understanding the difference
anti-Semitism and a reasonable assertion of facts, let me try an
analogy. Some Nazis were brought up in the Catholic Church. Yet
be misleading and offensive for me to talk of "Catholic Nazis who
persecuted Jews" (because non-Catholic Nazi's also persecuted Jews,
there were Catholics who helped Jews), or to talk of "Catholic
concentration camps." Yes, there is a complex relationship between
Catholic Church and the Nazis, as there is a complex relationship
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Jews. But to talk
"Catholic concentration camps" is just as offensive as talking
"Jewish concentration camps."
I hear you.
Perhaps you have never suffered from hate-speech, or
to the matter, Chris.
I'm french and american living in america. So yes, I am fairly
insensitive to hate speech. Did I mention my wife is japanese?
You certainly have a right to disagree with
even to say this message is unconstructive.
But trust me, I am
have thought about this, and I believe it is constructive. What
wrote is not just a violation of wikicivility, it is an example of
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Take it up with your
State's Attorney General.
It served and serves absolutely no purpose at
use this space as a vehicle for expressing hate speech.
I'm not sure that it does not serve a purpose. I tend to think that
viewed from different angles, everything serves a purpose. It may
even be contructive, in some unexpected ways.
In general, though, nobody every said building a free and
international encyclopedia was going to be easy.
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.