Read on Twitter
One of the reasons *discourse* around antisemitism tends to be so vitriolic is the ambiguousness of the involved language
Non-explicit antisemitic statements tend to fall into one of two categories:
1. Intentional antisemitic dog-whistle
2. Unintentional promotions of antisemitic ideas or narratives
1. Intentional antisemitic dog-whistle
2. Unintentional promotions of antisemitic ideas or narratives
In the case of (1) the person involved will usually be a malicious antisemitic agitator who eventually exposes themselves by stepping over the line or having their private lines exposed
(2) is more difficult because itâs entirely possible for a person to make an antisemitic statement without antisemitic intent
While itâs usually possible to determine whether a statement itself could reasonably be said to have antisemitic content, only the person who made the statement really knows the intent behind it. The rest of us are left to inference
Creating ideal conditions for contrived âscandalsâ that devolve into social media shouting matches
In such cases a neutral appraisal of the facts involved doesnât lead to a clear conclusion. Both sides have reasonable grounds for their positions and usually strong incentives for a particular interpretation so theyâll just talk past each other until the whole thing blows over
Which is why what does and doesnât devolve into an actual scandal or mishap tends to depend much more on media power dynamics than what counts as a fair and reasonable interpretation.
Mainstream publications can run through endless renditions of âSJW (((Cultural Marxists))) are destroying western civilisationâ and âSOROS is funding BLM ANTIFA terrorists!â without fuss but an overzealous condemnation of Israel is potentially career ending
Because unfortunately what is and isnât tolerated is mostly determined be whether there's a person or group with the power and will to make an issue of it
For my part unless thereâs strong reason to suspect (1) (intentional) I generally encourage an assumption of (2) (unintentional) and charity of intent
If someone slips up but shows a willingness to learn and improve that should be welcomed and they should be allowed to move on without blemish
People from from the youth wings of numerous parties have sent me things shared or said by colleagues asking what they should do in response
In every case I've responded that it isn't sufficiant proof of antisemitic intent and they should reach out to the person privately
In every case I've responded that it isn't sufficiant proof of antisemitic intent and they should reach out to the person privately
Which is also what I encourage everyone to do if they notice a friend or colleage or family member who they don't believe is antisemitic trafficking in antisemitic content. It's why I want to equip as many people as possible with the knowledge and rhetoric to do handle that
